Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 58 Page ID #:25

1 LORETTA E. LYNCH

Attorney General 2 MARl( J. KAPPELHOFF

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

3 Civil Rjghts Division

JUDITH C. PRESTON

4 Acting Chief, S12ecial Litigation Section LAURA L. COON, SJ>ecial Counsel, Special Litigation Section

5 LUIS E. SAUCEDO, Counselor to the Chief, Special Litigation Section

6

CATHLEEN S. TRAINOR Trial Attorneys

U.S. Department of Justice

7 Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section

8

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., PHB 5026 Washington, D.C. 20530 ·

9

TeleP,hone: (202) 514-6255

Email: laura.coon@usdoj .gov; cathleen.trainor@usdoj .gov

1O EILEEN M. DECKER

11 United States Attorney_

LEON W. WEIDMAN

12 Assistant United States Attorney

Chief Civil Division

13 ROBYN-MARIE LYON MONTELEONE (State Bar No. 130005)

Assistant United States Attorney

14 Assistant Division Chief+-.Civil Rights Unit Chief, Civil Division
JOANNA HULL (State oar No. 227153)
15 Assistant United States Attorney

16

300 North Los AI!gele.s Street!. Suite 7516

Los Angeles, California 9001.:

.

Telephone: (213) 894-2458/6585; Facsimile: (213) 894-7819

17

E-mail: Robby.Monteleone@usdoj.gov; Joanna.Hull@usdoj.gov

18 Attorneys for Plaintiff . 19 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

20

21 MARY C. WICKHAM

Interim County Counsel

22 RODRIGO A. CASTRO-SILVA (SBN 185251)

Senior Assistant Coun.ty Counsel

23 BRANDON NICHOLS (SBN 187188)

Assistant Countjl Counsel

. 24 KAREN JOYNT (SBN 206332)

Deputy County Counsel

25 648 Ke1meth Hahn Hall of Administration

500 West Temple Street

26 Los Angeles California 90012

Tel: (213) 974-1811 Fax: (213) 626-7446

27 Email: rcastro-silva@counsel.lacounty.gov

bnichols@counsel.lacounty.gov

28

kjoynt@counsel.lacounty.gov

1

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 58 Page ID #:26

1 Attome_ys for Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and LOS ANGELES
2 COUNTY SHERIFF JIM MCDONNELL, in his Official Capacity
3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5

6

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

WESTERN DIVISION

8 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CV No. 15- 5903

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF

13 JIM MCDONNELL, in his Official

Capacity,

.

14

Defendants.

15

JOINT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAILS; AND STIPULATED [PROPOSED] ORDER OF RESOLDTION ·

16

17

18

1. The United States of America, acting through the United States

19 Department of Justice ("United States"), the County of Los Angeles ("County")

20 and Sheriff Jim McDonnell, in his official capacity ("Sheriff'), (collectively, the

21 "Parties") share a inutual·interest in treating all members of the community with

22 respect, promoting safe and effective custodial care, protecting public safety, and 23 upholding the constitutional rights ofprisoners. 1

24

2. The Los Angeles County Jails ("Jails") are an integral part of the

25 public safety system in Los Angeles County, California. Together, the Jails form

26

27

"Prisoners" is a defined term in Section III of this Agreement and includes

pre-trial detainees and individuals convicted of a criminal offense. 28

2

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 3 of 58 Page ID #:27

1 the largest jail system in the nation and house among the highest populations of

2 prisoners with mental illness. Maintaining these facilities is an immensely

3 complex enterprise-- approximately 15,500 to 19,500 prisoners are held in custody

4 daily, spread across multiple custody facilities, numerous patrol stations, and over

5 29 courthouses. These facilities' primary function is to incarcerate individuals

6 accused or convicted of committing a crime. In doing so, these facilities provide

7 food, shelter, and clothing, but must also address the serious medical and mental

8 health needs ofthe prisoners and ensure their reasonable safety.

9

3. The United States acknowledges that the County and the Sheriff have

10 demonstrated a renewed commitment to refonning the Jails and have begun to

11 implement improved policies and practices designed to enhance the treatment and

12 care ofprisoners with mental illness. The County and the Sheriff are also

13 exploring strategies to safely divert individuals with mental illness from the

14 criminal justice system, whenever possible. The United States further

15 aclmowledges that the number of suicides at the Jails decreased in 2014 from the

16 previous year. In.addition, the County and the Sheriffhave made significant

17 commitments to protect prisoners from abuse and excessive force by staff that

18 further the Parties' mutual interest. Finally, the United States acknowledges that

19 some of the needed changes the County and the Sheriff seek to implement through

20 this Agreement will require the allocation of additional resources to the Sheriffs

21 Department and the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health ("DMH").

22

4. Accordingly, this Joint Settlement Agreement Regarding the Los

23 Angeles County Jails ("Agreement") is intended to build upon measures that are

24 underway and to sustain systemic improvements that are designed to protect

25 prisoners from conditions in custody that place them at unreasonable risk of harm

26 from suicide, self-injurious behavior, or unlawful injury by others, in accordance

27 with their constitutional rights. This Agreement also is expected to have collateral

28 benefits that promote public safety, improve confidence in the County's criminal

3

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 4 of 58 Page ID #:28

1 justice system, and support the County's and the Sheriffs collaborative efforts to

2 expand comprehensive and effective mental health diversion and re-entry programs

3 that are designed to lead to more positive outcomes in the care and custody of

4 individuals with serious mental illness who are also participants in the criminal

5 justice system.

6

II. BACKGROUND

7

5. The County owns and funds the operations of the Jails. The Sheriffs

8 Department is responsible for providing care, custody, and control of prisoners at

9 the Jails. The Sheriffs Department Medical Services Bureau provides medical

10 care within theJails. DMH is responsible for providing mental health care in the

11 Jails through its Jail Mental Health Services program.

12

6. The Sheriff is an elected official who is responsible for operating and

13 exercising authority over the Jails.

14

7. In June 1996, the Department ofJustice notified the County and

15 Sheriff that it was opening an investigation under the Civil Rights of

16 Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, to determine whether

17 the conditions in the Jails violate the constitutional rights of its prisoners.

18

8. In September 1997, the Department of Justice issued a findings Jetter

19 alleging that mental health care at the Jails violated prisoners' constitutional rights.

20 The letter further alleged that systemic deficiencies contributed to the violations,

21 including inadequate: (1) intake screening and evaluation; (2) diagnosis; (3)

22 referral to mental health professionals; (4) treatment plans; (5) administration of

23 medications; (6) suicide prevention; (7) tracking and medical record keeping;

24 (8) staffing; (9) communication; and (10) quality assurance.

25

9. In December 2002, following extensive negotiations and additional

26 site visits, the Parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that

27 outlined a series of reforms to ensure that adequate and reasonable mental health

28

4

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 5 of 58 Page ID #:29

1 care services are provided at the Jails. The MOA also included measures to protect

2 prisoners with mental illness from abuse and mistreatment.

3

10. Under the MOA, the County and the Sheriff have made significant

4 improvements to the delivery of mental health care at the Jails, including

5 implementing electronic medical records, increasing mental health staffing, and

6 developing roving evaluation teams composed of mental health professionals and

7 specially-trained custody staff. Despite considerable progress, the United States

8 alleges that systemic deficiencies remain related to suicide prevention and mental

9 health care that violate prisoners' constitutional rights. The Department of Justice

10 notified the County and the Sheriff of these allegations in a letter dated June 4,

11 2014, following on-site evaluations with expert consultants.

12

11. In September 2013, the Department of Justice opened a separate

13 investigation of the Jails under CRIPA and 42 U.S.C. § 14141 ("Section 14141")

14 to address allegations of use of excessive force against all prisoners at the Jails, not

15 just prisoners with ment11l illness. During the course of the investigation, the

16 County and the Sheriff entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement to

17 resolve Rosas v. McDonnell, Case No. CV 12-0428-DDP (C.D. Ca. filed on Jan.

18 18, 2012) (hereinafter "Rosas"), a class action lawsuit alleging abuse and excessive

19 force by staff at certain Jails located in downtown Los Angeles. As part of the

20 Rosas settlement agreement, the County and the Sheriff have agreed to implement

21 significant measures to protect prisoners from excessive force by staff, including

22 improvements in policies, training, incident tracking and reporting, investigations,

23 resolution of prisoner grievances, prisoner and staff supervision, and

24 accountability.

25

12. This Agreement addresses remaining allegations concerning suicide

26 prevention and mental health care at the Jails resulting from the partial

27 implementation of the 2002 MOA and current conditions within the Jails. This

28 Agreement also extends the remedial measures in the Implementation Plan of the

5

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 6 of 58 Page ID #:30

1 Rosas settlement agreement to fully resolve the Department of Justice's CRIPA

2 findings regarding alleged mistreatment of prisoners with mental illness and claims

3 under Section 14141 regarding alleged excessive force against prisoners at all of

4 the Jails.

5

13. As indicated in Section VII of this Agreement, the Parties consent to a

6 finding that this Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of the

7 Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a).

8

14. Except to enforce, modify, or terminate this Agreement, this_

9 Agreement, and any findings made to effectuate this Agreement, will not be

10 admissible against either the County or the Sheriff in any court for any purpose.

11 Moreover, this Agreement is not an admission of any liability on the part of the

12 County or the Sheriff, and/or either of its employees, agents, and former employees

13 and agents, or any other persons, and will not constitute evidence of any pattern or

14 practice of wrongdoing.

15

III. DEFINITIONS

16

15. The following definitions will apply to terms in this Agreement:

17 ·

(a) "Sheriffs Department" refers to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's

18

Department, which is responsible for all custody, corrections, and

19

security functions within the Los Angeles County Jails system,

20

including the provision of medical care to prisoners through the

21

Sheriffs Department Medical Services Bureau.

22

(b) "Jails" refers to the Los Angeles County Jails system, and shall

23

include Men's Central Jail ("MCJ"), Twin Towers Correctional

24

Facility ("TTCF"), Inmate Reception Center ("IRC"), Century

25

Regional Detention Facility ("CRDF"), North County Correctional

26

Facility (''NCCF"), Pitchess Detention Center ("PDC"), and other

27

facilities in which prisoners are detained or held in custody by the

28

County and the Sheriff, including lockup facilities and courthouse

6

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 7 of 58 Page ID #:31

1

holding areas as well as any visiting area in the facility, and any

2

facility that is built, leased, or otherwise used, to replace or

3

supplement the current Jails or any part of the Jails.

4

(c)

States'; or "DOJ" refers to the United States Department of

5

Justice, specifically the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights

6

Division and the United States Attorney's Office for the Central

7

District of California, which represent the United States in this matter.

8

(d) "The County" refers to the County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles

9

County Sheriffs Department, the Los Angeles County Department of

10

Mental Health, and the agents and erp.ployees of the Sheriffs

11

Department and the Department of Mental Health. The Department

12

of Mental Health ("DMH") includes any successor County departmen

13

that assumes the duties and responsibilities ofDMH.

14

(e) "Sheriff' refers to the Los Angeles County Sheriff, currently Jim

15

McDonnell, an independently-elected constitutional officer, in his

16

official capacity, and any predecessors or successors in office,

17

including any designated acting or interim Sheriff.

18

(f) "Custody staff' means sworn deputy sheriffs and custody assistants.

19

(g) "Days" are measured in calendar days; weekend days and County

20

holidays are included.

21

(h) "Normal business work days" means all days except for weekend days

22

and County holidays.

23

(i) "Describe" means provide a clear and detailed description of

24

something done, experienced, seen, or heard.

25

"Document" when used in this Agreement as a verb means

26

completing a record of information either in hard copy or in electronic

27

format.

28

7

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 8 of 58 Page ID #:32

I

(k) "Effective Date" means the date the Court enters the signed

2

Agreement as an order of the Court, or July 1, 2015, whichever is

3

earlier.

4

(1) "Emergency maintenance needs" means a need that if left unattended

5

could result in imminent danger to the life, safety, or health of

6

prisoners.

7

(m) An "emergent" or "urgent" mental health need, as used in this

8

Agreement, is one which the Arrestee Medical Screening Form {SH-

9

R-422) or its equivalent and/or the Medical/Mental Health Screening

10

Questionnaire indicate that immediate action is required to preserve

11

life, prevent serious bodily harm, or relieve significant suffering.

12

(n) "Good cause" means fair and honest reasons, regulated by good faith

13

on the part of either party, that are not arbitrary, capricious, trivial, or

14

pretextual.

15

(o) "Implement" or "implementation" means putting a remedial measure

16

into effect, including informing, instructing, or training impacted

17

personnel as required by this Agreement, and ensuring that policies or·

18

procedures are in fact followed.

19

(p) "Include," "includes," or "including" means "include, but not be

20

limited to" or "including, but not limited to."

21

(q) "Jail Reception Centers" mean all Sheriffs Department processing

22

facilities that handle incoming bookings and arrests and that are

23

responsible for medical and mental health screenings and

24

classification, including the Inmate Reception Center and the Century

25

Regional Detention Facility. This does not include Sheriff's

26

Department station jails.

27

28

8

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 9 of 58 Page ID #:33

1

(r) "Mental Health Housing" refers to prisoner housing areas in the Jails

2

that include only the Forensic In-Patient (PIP), High Observation

3

Housing (HOH), and Moderate Observation Housing (MOH) areas.

4

(i) "Correctional Treatment Center" or "CTC" refers to the

5

licensed health facility with a specified number of beds within

6

the Jails designated to provide health care to that portion of the

7

prisoner population that does not require a general acute care

8

level of services, but which is in need of professionally

9

supervised health care beyond that normally provided in the

10

community on an outpatient basis.

11

(ii) "Forensic In-Patient" or "PIP" can be used interchangeably

12

with Mental Health Unit of the Correctional Treatment Center

13

(MHU CTC). The PIP is located in the CTC and houses

14

prisoners who present an acute danger to self or others or are

15

gravely disabled due to a mental illness and require inpatient

16

care.

17

(iii) "High Observation Housing" or "HOH" refers to designated

18

areas for prisoners with mental illness who require an intensive

19

level of observation and care and/or safety precautions.

20

(iv) "Moderate Observation Housing" or "MOH'' refers to

21

designated areas for prisoners with a broad range of mental

22

health diagnoses and functioning whose mental health needs

23

can be cared for in a less intensive and more open setting than

24

the HOH areas, but preclude general population housing.

25

(s) "Monitor" or "Independent.Monitor" means the individual selected by

26

the Parties whose duties, responsibilities, and authority are set forth in

27

SectionVI of this Agreement.

28

9

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 10 of 58 Page ID #:34

1

(t) "Subject Matter Experts" or "SMEs" means the individuals selected

2

by the Parties whose duties, responsibilities, and authority are set fort

3

in Section VI of this Agreement.

4

(u) "Prisoners" or "Prisoner" is construed broadly to refer to one or more

5

individuals detained at, or otherwise housed, held, in the custody of,

6

or confined at the Jails based on arrests, detainers, criminal charges,

7

civil contempt charges, or convictions.

8

(v) "Psychotropic medication" means any substance used to treat mental

9

health problems or mental illness and is capable of modifying mental

10

activity or behavior.

11

(w) "Qualified Medical Staff' refers to physicians, physician assistants,

12

·nurse practitioners, registered nurses, certified nursing assistants, and

13

licensed vocational nurses, each of whom is permitted by law to

14

evaluate and care for the medical needs of patients.

15

(x) "Qualified Mental Health Professional" or "QMHP" refers to

16

psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric social workers, psychiatric

17

nurses, and others who by virtue ortheir education, credentials, and

18

experience are permitted by law to evaluate and care for the mental

19

health needs of patients.

20

(y) "Clinical Restraints" is any device that limits a person's ability to

21

move freely and has been ordered or approved by a licensed

22

psychiatrist for the purpose of managing behavior that appears to be

23

symptomatic of a mental illness.

24

(z) "Security Restraints" is any device that limits a person's ability to

25

move freely and has not been ordered by a licensed psychiatrist or

26

Qualified Medical Staff.

27

(aa) "Serious mental illness" includes psychotic disorders, major mood

28

disorders (including major depression and bipolar disorders), and any

10

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 11 of 58 Page ID #:35

1

other condition (excluding personality disorders, substance abuse and

2

dependence disorders, dementia, and developmental disability) that is

3

associated with serious or recurrent significant self-harm, suicidal

4

ideation, imminent danger to others, current grave disability, or

5

substantially impaired ability to understand routine instructions, or

6

that prevents access to available programs. Although personality

7.

disorders alone generally do not qualify as serious mental illness,

8

personality disorders associated with serious or recurrent significant

9

self-harm do qualify as serious mental illnesses.

10

(bb) "Suicide attempt" means any serious effort to commit an act of self-

11

harm that can result in death and involving definite risk.

12

(cc) "Serious suicide attempt" means a suicide attempt that resulted in or

13

could have resulted in significant and life-threatening injury.

14

(dd) "Suicide Precautions" means any level of watch, observation, or

15

measures specifically intended to prevent suicide or self-harm and

16

includes both Suicide Watch and Risk Precautions as defined in this

17

Agreement.

18

(ee) "Suicide Watch" means the level of watch, observation, or measures

19

intended to identify and safely maintain prisoners who are imminently

20

suicidal and require admission to the Mental Health Unit ofthe

21

Correctional Treatment Center (MHU CTC or PIP) on a 72-hour hold,

22

in accordance with California Welfare and Institutions Code Section

23

5150.

24

(ff) "Risk Precautions" means a level of watch, observation, or measures

25

used to identify and safely maintain those prisoners who require

26

heightened observation and dally re-evaluation, and require admission

27

to HOH but are not considered to pose an imminent risk of suicide.

28

11

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 12 of 58 Page ID #:36

1

(gg) "Suicide resistant location" means a housing assignment in which

2

known or apparent suicide hazards do not exist or have been removed.

3

(hh) "Self-injurious behavior" means any behavior that is self-directed and

4

deliberately results in injury or the potential for injury to oneself and

5

there is no evidence of suicidal intent.

6

(ii) "Serious self-injurious behavior" means self-injurious behavior where

7

the injury is significant enough that it could lead to loss of life or limb

8

or have serious medical complications.

9

Qj) "Direct constant observation" means continuous uninterrupted

10

observation of a prisoner within a proximity that ensures the observer

11

can both see and hear the prisoner to assure the prisoner's well-being,

12

absent extraordinary circumstances.

13

(kk) "Unobstructed visual observation" means continuous but not

14

necessarilyuninterrupted observation within a reasonable physical

15

distance of the prisoner(s).

16

(ll) "Train" means to instruct in skills to a level that the trainee has the

17

demonstrated proficiency, through an assessment or evaluatwn, to

18

implement those skills as and when called for. "Trained" means

19 ·

proficient in the skills.

20

(mm) Throughout this Agreement, the following terms are used when

21

discussing compliance: substantial compliance, partial compliance,

22

and non-compliance. "Substantial Compliance" means that the

23

County and the Sheriff have achieved compliance with the material

24

components ofthe relevant provision of this Agreement in accordance

25

with the Monitor and SMEs' .monitoring plan and compliance

26

measures. "Partial Compliance" means that the County and the

27

Sheriff have achieved compliance on some, but not all, ofthe material

28

components of the relevant provision of this Agreement. "Non-

12

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 13 of 58 Page ID #:37

1

compliance" means that the County and the Sheriff have not met most

2

or all of the material components of the relevant provision of this

3

Agreement. Non-compliance with mere technicalities, or temporary

4

failure to comply coupled with prompt and appropriate corrective

5

action during a period of otherwise sustained compliance, will not

6

constitute failure to maintain Substantial Compliance. At the same

7

time, temporary compliance during a period of otherwise sustained

8

Non-compliance will not constitute Substantial Compliance.

9

(nn) "Policy" or "Policies" mean regulations, directives, or manuals,

10

regardless ofname, that have been approved by a senior executive

11

within the Sheriff's Department ("LASD") or DMH and that describe

12

the duties, functions, or obligations of LASD or DMH staff and

13

provide specific direction in how to fulfill those duties, functions, or

14

obligations. References to "existing" policies mean those policies in

15

effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement, and include any

16

subsequent revisions or changes made to those policies after the

17

Effective Date of this Agreement.

18

IV. OVERALL OBJECTIVES AND GOALS

19

16. Consistent with constitutional standards, the County and the Sheriff

20 will provide prisoners at the Jails with safe and secure conditions and ensure their

21 reasonable safety from harm, including serious risk from self-harm and excessive

22 force, and ensure adequate treatment for their serious mental health needs. In orde

23 to achieve and maintain these objectives, the County and the Sheriff agree to

24 continue, and where appropriate enhance, their current policies and practices, and

25 to implement the additional measures set forth in this Agreement.

26

17. The Parties recognize that the County and the Sheriff have made

27 considerable progress to improve conditions and the delivery of mental health care

28 at the Jails, but that additional measures are necessary to provide prisoners at the

13

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 14 of 58 Page ID #:38

1 Jails with safe and secure conditions, ensure their reasonable safety from harm,

2 including serious risk from self-harm and excessive force, and meet the serious

3 mental health needs of prisoners, in accordance with prisoners' constitutional

4 rights. The measures set forth in this Agreement address the following areas: (1)

5 training; (2) suicide hazard inspections; (3) intake; (4) medical records; (5) mental

6 health referrals; (6) mental health follow-up; (7) suicide risk procedures; (8)

7 staffing; (9) environmental conditions; (10) allowable property privileges; (11)

8 communication related to mental health; (12) safety checks; (13) quality

9 improvement plan; (14) mental health housing; (15) medication; (16) restraints;

10 (17) suicide death reviews and critical incident reviews; (18) mental health

11 treatment; and (19) use of force. The County and the Sheriff agree to maintain an

12 adequate system of mental health screening, assessment, treatment planning, and

13 record-keeping as specifically set forth in this Agreement.

14

V. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS

15 A. Training

16

18. Within three months of the Effective Date, the County and the Sheriff

17 ··will develop, and within six months ofthe Effective Date will commence

18 providing: (1) a four-hour custody-specific, scenario-based, skill development

19 training on suicide prevention, which can be part ofthe eight-hour training

20 described in paragraph 4.8 of the Implementation Plan in Rosas to all new

21 Deputies as part of the Jail Operations Continuum and to all new Custody

22 Assistants at the Custody Assistants academy; and (2) a two-hour custody-specific,

23 scenario-based, skill development training on suicide prevention to all existing

24 Deputies and Custody Assistants at their respective facilities, which can be part of

25 the eight-hour training described in paragraph 4.7 of the Implementation Plan in

26 Rosas, through in-service Intensified Formatted Training, which training will be

27 completed by December 31, 2016.

28

These trainings will include the following topics:

14

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 15 of 58 Page ID #:39

1

(a) suicide prevention policies and procedures, including observation and

2

supervision of prisoners at risk for suicide or self-injurious behavior;

3

(b) discussion of facility environments and staff interactions and why

4

they may contribute to suicidal behavior;

5 .

(c) potential predisposing factors to suicide;

6

(d) high-risk suicide periods and settings;

7

(e) warning signs and symptoms of suicidal behavior;

8

(f) case studies of recent suicides and serious suicide attempts;

9

(g) emergency notification procedures;

10

(h) mock demonstrations regarding the proper response to a suicide

11

attempt, including a hands-on simulation experience that incorporates

12

the challenges that often accompany ajailsuicide, such as cell doors

13

being blocked by a hanging body and delays in securing back-up

14

assistance;

15

(i) differentiating between suicidal and self-injurious behavior; and

16

G) the proper use of emergency equipment.

17

19. Commencing July 1, 2015, the County and the Sheriff will provide:

18

(a) Custody-specific, scenario-based, skill development training to new

19

Deputies during their Jail Operations training, and to existing

20

Deputies assigned to Twin Towers Correctional Facility, Inmate

21

Reception Center, Men's Central Jail, the Mental Health Housing

22

Units at Century Regional Detention Facility, and the Jail Mental

23

Evaluation Teams ("JMET") at North County Correctional Facility as

24

follows:

25

(i) 32 hours of Crisis Intervention and Conflict Resolution as

26

described in paragraphs 4.6 and 4.9 of the Implementation Plan

27

in Rosas to be completed Within the time frames established in

28

that case (currently December 31, 20 16). Deputies at these

15

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 16 of 58 Page ID #:40

1

facilities will receive an eight hour refresher course consistent

2

with paragraph 4.6 of the Implementation Plan in Rosas every

3

other year until termination of court jurisdiction in that case and

4

then a four hour refresher course every other year thereafter.

5

(ii) Eighthours identifying and working with mentally ill prisoners

6

as described in paragraph 4.7 of the Implementation Plan in

7

Rosas to be completed by December 31, 2016. This training

8

requirement may be a part of the 32-hour training described in

9

the previous subsection. Deputies at these facilities will receive

10

a four hour refresher course consistent with paragraph 4.7 of the

11

Implementation Plan in Rosas every other year thereafter.

12

(b). Commencing July 1, 2015, the County and the Sheriff will ensure that

13

new Custody Assistants receive eight hours of training in the Custody

14

Assistant academy; and that all existing Custody Assistants receive

15

eight hours of training, related to identifying and working with

16

mentally ill prisoners as described in paragraph 4.7 of the

17

Implementation Plan in Rosas. This training will be completed by

18

December 31, 20 16. Custody Assistants will receive a four hour

19

refresher course consistent with.paragraph 4. 7 ofthe Implementation

20

Plan in Rosas every other year thereafter.

21

20. · Commencing no later than July 1, 2017, the County and the Sheriff

22 will provide:

23

(a) Custody-specific, scenario-based, skill development training to

24

existing Deputies assigned to North County Correctional Facility,

25

Pitchess Detention Center, and the non-Mental Health Housing Units

26

in Century Regional Detention Facility as follows:

27

(i) 32 hours of Crisis Intervention and Conflict Resolution as

28

described in paragraphs 4.6 and 4.9 ofthe Implementation Plan

16

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 17 of 58 Page ID #:41

1

in Rosas to be completed by December 31, 2019. Deputies at

2

these facilities will receive an eight hour refresher course

3

consistent with paragraph 4.6 of the Implementation Plan in

4

Rosas every other year until termination of court juris<;liction in

5

that case and then a four hour refresher course every other year

6

thereafter.

.7

(ii) Eight hours identifying and working with mentally ill prisoners

8

as described in paragraph 4.7 ofthe Implementation Plan in

9

Rosas to be completed by December 31, 2019. This training

10

requirement may be a part of the 32-hour training described in

11

the previous subsection. Deputies at these facilities will receive

12

a four hour refresher course consistent with paragraph 4.7 of the

13

Implementation Plan in Rosas every other year thereafter.

14

21. Consistent with existing Sheriffs Department policies regarding

15 training requirements for sworn personnel, the Cmmty and the Sheriff will ensure

16 that existing custody staff that have contact with prisoners maintain active

17 certification in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and first aid.

18

22. Within six months of the Effective Date and at least annually

19 thereafter., the County and the Sheriff will provide instructional

to all

20 Sheriff station personnel, Sheriff court personnel, custody booking pers01mel, and

21 outside law enforcement agencies on the use of arresting and booking documents,

22 including the Arrestee Medical Screening Form, to ensure the sharing of known

23 relevant and available information on prisoners' mental health status and suicide

24 risk. Such instructional material will be in addition to the training provided to all

25 custody booking personnel regarding intake.

26 B. Suicide Hazard Inspections

27

23. Within three months of the Effective

the County and the Sheriff

28 will commence a systematic review of all prisoner housing, beginning with the

17

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 18 of 58 Page ID #:42

1 Mental Health Unit of the Correctional Treatment Center, all High Observation

2 Housing areas, all Moderate Observation Housing areas, single-person discipline,

3 and areas in which safety precautions are implemented, to reduce the risk of self-

4 harm and to identify and address suicide hazards. The County and the Sheriff will

5 utilize a nationally-recognized audit tool for the review. From this tool, the Count

6 and the Sheriff will:

7

(a) develop short and long term plans to reasonably mitigate suicide

8

hazards identified by this review; and

9

(b) prioritize planning and mitigation in areas where suicide precautions

10

are implemented and seek reasonable mitigation efforts in those areas.

11

24. · The County and the Sheriff will review and inspect housing areas on

12 at least an annual basis to identify suicide hazards.

13 C. Intake

14

25. The County and the Sheriffwill ensure that any prisoner in a Sheriff's

15 Department station jail who verbalizes or who exhibits a clear and obvious

16 indication of current suicidal intent will be transported to IRC, CRDF, or a medical

17 facility as soon as practicable. Pending transport, such prisoners will be under

18 unobstructed visual observation, or in a suicide resistant location with safety

19 checks ev-t:ry 15 minutes.

20

26. Consistent with existing Sheriff's Department policies, the County

21 and the Sheriff will follow established screening procedures to identify prisoners

22 with emergent or urgent mental health needs based upon information contained in

23 the Arrestee Medical Screening Form (SH-R-422) or its equivalent and the

24 Medical/Mental Health Screening Questionnaire and to expedite such prisoners for

25 mental health evaluation upon arrival at the Jail Reception Centers and prior to

26 routine screening. Prisoners who are identified as having emergent or urgent

27 mental health needs, including the need for emergent psychotropic medication, will

28

18

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 19 of 58 Page ID #:43.

1 be evaluated by a QMHP as soon as possible but no later than four hours from the

2 time of identification.

3

27. Consistent with existing Sheriff's Department policies, the County

4 and the Sheriff will ensure that all prisoners are individually and privately screened

5 by Qualified Medical Staff or trained custody personnel as soon as possible upon

6 arrival to the Jails, but no later than 12 hours, barring an extraordinary

7 circumstance, to identify a prisoner's need for mental health care and risk for

8 suicide or self-injurious behavior. The County and the Sheriff will ensure that the

9 Medical/Mental Health Screening Questionnaire, the Arrestee Medical Screening

10 Form (SH-R-422) or its equivalent, and!or the Confidential Medical Mental Health

11 Transfer Form are in the prisoner's electronic medical record or otherwise

12 available at the time the prisoner is initially assessed by a QMHP.

13

28. The County and the Sheriffwill ensure that any prisoner who has bee

14 identified during the intake process as having emergent or urgent mental health

15 needs as described in Paragraph 26 of this Agreement will be expedited through

16 the booking process. While the prisoner awaits evaluation, the County and the

17 Sheriff will maintain unobstructed visual observation of the prisoner when

18 necessary to protect his or her safety, and will conduct 15-minute safety checks if

19 the prisoner is in a cell.

20

29. The County and the Sheriff will ensure that a QMHP conducts a

21 mental health assessment ofprisoners who have non-emergent mental health needs

22 within 24 hours (or within 72 hours on weekends and legal holidays) of a

23 registered nurse conducting an intake nursing assessment at IRC or CRDF.

24

30. Consistent with existing DMH policies, the initial mental health

25 assessment will include a brief initial treatment plan. The initial treatment plan

26 will address housing recommendations and preliminary discharge information.

27 During the initial assessment, a referral will be made for a more comprehensive

28 mental health assessment if clinically indicated. The initial assessment will

19

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 20 of 58 Page ID #:44

1 identify any immediate issues and determine whether a more comprehensive

2 mental health evaluation is indicated. The Monitor arid SMEs wiii monitor

3 whether the housing recommendations in the initial treatment plan have been

4 followed.

5 D. Medical Records

6

31. Consistent with existing DMH and Sheriffs Department policies, the

7 County and the Sheriff will maintain electronic mental health alerts in prisoners'

8 electronic medical records that notify medical and mental health staff of a

9 prisoner's risk for suicide or self-injurious behavior. The alerts will be for the

10 following risk factors:

11

(a) current suicide risk;

12

(b) hoarding medications; and

13

(c) prior suicide attempts.

14

32. Infonnation regarding a serious suicide attempt wiii be entered in the

15 prisoner's electronic medical record in a timely manner.

16

33. The County wiii require mental health supervisors in the Jails to

17 ·review electronic medical records on a quarterly basis to assess their accuracy as

18 follows:

19

(a) . Supervisors wiii randomly select two prisoners from each clinician's

20

· caseload in the prior quarter;

21

(b) Supervisors will compare records for those prisoners to corroborate

22

clinician attendance, units of service, and any unusual trends,

23

including appropriate time spent with prisoners, recording more units

24

of service than hours worked, and to detennine whether contacts with

25

those prisoners are inconsistent with their clinical needs;

26

(c) Where supervisors identify discrepancies through these reviews, they

27

will conduct a more thorough review using a DMH-developed

28

20

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 21 of 58 Page ID #:45

1

standardizedtool and will consider detailed information contained in

2

the electronic medical record and progress notes;

3

(d) Serious concerns remaining after the secondary review will be

4

elevated for administrative action in consultation with DMH's

5

centralized Human Resources.

6

34. The County and the Sheriff will conduct discharge planning and

7 linkage to community mental health providers and aftercare services for all .

8 prisoners with serious mental illness as follows:

9

(a) For prisoners who are in Jail seven days or less, a preliminary

10

treatment plan, including discharge information, will be developed.

11

(b) For prisoners who are in Jail more than seven days, a QMHP will also

12

make available:

13

(i) · for prisoners who are receiving psychotropic medications, a 30-

14

day prescription for those medications will be offered either

15

through the release planning process, through referral to a re-'

16

entry resource center, or through referral to an appropriate

17

community provider, unless clinically contraindicated;

18

(ii) in-person consultation to address housing, mental

19

health/medical/substance abuse treatment, income/benefits

20

establishment, and family/community/social supports. This

21

consultation will also identifY specific actions to be taken and

22

identifY individuals responsible for each action;

23

(iii) if the prisoner has an intense need for assistance, as described i

24

DMH policies, the prisoner will further be provided direct

25

linkage to an Institution for Mental Disease ("IMD"), IMD-

26

Step-down facility, or appropriately licensed hospital;

27

(iv) if the prisoner has a moderate need for assistance, as described

I

28

in DMH policies, and as clinically appropriate to the needs of

21

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 22 of 58 Page ID #:46

1

the prisoner, the prisoner will be offered enrollment in Full

2

Service Partnership or similar program, placement in an Adult

3

Residential Facility ("Board and Care") or other residential

4

treatment facility, and direct assistance accessing community

5

resources; and

6

(v) if the prisoner has minimal needs for assistance, as described in

7

DMH policies, the prisoner will be offered referrals to routine

8

services as appropriate, such as General Relief, Social Security,

9

community mental health clinics, substance abuse programs,

10

and/or outpatient care/support groups.

11

(c) The County will provide a re-entry resource center with QMHPs

12

available to all prisoners where they may obtain information about

13

available mental health services and other community resources.

14 E. Mental Health Referrals

15

35. Consistent with existing DMH and Sheriffs Department policies, the

16 County and the Sheriff will ensure that custody staff, before the end of shift, refer

17 prisoners in general or special populations who are demonstratmg a potenttal need ·

18 for routine mental health care to a QMHP or a Jail Mental Evaluation Team

19 ("JMET") member for evaluation, and document such referrals. Custody staff will

20 utilize the Behavior Observation and Referral Form.

21

36. Consistent with existing DMH policies, the County and the Sheriff

22 will ensure that a QMHP performs a mental health assessment after any adverse

23 triggering event, such as a suicide attempt, suicide threat, self-injurious behavior,

24 or any clear decompensation of mental health status. For those prisoners who

25 repeatedly engage in self-injurious behavior, the County will perform such a

26 mental health assessment only when clinically indicated, and will, when clinically

27 indicated; develop an individualized treatment plan to reduce, and minimize

28 reinforcement of, such behavior. The County and the Sheriff will maintain arion-

22

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 23 of 58 Page ID #:47

1 call system to ensure that mental health assessments are conducted within four

2 hours following the notification of the adverse triggering event or upon notification

3 that the prisoner has returned from a medical assessment related to the adverse

4 triggering event. The prisoner will remain under unobstructed visual observation

5 by custody staff until a QMHP has completed his or her evaluation.

6

37. Sheriffs Court Services Division staff will complete a Behavioral

7 Observation and Mental Health Referral Form and forward it to the Jail's mental

8 health and/or medical staff when the Court Services Division staff obtains

9 information that indicates a prisoner has displayed obvious suicidal ideation or

10 when the prisoner exhibits unusual behavior that clearly manifests self-injurious

11 behavior, or other clear indication of mental health crisis. Pending transport, such

12 prisoner will be under unobstructed visual observation or subject to 15-minute

13 safety checks.

14

38. Consistent with existing DMH policies and National Commission on

15 Correctional Health Care standards for jails, the County and the Sheriff will ensure

16 that mental health staff or JMET teams make weekly cell-by-cell rounds in

17 restricted non-mental health housing modules (e.g., administrative segregation,

18 disciplinary segregation) at the Jails to identifY prisoners with mental illness who

19 may have been missed during screening or who have decompensated while in the

20 Jails. In conducting the rounds, either the clinician, the JMET deputy, or the

21 prisoner may request an out-of-cell interview. This request will be granted unless

22 there is a clear and documented security concern that would prohibit such an

23 interview or the prisoner has a documented history of repeated, unjustified requests

24 for such out-of-cell interviews.

25

39. The County and the Sheriff will continue to use a confidential self-

26 referral system by which all prisoners can request mental health care without

27 revealing the substance of their request to custody staff or other prisoners.

28

23

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 24 of 58 Page ID #:48

1

40. The County and the Sheriff will ensure a QMHP will be available on-

2 site, by transportation of the prisoner, or through tele-psych 24 hours per day,

3 seven days per week (24/7) to provide clinically appropriate mental health crisis

4 intervention services.

5 F. Mental Health Follow Up

6

41. Consistent with existing DMH policies, the County and the Sheriff

7 will implement step-down protocols that provide clinically appropriate transition

8 when prisoners are discharged from PIP after being the subject of suicide watch.

9 The protocols will provide:

10

(a) intermediate steps between highly restrictive suicide measures (e.g.,

11

clinical restraints and direct constant observation) and the

12

discontinuation of suicide watch;

13

an (b)

evaluation by a QMHP before a prisoner is removed from suicide

14

watch;

15

(c) every prisoner discharged from PIP following a period of suicide

. 16

watch will be housed upon release in the least restrictive setting

17

deemed clinically appropriate unless exceptional ctrcumstances

18

affecting the facility exist; and

19

(d) all PIP discharges following a period of suicide watch will be seen by

20

a QMHP within 72 hours of PIP release, or sooner if indicated, unless

21

exceptional circumstances affecting the facility exist.

22

42. Consistent with existing DMH policies, the County and the Sheriff

23 will implement step-down protocols to ensure that prisoners admitted to HOB and

24 placed on risk precautions are assessed by a QMHP. As part of the assessment, the

25 QMHP will determine on an individualized basis whether to implement "step-

26 down" procedures for that prisoner as follows:

27

28

24

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 25 of 58 Page ID #:49

1

(a) the prisoner will be assessed by a QMHP within three Nonnal

2

business work days, but not to exceed four Days, following

3

discontinuance of risk precautions;

4

(b) the prisoner is counseled to ameliorate the negative psychological

5

impact that any restrictions may have had and in ways of dealing with

6

this impact;

7

(c) the prisoner will remain in HOH or be transferred to MOH, as

8

determined on a case by case basis, until such assessment and

9

counseling is completed, unless exceptional circumstances affecting

10

the facility exist; and

11

(d) the prisoner is subsequently placed in a level of care/housing as

12

determined by a QMHP.

13

43. Within six months of the Effective Date, the County and the Sheriff.

14 will develop and implement written policies for formal discipline of prisoners with

15 serious mental illness incorporating the following:

16

(a) Prior to transfer, custody staff will consult with a QMHP to determine

17

whether assignment of a prisoner in mental health housing to

18

disciplinary housing is clinically contraindicated and whether

19

placement in a higher level of mental health housing is clinically

20

indicated, and will thereafter follow the QMHP's recommendation;

21

(b) If a prisoner is receiving psychotropic medication and is placed in

22

disciplinary housing from an area other than mental health housing, a

23

QMHP will meet with that prisoner within 24 hours of such placement

24

to determine whether maintenance of the prisoner in such placement i

25

clinically contraindicated and whether transfer of the prisoner to

26

mental health housing is clinically appropriate, and custody staff will

27

thereafter follow the QMHP's recommendation;

28

25

Case2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 26 of 58 Page ID #:50

1

(c) A QMHP will participate in weekly walks, as specified in Paragraph

2

38, in disciplinary housing areas to observe prisoners in those areas

3

and to identify those prisoners with mental health needs;

4

(d) Prior to a prisoner in mental health housing losing behavioral credits

5

for disciplinary reasons, the disciplinary decision-maker will receive

6

and take into consideration information from a QMHP regarding the

7

prisoner's underlying mental illness, the potential effects of the

8

discipline being considered, and whether transfer of the prisoner to a

9

higher level of mental health housing is clinically indicated.

· 10 G. Suicide Risk Procedures

11

44. Within six months of the Effective Date, the County and the Sheriff

12 will install protective barriers that do not prevent line-of-sight supervision on the

13 second floor tier of all High Observation Housing areas to prevent prisoners from

14 jumping off of the second floor tier. Within six months of the Effective Date, the

15 County and the Sheriff will also develop a plan that identifies any other areas in

16 mental health housing where such protective barriers should be installed.

17 ·

45. Consistent with existing :Sheritt's lJepartment pol!Cles, the county

18 and the Sheriff will provide both a Suicide Intervention Kit that contains an

19 emergency cut-down tool and a first-aid kit in the control booth or officer's station

20 of each housing unit. All custody staff who have contact with prisoners will know

21 the location of the Suicide Intervention Kit and first-aid kit and be trained to use

22 their contents.

23

46. The County and the Sheriff will immediately interrupt, and if

24 necessary, provide appropriate aid to, any prisoner· who threatens or exhibits self-

25 injurious behavior.

26 H. Staffing

27

47. The County and the Sheriff will ensure there are sufficient custodial,

. 28 medical, and mental health staff at the Jails to fulfill the terms of this Agreement. ·

26

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 27 of 58 Page ID #:51

1 Within six months of the Effective Date, and on a semi-annual basis thereafter, the

2 County and the Sheriff will, in conjunction with the requirements of Paragraph 92

3 of this Agreement, provide to the Monitor and DOJ a report identifying the steps

4 taken by the County and the Sheriff during the review period to implement the

5 terms of this Agreement and any barriers to implementation, such as insufficient

6 staffing levels at the Jails, if any.. The County and the Sheriffwill retain staffing

7 records for two years to ensure that for any critical incident or non-compliance

8 with this Agreement, the Monitor and DOJ can obtain those records to determine

9 whether staffing levels were a factor in that critical incident and/or non-

10 compliance.

11 I. Environmental Conditions

12

48. Within three months of the Effective Date, the County and the Sheriff

13 will have written housekeeping, sanitation, and inspection plans to ensure the

14 proper cleaning of, and trash collection and removal in, housing, shower, and

15 medical areas, in accordance with California Code of Regulations ("CCR") Title

16 15 § 1280: Facility Sanitation, Safety, and Maintenance.

17

49. Within three months of the Effective Date, the County and the Sheriff

18 will have a maintenance plan to respond to routine and emergency maintenance

19 needs, including ensuring that shower, toilet, sink, and lighting units, and heating,

20 ventilation, and cooling systems are adequately maintained and installed. The plan

21 will also include steps to treat large mold infestations.

22

50. Consistent with existing Sheriffs Department policies regarding

23 control ofvennin, the County and the Sheriff will provide pest control throughout

24 the housing units, medical units, kitchen, and food storage areas.

25

51. Consistent with existing Sheriffs Department policies regarding

26 personal care items and supplies for inmates, the County and the Sheriff will

27 ensure that all prisoners have access to basic hygiene supplies, in accordance with

28 CCR Title 15 § 1265: Issue ofPersonal Care Items.

27

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 28 of 58 Page 10 #:52

1 J. Allowable Property Privileges

2

52. The County and the Sheriff will implement policies governing

3 property restrictions in High Observation Housing that provide:

4

(a) Except when transfened directly from FIP, upon initial placement in

5

HOH:

6

(i) Suicide-resistant blankets, gowns, and mattresses will be

7

provided until the assessment set forth in section (a)(ii) below is

8

conducted, unless clinically contraindicated as determined and

9

documented by a QMHP.

10

(ii) Within 24 hours, a QMHP will make recommendations

11

regarding allowable property based upon an individual clinical

12

assessment.

13

(b) Property restrictions in H.OH beyond 24 hours will be based on

14

clinical judgment and assessment by a QMHP as necessary to ensure

15

the safety and well-being of the prisoner and documented in the

16

Electronic Medical Record.

;

17

53. If otherwise eligible tor an educatwn, worK, or similar program, a

18 prisoner's mental health diagnosis or prescription for medication alone will not

19 preclude that prisoner from participating in said programming.

20

54. Prisoners who are not in Mental Health Housing will not be denied

21 privileges and programming based solely on their mental health status or

22 prescription for psychotropic medication.

23

K. Communication Related to Mental Health

24

55. Relevant custody, medical, and mental health staff in all High

25 · Observation Housing units will meet on Normal business work days and such staff

26 in all Moderate Observation Housing units will meet at least weekly to ensure

27 coordination and communication regarding the needs of prisoners in mental health.

28 housing units as outlined in Custody Services Division Directive(s) regarding

28

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 29 of 58 Page ID #:53

1 coordination of mental health treatment and housing. When a custody staff

2 member is serving as a member of a treatment team, he or she is subject to the

3 same confidentiality rules and regulations as any other member of the treatment

4 team, and will be trained in those rules and regulations.

5

56. Consistent with existing DMH and Sheriff's Department policies, the

6 County and the Sheriff will ensure that custody, medical, and mental health staff

7 communicate regarding any change in a prisoner's housing assignment following a

8 suicide threat, gesture, or attempt, or other indication of an obvious and serious

9 chl'tllge in mental health condition.

10 L. Safety Checks

11

57. Within three months of the Effective Date, the County and the Sheriff

12 will revise and implement their policies on safety checks to ensure a range of

13 supervision for prisoners housed in Mental Health Housing. The County and the

14 Sheriff will ensure that safety checks in Mental Health Housing are completed and

15 documented in accordance with policy and regulatory requirements as set forth

16 below:

17

(a) Custody staff will conduct safety checks in a manner that allows staff

18

to view the prisoner to assure his or her well-being and security.

19

Safety checks involve visual observation and, if necessary to

20

determine the prisoner's well-being, verbal interaction with the

21

prisoner;

22

(b) Custody staff will document their checks in a format that does not

23

have pre-printed times;

24

(c) Custody staff will stagger checks to minimize prisoners' ability to

25

plan around anticipated checks;

26

(d) Video surveillance may not be used to replace rounds and supervision

27

by custodial staff unless new construction is built specifically with

28

constant video surveillance enhancements and could only be used to

29

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 30 of 58 Page ID #:54

1

replace 15 minute checks in non-FIP housing, subject to approval by

2

the Monitor;

3

(e) A QMHP, in coordination with custody (and medical staff if

4

necessary), will determine.mental health housing assigrunents.

5

(f) Supervision of prisoners in mental health housing will be conducted at

6

the following intervals:

7

(i) FIP: Custody staff will perform safety checks every 15

8

minutes. DMH staff will perform direct constant observation o

9

one-to-one observation when determined to be clinically

1 0

appropriate;

11

(ii) High Observation Housing: Every 15 minutes;

12

(iii) Moderate Observation Housing: Every 30 minutes.

13

58. Within three months of the Effective Date, the County and the Sheriff

14 will revise and implementtheir policies on safety checks. The County and the

15 Sheriff will ensure that safety checks in non-mental health housing units are

16 .completed and documented in accordance with policy and regulatory requirements

17 as set torth below:

18

(a) At least every 30 minutes in housing areas with cells;

19

(b) At least every 30 minutes in dormitory-style housing units where the

20

unit does not provide for unobstructed direct supervision of prisoners

21

from a security control room.

22

(c) Where a dormitory-style housing unit does provide for unobstructed

23

direct supervision of prisoners, safety checks must be completed

24

inside the unit at least every 60 minutes;

25

(d) At least every 60 minutes in designated minimum security dormitory

26

housing at PDC South, or other similar campus-style unlocked

27

dormitory housing;

28

30

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 31 of 58 Page ID #:55

1

(e) Custody staff will conduct safety checks in a manner that allows staff

2

to view the prisoner to assure his or her well-being and security.

3

Safety checlcs involve visual observation and, if necessary to

4

determine the prisoner's well-being, verbal interaction with the

5

prisoner;

6

(f) Custody staff will document their checks in a format that does not

7

have pre-printed times;

8

(g) Custody staff will stagger checks to minimize prisoners' ability to

9

plan around anticipated checks; and

10

(h) Video surveillance may not be used to replace rounds and supervision

11

by custodial staff.

12

59. Consistent with existing Sheriffs Department policies regarding

13 uniform daily activity logs, the County andthe Sheriff will ensure that a custodial

14 supervisor conducts unannounced daily rounds on each shift in the prisoner

15 housing units to ensure custodial staff conduct necessary safety checks and

16 document their rounds.
17 M. Quality Improvement Plan

18

60. Within six months of the Effective Date, the Department of Mental

19 Health, in cooperation with the Sheriffs Unit described in Paragraph 77 ofthis

20 Agreement, will implement a quality improvement program to identify and address

21 clinical issues that place prisoners at significant risk of suicide or self-injurious

22 behavior.

23

61. The quality improvement program will review, collect, and aggregate

24 data in the following areas and recommend corrective actions and systemic

25 improvements:

26

(a) Suicides and serious suicide attempts:

27

(i) Prior suicide attempts or other serious self-injurious behavior

28

(ii) Locations

31

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page-32 of 58 Page ID #:56

1

(iii) Method

2

(iv) Lethality

3

(v) Demographic information

4

(vi) Proximity to court date;

5

(b) Use of clinical restraints;

6

(c) Psychotropic medications;

7

(d) Access to care, timeliness of service, and utilization of the Forensic

8

In-patient Unit; and

9

(e) Elements of documentation and use of medical records.

10

62. The County and the Sheriffs Unit described in Paragraph 77 of this

11 Agreement will develop, implement, and track corrective action plans addressing

12 recommendations of the quality improvement program.

13 N. Mental Health Housing

14

63. The County and the Sheriff will maintain adequate High Observation

15 Housing and Moderate Observation Housing sufficient to meet the needs of the jail

16 population with mental illness, as assessed by the County and the Sheriff on an

17 ongoing basis. The County Will contmue 1ts practice ot placmg pnsoners with

18 · mental illness in the least restrictive setting consistent with their clinical needs.

19

64. Within six months of the Effective Date, the County and the Sheriff

20 will develop a short-term plan addressing the following 12-month period, and

21 within 12 months of the Effective Date, the County and the Sheriff will develop a

22 long-term plan addressing the following five-year period, to reasonably ensure the

23 availability of licensed inpatient mental health care for prisoners in the Jails. The

24 County and the Sheriff will begin implementation of each plan within 90 days of

25 plan completion. These plans will describe the projected capacity required,

26 strategies that w:ill be used to obtain additional capacity if it is needed, and identify

27 the resources necessary for implementation. Thereafter, the County and the Sherif

28 will review, and if necessary revise, these plans every 12 months.

32

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 33 of 58 Page ID #:57

1 0. Medication

2

65. Consistent with existing Sheriffs Department policies, the County

3 and the Sheriff will ensure that psychotropic medications are administered in a

4 clinically appropriate manner to prevent misuse, hoarding, and overdose.

5

66. Consistent with existing bMH policies, prisoners in High Observation

6 Housing and Moderate Observation Housing, and those with a serious mental

7 illness who reside in other housing areas of the Jails, will remain on an active

8 mental health caseload and receive clinically appropriate mental health treatment,

9 regardless of whether they refuse medications.

10

67. Within three months of the Effective Date, the County and the Sheriff

11 will implement policies for prisoners housed in High Observation Housing and

12 Moderate Observation Housing that require:

13

(a) documentation of a prisoner's refusal of psychotropic medication in

14

the prisoner's electronic medical record;

15

(b) discussion of a prisoner's refusal in treatment team meetings;

16

(c) the use of clinically appropriate interventions with such prisoners to

17

encourage medication compliance;

18

(d) consideration of the need to transfer non-compliant prisoners to highe

19

levels of mental health housing; and

20

(e) individualized consideration of the appropriateness of seeking court

21

orders for involuntary medication pursuant to the provisions of

22

California Welfare and Institutions Code sections 5332-5336 and/or

23

California Penal Code section 2603(a).

24

68. Within six months of the Effective Date, the County and the Sheriff

25 will develop and implement a procedure for contraband searches on a regular, but

26 staggered basis in all housing units. High Observation Housing cells will be

27 visually inspected prior to initial housing of inmates with mental health issues.

28

33

Case

Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 34 of 58 Page ID #:58

1 P. Restraints

2

69. Consistent with existing DMH policies regarding use of clinical

3 restraints, the County and the Sheriff will use clinical restraints only in the

4 Correctional Treatment Center and only with the approval of a licensed psychiatris

5 who has performed an individualized assessment and an appropriate Forensic

6 Inpatient order. Use of clinical restraints in CTC will be documented in the

7 prisoner's electronic medical record. The documentation will include the basis for

8 and duration of the use of clinical restraints and the performance and results of the

9 medical welfare checks on restrained prisoners. When applying clinical restraints,

10 custody staff will ensure a QMHP is present to document and monitor the

11 condition ·of the prisoner being placed in clinical restraints.

12

70. Within three months of the Effective Date, the County and the Sheriff

13 will have policies and procedures regarding the use of Security Restraints in HOH

14 and MOH. Such policies will provide that:

15

(a) Security Restraints in these areas will not be used as an alternative to

16

mental health treatment and will be used only when necessary to

17 ·

insure satety;

18

(b) Security Restraints will not be used to punish prisoners, but will be

19

used only when there is a threat or potential threat of physical harm,

20

destruction of property, or escape;

21

(c) Custody staff in HOH andMOH will consider a range of security

22

restraint devices and utilize the least restrictive option, for the least

23

amount of time, necessary to provide safety in these areas;

24

(d) Whenever a prisoner is recalcitrant, as defmed by Sheriffs ·

25

Department policy, and appears to be in a mental health crisis,

26

Custody staffwill request a sergeant and immediately refer the

27

prisoner to a QMHP.

28

34

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 35 of 58 Page ID #:59

1 ·

71. The County and the Sheriff will ensure that any prisoner subjected to

2 clinical restraints in response to a mental health crisis receives therapeutic services

3 to remediate any effects from the episode(s) of restraint.

4 Q. Suicide Death Reviews and Critical Incident Reviews

5

72. The County and the Sheriff will develop and implement policies and

6 procedures that ensure that incidents involving suicide and serious self-injurious

7 behavior are reported and reviewed to determine: (a) whether staff engaged in any

8 violations of policies, rules, or laws; and (b) whether any improvements to policy,

9 training, operations, treatment programs, or facilities are warranted. These policies

10 and procedures will define terms clearly and consistently to ensure that incidents

11 are reported and tracked accurately by DMH and the Sheriffs Department.

12

73. Depending on the level of severity of an incident involving a prisoner

13 who threatens or exhibits self-injurious behavior, a custody staff member will

14 prepare a detailed report (Behavioral Observation and Mental Health Referral

15 Form, Inmate Injury Report, and/or Incident Report) that includes infom1ation

16 from individuals who were involved in or witnessed the incident as soon as

17 practicable, but no later than the end of shift. The report will include a description

. 18 of the events surrounding the incident and the steps taken in response to the

19 incident. The report will also include the date and time that the report was

20 completed and the names of any witnesses. The Sheriffs Department will

21 immediately notify the County Office of Inspector General of all apparent or

22 suspected suicides occurring at the Jails.

23

74. The Sheriffs Department will ensure that there is a timely, thorough,

24 and objective law enforcement investigation of any suicide that occurs in the Jails.

25 Investigations shall include recorded interviews of persons involved in, or who

26 witnessed, the incident, including other prisoners. Sheriffs Department personnel

27 who are investigating a prisoner suicide or suspected suicide at the Jails will ensure

28

35

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 36 of 58 Page ID #:60

1 the preservation of all evidence, including physical evidence, relevant witness

2 statements, reports, videos, and photographs.

3

75. Within three months of the Effective Date, the County and the Sheriff

4 will review every suicide attempt that occurs in the Jails as follows:

5

(a) Within two working days, DMH staff will review the incident, the

6

prisoner's mental health status known at the time of the incident, the ·

7

need for immediate corrective action if any, and determine the level o

8

suicide attempt pursuant to the Centers for Disease Control and

9

Prevention's Risk Rating Scale;

10

(b) · Within 30 working days, and only for those incidents determined to b

11

a serious suicide attempt by DMH staff after the review described in

12

subsection (a) above, management and command-level personnel

13

from DMH and the Sheriffs Department (including Custody Division

14

and Medical Services Bureau) will meet to review relevant

15

information known at that time, including the events preceding and

16

following the incident, the prisoner's incarceration, mental health, and

17 ·

health history, the status ot any corrective act10ns tal(en, and the nee<i

18

for additional corrective action if necessary;

19

(c) The County and the Sheriff will document the findings that result

20

from the review of serious suicide attempts described in subsection (b)

21

above; and

22

(d) The County and the Sheriff will ensure that information for all suicide

23

attempts is input into a database for tracking and statistical analysis.

24

76. The County and the Sheriff will review every apparent or suspected

25 suicide that occurs in the Jails as follows:

26

(a) Within no more than two working days, management and command-

27

level personnel from DMH and the Sheriffs Department (including

28

Custody Division and Medical Services Bureau) will meet to review

36

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 37 of 58 Page ID #:61

1

and discuss the suicide, the prisoner's mental health status known at

2

the time of the suicide, and the need for immediate corrective or

3

preventive action if any;

4

(b) Within seven working days, and again within 30 working days,

5

management and command-level personnelfrom DMH and the

6

Sheriff's Department (including Custody Division and Medical

7

Services Bureau) will meet to review relevant information known at

8

that time, including the events preceding and following the suicide,

9

the prisoner's incarceration, mental health, and health history, the

10

status of any corrective or preventive actions talcen, and the need for

11

additional corrective or preventive action if necessary;

12

(c) Within six months of the suicide, the County and the Sheriff will

13

prepare a final written report regarding the suicide. The reportwill

14

include:

15

(i) time and dated incident reports and any supplemental reports

16

with the same Uniform Reference Number (URN) from custody

17

staff who were directly involved in and/or witnessed the

18

incident;

19

(ii) a timeline regarding the discovery of the prisoner and any

20

responsive actions or medical interventions;

21

(iii) copies of a representative sample ofmateria1 video recordings

22

or photographs, to the extent that inclusion of such items does

23

not interfere with any criminal investigation;

24

(iv) a reference to, or reports if available, from the Sheriff's

25

Department Homicide Bureau;

26

(v) reference to the Internal Affairs Bureau or other personnel

27

investigations, if any, and findings, if any;

28

37

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 38 of 58 Page ID #:62

1

(vi) a Coroner's report, if it is available at the time ofthe final

2

report, and if it is not available, a summary of efforts made to

3

obtain the .report;

4

(vii) a summary of relevant information discussed at the prior review

5

meetings, or otherwise known at the time of the final report,

6

including analysis ofhousing or classification issues if relevant;

7

(viii) a clinical mortality review;

8

(ix) a Psychological Autopsy utilizing the National Commission on

9

Correctional Health Care's standards; and

10

(x) a summary of corrective actions taken and recommendations

11

regarding additional corrective actions if any are needed.

12

77. The County and the Sheriff will create a specialized unit to oversee,

13 monitor, and audit the County's jail suicide prevention program in coordination

14 with the Department of Mental Health. The Unit will be headed by a Captain, or

15 another Sheriffs Department official of appropriate rank, who reports to the

16 Assistant Sheriff for Custody Operations through the chain of command. The Unit

17 will be responsible for:

18

(a) Ensuring the timely and thorough administrative review of suicides

19

and serious suicide attempts in the Jails as described in this

20

Agreement;

21

(b) Identifying patterns and trends of suicides and serious suicide

22

attempts in the Jails, keeping centralized records and inputting data

23

· into a unit database .for statistical analysis, trends, and corrective

24

·action, if necessary;

25

(c) Ensuring that corrective actions are taken to mitigate suicide risks at

26

both the location of occurrence and throughout the concerned system

27

by providing, or obtaining where appropriate, technical assistance to

28

38

Case 2:15-cv-05903. Document 4-1 Filed 08/05115 Page 39 of 58 Page ID #:63

1

other administrative units within the Custody Division when such

2

assistance is needed to address suicide-risk issues;

3

(d) Analyzing staffing, personnel/disciplinary, prisoner classification, and

4

mental health service delivery issues as they relate to suicides and

5

serious suicide attempts to identify the need for corrective action

6

where appropriate; and recommend remedial measures, including

7

policy revisions, re-training, or staff discipline, to address the

8

deficiencies and ensure implementation; and

9

(e) Participating in meetings with DMH to develop, implement, and track

10

corrective action plans addressing recommendations of the quality

11

improvement program.

12

78. The County and the Sheriffwill maintain a county-level Suicide

13 Prevention Advisory Committee that will be open to representatives from the

14 Sheriffs Department Custody Division, Court Services, Custody Support Services,

15 and Medical Services Bureau; the Department of Mental Health; the Public

16 Defender's Office; County Counsel's Office; the Office of the Inspector General;

17 and the Department of Mental Health Patients' Rights Office. The Suicide

18 Prevention Advisory Committee will meet twice per year and will serve as an

19 advisory body to address system issues and recommend coordinated approaches to

20 suicide prevention in the Jails.

21 R. Mental Health Treatment

22

79. (a) Unless clinically contraindicated, the County and the Sheriff will

23 offer prisoners in mental health housing:

24

(i) therapeutically appropriate individual visits with a QMHP;

25

(ii) therapeutically appropriate group programming conducted by a

26

QMHP or other appropriate provider that does not exceed 90

27

minutes per session;

28

39

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 40 of 58 Page ID #:64

1

(b) The County and the Sheriff will provide prisoners outside of mental

2 health housing with medication support services when those prisoners are

3 receiving psychotropic medications and therapeutically appropriate individual

4 monthly visits with a QMHP when those prisoners are designated as Seriously

5 Mentally Ill.

6

(c) The date, location, topic, attendees, and provider of programming or

7 therapy sessions will be documented. A clinical supervisor will review

8 documentation of group sessions on a monthly basis.

9

80. (a) The County and the Sheriff will continue to make best efforts to

10 provide appropriate out-of-cell time to all prisoners with serious mental illness,

11 absent exceptional circumstances, and unless individually clinically

12 contraindicated and documented in the prisoner's electronic medical record. To
will 13 implement this requirement, the County and the Sheriff follow the schedule

14 below:

15

(i) By no later than six months after the Effective Date, will offer

16

25% of the prisoners in HOH ten hours of unstructured out-of-

17

cell recreational time and ten hours ot structured therapeutic or

18

programmatic time per week;

19

(ii) By no later than 12 months after the Effective Date, will offer

20

50% of the prisoners in HOH ten hours of unstructured out-of-

21

cell recreational time and ten hours of structured therapeutic or

22

programmatic time per week;

23

(iii) By no later than 18 months after the Effective Date, will offer

24

100% of the prisoners in HOH ten hours of unstructured out-of-

25

cell recreational time and ten hours of structured therapeutic or

26

programmatic time per week.

2 7

(b) No later than six months after the Effective Date, the County and the

28 Sheriff will record at the end of each day which prisoners in HOH, if any, refused

40

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 41 of 58 Page ID #:65
•

1 to leave their cells that day. That data will be presented and discussed with DMH

2 staff at the daily meeting on the following Normal business work day. The data

3 will also be provided to the specialized unit described in Paragraph 77 and to

4 DMH's quality improvement program to analyze the data for any trends and to

5 implement any corrective action(s) deemed necessary to maximize out-of-cell time

6 opportunities and avoid unnecessary isolation.

7 S. Use of Force

8

81. Except as specifically set forth in Paragraphs 18-20 of this

9 Agreement, and except as specifically identified below, the County and the Sheriff

10 will implement the following paragraphs of the Implementation Plan in Rosas at all

11 Jails facilities, including the Pitchess Detention Center and the Century Regional

12 Detention Facility, by no later than the dates set forth in the Implementation Plan

13 or as revised by the Rosas Monitoring Panel: Paragraphs 2.2-2.13 (use afforce

14 policies and practices); 3.1-3.6 (training and professional development); 4.1-4.10

15 (use afforce on mentally ill prisoners); 5.1-5.3 (data tracking and reporting of

16 force); 6.1-6.20 (prisoner grievances and complaints); 7.1-7.3 (prisoner

17 supervision); 8.1-8.3 (anti-retaliation provisions); 9.1-9.3 (security practices); 10.1-

18 10.2 (management presence in housing units); 11.1 (management review of force);

19 12.1-12.5 (force investigations, with the training requirement of paragraph 12.1 to

20 be completed by December 31, 2016); 13.1-13.2 (use afforce reviews and staff

21 discipline); 14.1-14.2 (criminal referrals and external review); 15.1-15.7

22 (documentation and recording of force); 16.1-16.3 (health care assessments); 17.1-

23 17.10 (use of restraints); 18.1-18.2 (adequate staffing); 19.1-19.3 (early warning

24 system); 20.1-20.3 (planned uses of force); and 21.1 (organizational culture).

25

82. With respect to paragraph 6.16 of the Rosas Implementation Plan, the

26 County and the Sheriff will ensure that Sheriffs Department personnel responsible

27 for collecting prisoners' grievances as set forth in that paragraph are also co-

28 located in the Century Regional Detention Facility.

41

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 42 of 58 Page ID #:66

1

83. The County and the Sheriff will install closed circuit security cameras

2 throughout all Jails facilities' common areas where prisoners engage in

3 programming, treatment, recreation, visitation, and intra-facility movement

4 ("Common Areas"), including in the Common Areas at the Pitchess Detention

5 Center and the Century Regional Detention Facility. The County and the Sheriff · ·

6 will install a sufficient number of cameras in Jails facilities that do not currently

7 have cameras to ensure that all Common Areas of these facilities have security-

8 camera coverage. The installation of these cameras will be completed no later than

9 June 30, 2018, with TTCF, MCJ, and IRC completed by the Effective Date; CRDF

10 completed by March 1, 2016; and the remaining facilities completed by June 30,

11 2018. The County and the Sheriff will also ensure that all video recordings of

12 force incidents are adequately stored and retained for a period of at least one year

13 after the force incident occurs or until all investigations and proceedings related to

14 the use of force are concluded.

15

84. The Sheriff will continue to maintain and implement policies for the

16 timely and thorough investigation of alleged staff misconduct related to use of

17 · torce and tor ttmely dtsctplmary actton ansmg trom sucn investigations.

18 Specifically:

19

(a) Sworn custody staff subject to the provisions of California

20

Government Code section 3304 will be notified of the completion of

21

the investigation and the proposed discipline arising from force

22

incidents in accordance with the requirements of that Code section;

23

and

24

(b) All non-sworn Sheriffs Department staff will be notified of the

25

proposed discipline arising from force incidents in time to allow for

26

the imposition of that discipline.

27

28

42

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 43 of 58 Page ID #:67

1

85. The County and the Sheriffwill ensure that Internal Affairs Bureau

2 management and staff receive adequate specialized training in conducting

3 investigations ofmisconduct.

4

86. Within three months of the Effective Date, the County and the Sheriff

5 will develop and implement policies and procedures for the effective and accurate

6 maintenance, inventory, and assignment of chemical agents and other security

7 equipment. The County and the Sheriff will develop and maintain an adequate

8 inventory control system for all weapons, including OC spray.

9

VI. IMPLEMENTATION, COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT,

10

ENFORCEMENT, AND TERMINATION

11 A. Review and Implementation of Policies, Procedures, and Programs

12

87. The County and the Sheriff are committed to continuous quality

13 . improvement and have taken significant steps to review and update policies and

14 procedures to protect the constitutional and federal rights of prisoners at the Jails.

15 Where necessary, the County and the Sheriff will maintain existing policies,

16 procedures, and practices to support the substantive provisions in this Agreement.

17

88. The County and the Sheriff will review all relevant policies,

18 procedures, and other written executive-approved directives within four months of

19 the Effective Date to ensure that they are consistent with the terms of this

20 Agreement, unless they were reviewed and revised for such purposes within six

21 months preceding the Effective Date.

22

89. (a) If the County or the Sheriff create or materially revise a policy

23 related to this Agreement after the Effective Date, the following process will be

24 followed before implementation:

25

(1) the County and Sheriff will provide a copy ofthe proposed policy to

26

the Monitor and DOJ prior to its implementation;

27

(2) the Monitor and DOJ will have 30 days to review the policy and

28

submit comments, if any, to the County and the Sheriff;

43

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 44 of 58 Page ID #:68

1

(3) if the Monitor and DOJ do not submit any comments within the 30-

2

day period, the County and the Sheriff will begin implementation of

3

the policy no later than 180 days after the expiration of the 30 day-

4

review period or notice that no comments will be forthcoming;

5

(4) if the Monitor or DOJ objects to the proposed policy, the Monitor or

6

DOJ will note the objection in writing to all Parties within the

7

respective review period;

8

(5) ifthere is any objection to the proposed policy, the County and the

9

Sheriff will have 30 days to address the objection(s);

10

(6) if the Monitor and the Parties cannot resolve the objectlon(s), either

11

Party may ask the Court to resolve the matter;

12

(7) the Monitor may extend any time frame within this paragraph by up to

13

15 additional days. Further extensions may be granted by the Monitor

14

with the agreement of both Parties when necessary to permit amicable

15

resolution of objections.

16

(b) If after the Effective Date, the County or the Sheriff is confronted with a

1I · cnt!Cal circumstance reqmnng 1mmedmte actwn, tne county or tne S.heriii may

18 create or substantially revise, and then implement, a policy related to this

19 Agreement without the prior review of the Monitor and DOJ, so long as the

20 review, comment, and objectionprocedures set forth above in subparagraph (a) are

21 followed immediately upon implementation.

22

90. The County and the Sheriff will provide relevant staff with any policy

23 that is created or materially revised after the Effective Date if it relates to the

24 provisions of this Agreement. The County and theSheriff will further document

25 that any such policy has been received by that staff and that such staff has been

26 trained, instructed, or briefed, as appropriate, on that policy.

27

28

44

Case 2:15-cv-05903. Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 45 of 58 Page.ID #:69

1 B. Compliance Coordination Unit·

2

91. The County and the Sheriff will establish and maintain a compliance

3 coordination unit for the duration of this Agreement. The unit will:

4

(a) serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitor and assume

5

primary responsibility for collecting information the Monitor requires

6

to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor;

7

(b) maintain sufficient records to document that the requirements of this

8

Agreement are being properly implemented (e.g., census summaries,

9

policies, procedures, protocols, training materials, investigations,

10

incident reports, tier logs, use-of-force reports);

11

(c) provide written answers by electronic mail or other format when

12

necessary and any documents requested by the Monitor or DOJ

13

concerning implementation of this Agreement in a timely manner;

14

(d) coordinate and monitor compliance and implementation activities,

15

including coordination between Custody and DMH staff, and assist

16

managers in assigning compliance tasks to County or Sheriff

17

personnel; and

18

(e) ensure that the County and the Sheriff notify DOJ and the Monitor of

19

any suspected or apparent suicide within 24 hours and make related

20

reports available to the Monitor and DOJ for inspection.

21

C. Self-Assessments and Reports

22

92. (a) Fifteen days before the end of the reporting period described in

23 Paragraph 109 ofthis Agreement, the County and the Sheriff will provide the

24 Monitor and DOJ a Self-Assessment Status Report that includes:

25

(1) the actions taken by the County and the Sheriff during the review

26

period to implement this Agreement including the status of ongoing

27

and continuous improvement activities;

28

45

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 46 of 58 Page ID #:70

1

(2) responses to concerns or recommendations made in prior reports by

2

the Monitor;

3

(3) a summary of any audits related to the provisions of this Agreement

4

that were completed in the reporting period; and

5

(4) relevant trend data including the infonnation described in Paragraphs

6

61 and 77(a).

7

(b) Self-Assessment Status Reports prepared pursuant to this Paragraph will

8 be treated as confidential and not further disclosed or attached to any court

9 document, unless filed under seal with Court approval, without the consent of the

10 Coun'ty and the Sheriff or by order of the Court. The Monitor, SMEs, and other

11 monitoring staff, however, will be permitted to use the information contained in

12 the Self-Assessment Status Reports to prepare the Monitor's reports to the Court.

13 D. Independent Monitor

14

93. In order to assess and report on the implementation of this Agreement

15 and whether the implementation is having the intended beneficial impact on

16 conditions at the Jails, the Monitor, the SMEs, and their staff will:

17 ·

(a) conduct the audits, reviews, and assessments speciiieci in ri1is

18

Agreement;

19

(b) review County and Sheriff policies, procedures, training curricula, an

20

other documents related to this Agreement developed and

21

implemented pursuant to this Agreement;

22

(c) conduct such additional audits, reviews, and assessments consistent

23

with this Agreement as the Monitor and the Parties jointly agree are

24

appropriate, or in. the case of a dispute which the Parties cannot in

25

good faith resolve, as ordered by the Court; and

26

(d) evaluate the implementation of Section V.S. ofthis Agreement

27

concerning use of force consistent with the Settlement Agreement and

28

Implementation Plan-approved in Rosas.

46

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 47 of 58 Page ID #:71

1

94. The Parties have selected Richard Drooyan as the Independent

2 Monitor. The Monitor and his staff will not, and are not intended to, replace or

3 assmne the role and duties of the County or the Sheriff and will have only the

4 duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by this Agreement.

5

To assess and report whether the provisions of this Agreement have been

6 implemented, and whether the County and the Sheriff are in compliance with the

7 substantive provisions ofthis Agreement, the Monitor will:

8

(a) evaluate the implementation of Section V ("Substantive Provisions")

9

of this Agreement and, where applicable, the Settlement Agreement

10

and Implementation Plan approved in Rosas;

11

(b) conduct specific audits, reviews, and assessments consistent with this

12

Agreement or otherwise if the Parties agree in writing; and

13

(c) prepare reports as provided in this Agreement.

14

95. The Parties have also selected Bruce C. Gage, M.D., and Manuel

15 David Romero as Subject Matter Experts ("SMEs"). The SMEs and their staff will

16 not, and are not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the County or

17 the Sheriff and will have only the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred

18 · by this Agreement. The SMEs will, in conjunction with the Monitor, assess

19 compliance with the substantive provisions of this Agreement by providing

20 expertise within the scope of their subject matters.

21

96. The Monitor and/or SMEs may hire or contract with additional

22 persons with knowledge or expertise not already provided by the SMEs, or where

23 delegation to a subordinate staff member would be appropriate, as reasonably

24 necessary to perform the tasks assigned by this Agreement. The Monitor will

25 notif)rthe County, the Sheriff, and DOJ in writing when the Monitor or SMEs are

26 considering such additional persons. The Parties will have an opportunity, if

27 desired, to interview the candidate(s) and request reasonable information about the

28 candidate's background and experience. If the Parties agree to the Monitor's

47

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 48 of 58 Page ID #:72

· 1 proposal, the Monitor or SMEs will be authorized to hire or contract such

2 additional persons. If the Parties do not agree to the proposal, the Parties will have
3 ten business days to disagree with the proposal in writing. The Partieswill not

4 unreasonably withhold approval. If the Parties are unable to reach agreement

5 within ten business days of receiving notice of this disagreement, the Court will

6 resolve the dispute.

7

97. If not already developed by the Monitor and SMEs and agreed-to by

8 the Parties before the execution of this Agreement, within three months of the

9 appointment of the Monitor and SMEs by the Court, the Monitor and SMEs will

10 develop a plan for conducting the above audits, reviews, and assessments, and will

11 submit that plan to the Parties for review and approval. The plan will:

12

(a) set out a methodology for reviewing each of the substantive

13

provisions ofthis Agreement, including which provisions will be

14

assessed together, if any, and the thresholds for achieving Substantial

15

Compliance; and

16

(b) set out a schedule for conducting the assessments required by this

l/

Agreement.

18

98. The Monitor, SMEs, and any person hired or contracted to assist the

19 Monitor or SMEs will be subject to (a) the supervision and orders of the Court

20 consistent with the terms ofthis Agreement; (b) the terms of this Agreement; (c)

21 any applicable law; and (d) any security protocols while in the Jails.

22

99. The County and the Sheriffwill bear all reasonable fees and costs of

23 the Monitor, the SMEs, and their staff. Travel, lodging, and per diem expenses

24 will be reimbursed at the same rate as provided for County employees. In the

25 event that any dispute arises regarding the reasonableness or payment of the

26. Monitor's, SMEs', or their staffs fees and costs, the Parties and the Monitor will

27 attempt to resolve the dispute cooperatively before seeldng the assistance of the

28 Court.

48

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 49 of 58 Page ID #:73

1

100. At the request ofthe County and the Sheriff, and with the consent of

2 the DOJ, the Monitor, SMEs, and their staff may provide technical assistance.

3 Such assistance may not interfere with the Monitor's or SMEs' duties under this

4 Agreement, create additional duties or obligations that are enforceable under this

5 Agreement, or otherwise alter or modifY the terms of this Agreement.

6 Additionally, whenever the County or the Sheriff identifies and implements its

7 own quality improvement measures that are not related to any of the terms of this

8 Agreement, those quality improvement measures will not be monitored or enforced

9 under this Agreement.

10

101. Should all the Parties agree that the Monitor, a SME, or a member of

11 their staff has exceeded his or her authority or is not fulfilling his or her duties in

12 accordance with this Agreement, the Parties may petition the Court for the

13 immediate removal and replacement of the Monitor, SME, or staff person. After

14 good faith attempts to resolve such issues informally, any Party may petition the

15 Court for the removal of the Monitor, a SME, or any member of their staff, for

16 good cause, which may include, but is not limited to: gross neglect of duties;

17 willful misconduct; inappropriate personal relationship with a Party, any Party

18 employee, or prisoner; conflicts of interest; any criminal conduct; or any

19 significant violations of security protocols during the pendency of this Agreement.

20

l 02. The Parties recognize the Monitor and SMEs may have existing

21 clients who may now be, or in the future may be, adverse to the County or the

22 Sheriff in transactions or litigation. For the duration of this Agreement, however,

23 unless such conflict is waived by all Parties, the Monitor, the SMEs, and their staff

24 will not accept any new employment or retention for consulting services regarding

25 alleged actions or inactions by the County or the Sheriff, or any County or Sheriffs

26 employee, including any actions or inactions involving any prisoner that present a

27 conflict of interest with the Monitor's, SME's, or staff member's responsibilities

28 under this Agreement, including being retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any

49

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 50 of 58 Page ID #:74

1 current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant's or claimant's attorney, in

2 connection with a claim or suit against the County, the Sheriff, or their

3 departments, officers, agents, or employees. Similarly, the Monitor, the SMEs,

4 and their staff will not accept employment or provide consulting services (on a

5 paid or unpaid basis) by any Defendant to this matter to act as a defense witness in

6 . connection with a privateclaim or suit against the County, the Sheriff, or their

7 departments, officers, agents, or employees. This provision does not apply to any

8 proceeding before a court related to performance of contracts or subcontracts for

9 monitoring this Agreement.

10 E. Access and Confidentiality

11

103. With the exception of documents within the attorney-client and

12 attorney-work-product privileges, and notwithstanding the confidentiality

13 restrictions ofthe Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act("HlPAA"),

14 the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civil Code§ 56, et

15 seq.); and California Welfare and Institutions Code§ 5328 (related to

16 confidentiality of mental health records), the Monitor, SMEs, their staff, and the

. 17 · United States, its attorneys, consultants, and agents Will have tull ana compiete

18 access to the Jails and all relevant individuals, facilities, prisoner medical and

19 mental health records, documents, data, and meetings related to the provisions of

20 this Agreement.

21

104. Other than as expressly provided in this Agreement, the Monitor, the

22 SMEs, their staff, and DOJ will maintain confidential all, and will not distribute or

23 disclose any, non-public information provided by the County and the Sheriff

24 pursuant to this Agreement. This Agreement will not be deemed a waiver of any

25 privilege or right the County or the Sheriff may assert, including those recognized

26 at common law or created by statute, rule, or regulation, against any other person

27 or entity with respect to the disclosure of any document or information.

28

50

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 51 of 58 Page ID #:75

1 F. Pubiic Statements, Testimony, and Records

2

105. Except as required by the terms of this Agreement, an order from the

3 Court, the express written agreement of all Parties, or at meetings of the County of

4 Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, the Monitor, SMEs, and their staffwill not

5 make any public or press statements (at a conference or.otherwise), issue findings,

6 offer expert opinion, or testify in any other litigation or proceeding regarding any

7 matter or subject that he or she may have learned as a result of his or her

8 performance under this Agreement. Ifthe Monitor, SMEs, or any of their staff

9 receive a subpoena, he or she will promptly notify the Parties and thereafter advise

10 the subpoenaing court of the terms of this Agreement.

11

106. The Monitor, SMEs, and their staff will be permitted to initiate and

12 receive ex parte communications with all Parties.

13

107. The Monitor, SMEs, and their staff are not a State, County, or local

14 agency, or an agent thereof, and accordingly, the records maintained by them, or

15 any of them, will not be deemed public records subject to public inspection. If the

16 Monitor, SMEs, or any oftheir staff receive a request for inspection of their

17 records related to this Agreement, he or she will promptly notify the Parties.

18

108. This Agreement is enforceable only by the Parties. No person or

19 entity is intended to be a third-party beneficiary of the provisions ofthis

20 Agreement for purposes of any civil, criminal, or administrative action, and

21 accordingly, no person or entity may assert any claim or right as a beneficiary or

22 protected class under this Agreement.

23

G. Monitoring Reports

24

109. Every six months, the Monitor will file public written reports with the

25 Court describing the steps taken by the County and the Sheriff to implement this

26 Agreement and evaluating the extent to which the County and the Sheriff have

27 complied with this Agreement. Specifically, the Monitor and SMEs will evaluate

28 the status of compliance for each substantive provision of this Agreement using the

51

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 52 of 58 Page ID #:76

1 following standards: (1) Substantial Compliance; (2) Partial Compliance; and (3)

2 Non-compliance. In order to assess compliance, the Monitor and SMEs will

3 review a sufficient number of pertinent documents to accurately assess current

4 conditions, interview all relevant staff, interview a sufficient number of prisoners

5 to accurately assess current conditions, and take other reasonable actions consistent

6 with this Agreement, as needed, to fulfill their responsibilities under this

7 . Agreement. The Monitor, the SMEs, and their staff will be responsible for

8 independently verifying representations from the County or the Sheriff regarding

9 progress toward compliance, and examining supporting.documentation. Each

10 monitoring report will describe the steps taken by members of the monitoring team

11 to analyze conditions and assess compliance, including reference to the documents

12 reviewed and individuals interviewed, and the factual basis for the Monitor's and

13·· SMEs' findings. Such reports and fmdings will not be admissible by or against the

14 County or the Sheriff in any proceeding other than a proceeding related to the

15 enforcement of this Agreement initiated and handled exclusively by the County,

16 the Sheriff, or the United States.

17 ·

ll 0. At least JU days betore the antiCipate<i t!lmg oi such reports, tile

18 Monitor will provide the Parties with a draft copy and an opportunity to respond.

19 The Monitor will consider the Parties' responses and make appropriate changes, if

20 any, before filing. The Pmiies may file separate responses with the Court within

21 15 days after the filing by the Monitor although nothing in this Agreement will be

22 construed to require the filing of such responses. All public court filings by the

23 Monitor and any Paiiy will be written with due regard for the privacy interests of

24 individual prisoners and staff and the interest of the County and the Sheriff in

25 protecting against disclosure of information not permitted by this Agreement.

26

111. Except for the provisions of Section V.S. of this Agreement that have

27 different Compliance Periods under the Settlement Agreement, Implementation

28 Plan, and Monitoring Protocols approved in Rosas, upon the Monitor's and SMEs'

52

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 53 of 58 Page ID #:77

1 conclusion that the County and the Sheriff have achieved and maintained

2 Substantial Compliance with a substantive provision of this Agreement for a perio

3 of twelve (12) consecutive months, the Monitor and SMEs will no longer be

4 required to assess or report on that provision. Where the Monitor and SMEs

5 conclude that the County and the Sheriffhave achieved and maintained Substantial

6 Compliance with a substantive provision of this Agreement, as described

7 immediately above, at one Jail facility but not at other facilities, the Monitor and

8 SMEs will no longer be required to assess or report on that provision as it applies

9 to the facility found to be in sustained compliance. The Parties expect that there

10 will be multiple independent operative compliance periods under the supervision

11 of the Monitor.

12

112. If the Monitor identifies a critical and time sensitive issue that the

13 County or the Sheriff should address during a six-month reporting period and that

14 should not be delayed until the time the Monitor must provide the Parties with a

15 draft copy of the monitoring report, the Monitor will provide the Parties with a

16 verbal report on the critical issue as soon as possible, and the Monitor will provide·

17 a written report to the Parties within 30 days ofthe Monitor's identification of the

18 critical issue.

19 II. Court Jurisdiction, Modification, Enforcement, and Termination

20

113. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the implementation of this

21 Agreement at the existing Jails or any other facility used to replace or supplement

22 the Jails for all purposes.

23

114. The County and the Sheriffwill ensure that all of the terms in this

24 Agreement are implemented. Unless otherwise provided in a specific provision of

25 this Agreement, the implementation of this Agreement will begin immediately

26 upon the Effective Date.

27

28

53

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 54 of 58 Page ID #:78

1

115. Unless otherwise agreed to under a specific provision of this

2 Agreement, the County and the Sheriff will implement all provisions of this

3 Agreement within six months of the Effective Date.

4

116. To ensure that the substantive provisions of this Agreement are

5 implemented in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Court will retain

6 jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement only until either:

7

(a) the County and the Sheriff have achieved and maintained Substantial

8

Compliance with each and every substantive provision of this

9

Agreement for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months (or other

10

time period provided in a specific provision of this Agreement or the

11

relevant Compliance Period under the Settlement Agreement,

12

Implementation Plan, and Monitoring Protocols approved in Rosas);

13

or

14

(b) the Monitor, with Court approval, detennines that the overall

15

.objectives and goals ofthis Agreement have been met even where the

16

specific requirements of substantive provisions of this Agreement may

1 I

be only m J:'artlal Compliance.

18

Either of the conditions described in sub-paragraphs (a) or (b) above will be

19 deemed to fully satisfy this Agreement. At that time, the County and the Sheriff

20 may seek to terminate this Agreement with the Court consistent with the
21 requirements ofthe Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b).

22

117. The United States acknowledges the good faith of the County and the

23 Sheriff in committing to the reforms set forth in this Agreement. The United

24 States, however, reserves the right to seek enforcement of the provisions of this

25 Agreement with the Court if it detennines that the County or the Sheriff has failed

26 to substantially comply with any substantive provisions of this Agreement. Before

27 pursuing any remedy with the Court, the United States agrees to give written notice

28 to the County and the Sheriff in accordance with the Local Rules ofthe Central

54

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 55 of 58 Page ID #:79

1 District ofCalifomia. The County and the Sheriff will have 30 days from receipt

2 of such notice to cure the alleged failure (or such additional time as is reasonable

3 due to the nature ofthe issue and agreed upon by the Parties). During the 30-day

4 period, the Parties will meet and confer in good faith to resolve any disputes

5 regarding the alleged failure or to otherwise explore a joint resolution. The

6 Monitor and SMEs may assist the Parties in reaching a mutually agreeable

7 resolution to the alleged compliance failure, including facilitating conference

8 meetings and providing relevant factual assessments.

9

118. In case of an emergency posing an imminent and serious threat to the

10 health or safety of any prisoner or staff member at the Jails, the United States may

11 omit the notice and cure requirements set forth above and seek enforcement ofthe

12 Agreement with the Court.

13

119. The Parties may jointly stipulate to make changes, modifications, and

14 amendments to this Agreement, which will be effective absent further action from

15 the Court, 30 days after a stipulation signed by all ofthe Parties has been filed with

16 the Court. Any Party may seek to modifY this Agreement with the Court if that

17 Party establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that a significant change in

18 the law or factual conditions warrant the modification and that the proposed

19 modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances.

20

120. The Parties agree to defend the provisions of this Agreement. The

21 Parties will notify each other of any court or administrative challenge to this

22 Agreement. In the event any provision of this Agreement is challenged in any stat

23 court, removal to a federal court shall be sought by the Parties.

24

121. The County and the Sheriff agree to promptly notifY DOJ if any term

25 of this Agreement becomes the subject of co]lective bargaining consultation and to

26 consult with DOJ in a timely manner regarding the position the County or the

27 Sheriff takes in any collective bargaining consultation connected with this

28 Agreement.

55

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 56 of 58 Page ID #:80

I

will 122. This Agreement constitute the entire integrated agreement of the

'
2 Parties and will supersede the 2002 Memorandum of Agreement Between the

3 United States and Los Angeles County, Califomia, Regarding Mental Health

4 Services at the Los Angeles County Jail ("2002 MOA"). No prior or

5 contemporaneous communications, oral or written, will be relevant or admissible

6 for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein, in this litigation

7 or in any other proceeding.

8

123. The Agreement will be applicable to, and binding upon, all Parties,

9 their officers, agents, employees, assigns, and their" successors in office.

10

124. Failure by any Party to enforce this entire Agreement or any provision

11 thereof with respect to any deadline or any other provision herein will not be

12 construed as a waiver of the Party's right to enforce other deadlines or provisions

13 of this Agreement.

14

VII. STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE PRISON LITIGATION

15

REFORM ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 3626

16

125. The Parties stipulate and the Courtfinds, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

l7 3626(a), that although this matter was not actually litigated or resolved on tile

18 merits, the prospective relief in this Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no

19 further than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights as alleged by the

20 United States in its Complaint, is the least intrusive means necessary to correct

21 those alleged violations, and will not have an adverse impact on public safety or

22 the operation of a criminal justice system. If the Court does not make the requisite

23 findings and the United States' Complaint is dismissed with prejudice, the Parties

24 agree that this Agreement will become a binding Memorandum of Agreement that

25 will supersede the 2002 MOA. Any admission made for purposes ofthis

26 Agreement is not admissible if presented by third parties in another proceeding.

27

28

56

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 57 of 58 Page ID #:81

1 Respectfully submitted this_ day of_·__, 2015.

2

3

4 For the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

5

LORETTA E. LYNCH

6

Attorney General

7 /}-

8

.

9 United States Attorney

10 LEONW. WEIDMAN
11 Assistant United States Attorney 12 Chief, vi! Division

Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney · General

13

14

-MARlE LYON MONTELEONE JUDITH C. PRESTON

Assistant United States Attorney 15 Assistant Division Chief

Acting Chief

16 Civil Rights Unit Chief, Civil Division

17

18

19

.COON Special Counsel

20

LUIS E. SAUCEDO CATHLEEN S. TRAINOR

Trial Attorneys

.

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

·

Special Litigation Section

23

950

Avenue, NW

PHB 5026

24

Washington, D.C. 20530

25

26

27
28

57

Case 2:15-cv-05903 Document 4-1 Filed 08/05/15 Page 58 of 58 Page ID #:82

1 For the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the LO

2 SHERIFF, in his official capacity:

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11
12

13

14 15 SO ORDERED this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _, 2015.

16

ll

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
28

58

 
 Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:1

1 VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

2 JUDITH C. PRESTON (MD Bar)

3 STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM (NY Bar Reg. #1901958) CHRISTY E. LOPEZ (DC Bar #473612)
4 R. TAMAR HAGLER (CA Bar #189441)

5 CHARLES HART (NY Bar Reg. # 4282281)

6 NORRINDA BROWN HAYAT (DC Bar #479640 ) CARRIE PAGNUCCO (DC Bar #1000551)

7 KATHRYN LADEWSKI (MI Bar #P74431)

8 Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice
9 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

10 Washington, DC 20530

Tel: (202) 305-3192 11 Fax: (202) 514-0212

12 Email: charles.hart@usdoj.gov

13

norrinda.hayat@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

14

15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17

18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

19

)

Plaintiff,

)

20

)

21

v.

)

22

)

THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

23 and THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY )

24 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

)

)

25

Defendants.

)

26

)

) 27 ____________________________________)

28

No. CV 15-03174 COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:2

1

Plaintiff the United States of America (“United States”) brings this civil cause of

2 action against Defendants the County of Los Angeles (the “County”) and the Los

3 Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD” or “the Department”) under the

4 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and

5 Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing

6 Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq., (“the Fair Housing Act” or

7 “FHA”). The United States brings this action to remedy a pattern or practice of

8 conduct by law enforcement officers of LASD, an agent of the County, that deprives

9 persons of rights, privileges, and immunities secured and protected by the United

10 States Constitution and the Fair Housing Act.

11

The United States alleges as follows:

12

13

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

15 and 1345 and 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a).

16

2. The United States is authorized to initiate this action against the County of

17 Los Angeles and LASD (“Defendants”) under the Violent Crime Control and Law

18 Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”) and the Fair Housing

19 Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a). The declaratory and injunctive relief sought by the United

20 States is authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 14141(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d). Monetary

21 damages for persons harmed by defendants’ discriminatory practices, and a civil

22 penalty to vindicate the public interest, are authorized under the Fair Housing Act, 42

23 U.S.C. § 3614(d).

24

3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants are

25 located in the Central District of California, and all of the events, actions, or omissions

26 giving rise to these claims occurred in the Central District of California.

27

PARTIES

28

4. Plaintiff is the United States of America.

-2-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:3

1

5. Defendant County of Los Angeles is a municipal corporation located in

2 the Central District of California.

3

6. Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is a law

4 enforcement agency funded and operated by the County of Los Angeles.

5

7. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department contracts with the Cities of

6 Lancaster and Palmdale, among others, to provide local police protection in those

7 municipalities.

8

8. The United States of America reserves any claims it may have under the

9 Fair Housing Act against the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles, the

10 County of Los Angeles as it relates to the Housing Authority of the County of Los

11 Angeles, the City of Lancaster and the City of Palmdale.

12

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13

9. The Antelope Valley is a region in northern Los Angeles County and

14 includes the Cities of Lancaster and Palmdale.

15

10. LASD provides policing services to Lancaster and Palmdale pursuant to

16 separate, identical agreements, called “City-County Municipal Law Enforcement

17 Services Agreements.” Each agreement states that “the Sheriff or his designee shall

18 serve as Chief of Police of the City and shall perform the functions of the Chief of

19 Police at the direction of the City.” Section 2.1, Administration of Personnel. The

20 agreements provide that LASD officers “shall be deemed to be [] officer[s] or

21 employee[s] of the City while performing such service for the City.” Section 2.6.

22

11. During the time relevant to the allegations in this Complaint, LASD

23 assigned a total of approximately 400 deputies to stations in the Cities of Lancaster and

24 Palmdale.

25

12. As set forth in the Department of Justice’s June 28, 2013, findings letter,

26 attached hereto as Exhibit A, LASD engages in a pattern or practice of misconduct by

27 law enforcement officials in its Antelope Valley stations in the Cities of Lancaster and

28 Palmdale (“LASD-AV”). This pattern or practice of misconduct violates the

-3-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:4

1 Constitution and federal law through: pedestrian and vehicle stops that violate the

2 Fourth Amendment; stops that appear motivated by racial bias, in violation of the

3 Fourteenth Amendment and federal statutory law; the use of unreasonable force in

4 violation of the Fourth Amendment; and discrimination against African-American

5 residents of the Cities of Lancaster and Palmdale on the basis of race by making

6 housing unavailable, altering the terms and conditions of housing, and coercing,

7 intimidating, and interfering with their housing rights, in violation of the Fair Housing

8 Act.

9 A. The Antelope Valley Stations of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department

10

Engage in a Pattern or Practice of Police Misconduct that Violates the

11

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

12

1. LASD’s Antelope Valley Stations Detain Individuals Without

13

Legal Authority

14

13. LASD deputies routinely fail to articulate facts sufficient to support the

15 predicate of reasonable suspicion required for a detention consistent with the Fourth

16 Amendment under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1986). Deputy log entries instead

17 provide conclusory statements such as: “persons acting suspiciously,” “925” (internal

18 LASD radio code for “person acting suspiciously”), or “hanging out in narco area.”

19

14. In one instance, for example, a deputy detained and ran a warrant check

20 on two individuals apparently based solely on the fact that they were in a high

21 narcotics area.

22

15. Antelope Valley deputies routinely detain community members, including

23 domestic violence victims and minor traffic offenders, in the backseats of patrol cars

24 without any individualized assessment of danger or suspicion, as required by the

25 Fourth Amendment.

26

16. During one encounter, for example, two Palmdale deputies handcuffed

27 and detained a domestic violence victim in the back of a patrol car for no articulated

28 reason.

-4-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:5

1

17. In another instance, Palmdale deputies stopped a car for a broken license

2 plate light and detained all three passengers without apparent justification. Two

3 individuals were detained in the backseat of a patrol car while the deputies checked

4 their identification. Although LASD requires documentation of the need for a backseat

5 detention, this backseat detention was not documented at all.

6

18. An LASD sergeant stated that, contrary to LASD policy, back seat

7 detentions are conducted as a matter of course.

8

2. LASD’s Antelope Valley Stations Engage in a Pattern or Practice

9

of Unreasonable Force that Violates the Fourth Amendment to the

10

Constitution.

11

19. LASD deputies in the Antelope Valley engage in a pattern or practice of

12 deploying unreasonable force with respect to the use of unreasonable and/or retaliatory

13 force against handcuffed individuals and the unnecessary use of fist strikes to the head

14 and face of handcuffed individuals, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

15

20. In many instances, the unreasonableness of officer use of force is readily

16 apparent from the officer’s own use of force report.

17

21. LASD-AV officers use excessive force against individuals who have

18 already been taken into custody, handcuffed, or otherwise restrained and are inside of

19 patrol cars. These uses of force are unjustified based on the diminished threat posed by

20 the restrained suspects, and often inflict significant injuries.

21

22. LASD-AV officers in the Antelope Valley use unreasonable force in

22 retaliation for being treated disrespectfully, including using unreasonable force against

23 individuals who are handcuffed or where the threat posed by the individual has passed.

24

23. LASD-AV officers strike handcuffed individuals in the head and face

25 without adequate legal justification unnecessarily causing serious bodily harm.

26

24. This pattern or practice of excessive force pervades LASD-AV’s law

27 enforcement operations. DOJ’s review of deputy statements in LASD-AV’s 326 use of

28 force reports for the period August 1, 2010 to August 1, 2011, revealed that a number

-5-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:6

1 of the incidents involved force exceeding the limits prescribed by the Fourth

2 Amendment. Examples of unreasonable force are described in Exhibit A, the

3 Department of Justice’s June 28, 2013, findings letter.

4

25. Further evidence of the pattern or practice exists in other records,

5 including accounts of excessive force contained in civilian complaints, community

6 member interviews, and prior settled and pending civil lawsuits.

7

3. LASD Deputies Stop and Search African-American and Latino

8

Residents in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

9

26. LASD stops and searches of African Americans and Latinos in the

10 Antelope Valley are based in part on impermissible consideration of race or ethnicity.

11

27. Expert regression analyses of stop and search activity in the Antelope

12 Valley indicate unlawful bias in LASD law enforcement activity. These analyses show

13 that African Americans and, to a lesser extent, Latinos, are more likely to be stopped

14 or searched than whites in the Antelope Valley for reasons that appear due at least in

15 part to race or ethnicity.

16

28. With regard to pedestrian stops and searches, regression analysis of

17 LASD data for 2011 shows that the stop rate of minority pedestrians is

18 disproportionately high in the Antelope Valley. In Palmdale, African-American and

19 Latino pedestrians are stopped at a rate 33% higher than if there were no racial

20 differences, and, in Lancaster, African-American pedestrians are stopped at a rate

21 38.5% higher than if there were no racial differences.

22

29. The aggressive pedestrian stop rate of African Americans cannot be

23 justified by demonstrating that the higher rate of stops resulted in discovery of more

24 contraband. In fact, regression analysis indicates that, in Lancaster, there is about a

25 50% lower rate of contraband seizure for African-American pedestrians compared to

26 whites. As indicated by the low contraband seizure rate for African Americans, LASD

27 deputies in the Antelope Valley are less accurate in assessing suspicion for searches of

28 African Americans, and the greater frequency of searches of African Americans cannot

-6-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 7 of 17 Page ID #:7

1 be explained by a greater likelihood that they are carrying contraband (such as illicit

2 drugs or weapons).

3

30. Regression analysis of LASD data for 2011 shows that, following vehicle

4 stops, the search rate of the persons of African Americans in the Antelope Valley is

5 10-15 percentage points higher than that of whites, and the disparity in the search rate

6 of Latinos in the Antelope Valley is also statistically significant. Additionally, across

7 the Antelope Valley, LASD searches the vehicles of African Americans at an 8-14

8 percentage point higher rate than whites. The analysis also revealed that, in vehicle

9 stops, Latinos and their vehicles are searched at a statistically significant disparate rate.

10

31. The data also show a clear racial disparity for African Americans when

11 stopped for offenses where law enforcement discretion is greatest. Such charges

12 include offenses such as crossing against a traffic light, jaywalking, failing to yield

13 right of way, or walking on the wrong side of the street. With regard to highly

14 discretionary pedestrian stops and searches, regression analysis of LASD data for 2011

15 indicates that that an African-American pedestrian in Lancaster is over 25% more

16 likely than a white pedestrian to be stopped for a discretionary offense.

17

32. During the DOJ investigation, one LASD supervisor told representatives

18 from the Civil Rights Division that all African Americans who recently moved to the

19 Antelope Valley were gang members. The supervisor, like other LASD supervisors, is

20 responsible for reviewing and approving the actions of multiple deputies within his

21 span of control.

22 B. LASD Enforcement of the Housing Choice Voucher Program in the

23

Antelope Valley Reflected Bias and Violated the Fair Housing Act and the

24

Fourth Amendment

25

1. The Housing Choice Voucher Program and the Antelope Valley

26

33. Between 2004 and 2011, LASD devoted extensive resources to policing

27 Antelope Valley participants of the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher

28 Program.

-7-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 8 of 17 Page ID #:8

1

34. The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (“voucher program” or

2 “Section 8”) is funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development

3 (“HUD”) and administered by local public housing authorities.

4

35. In the Antelope Valley, the voucher program is administered by the Los

5 Angeles County Housing authority (“HACoLA” or “housing authority”).

6

36. The voucher program is intended to offer a choice in housing and to

7 provide an opportunity for low-income citizens to relocate to higher opportunity

8 neighborhoods such as those found in the Antelope Valley.

9

37. HACoLA provides housing vouchers to approximately 23,000 low-

10 income families (“voucher holders”) throughout Los Angeles County. In 2010,

11 approximately 18% of voucher holders served by HACoLA resided in Lancaster and

12 Palmdale.

13

38. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of African-American Section 8

14 families in Lancaster tripled from 510 to 1530. The number of African-American

15 Section 8 families in Palmdale grew from 455 to 825.

16

39. By 2010, 71% of Section 8 voucher holders in Lancaster and Palmdale

17 were African American, compared to approximately 40% of Section 8 households

18 throughout HACoLA’s jurisdiction.

19

40. The increase in African-American voucher-holder households coincided

20 with a substantial shift in the racial demographics of the Antelope Valley. According

21 to the United States Census, between 1990 and 2010, the proportion of the population

22 that is white decreased substantially in both Lancaster and Palmdale, from nearly 80%

23 in each city to under 50% in each.

24

41. Residents and officials in Lancaster and Palmdale were vocal in their

25 opposition to increasing numbers of Section 8 voucher holders in their cities,

26 particularly the increase in the number of African-American voucher holders.

27

28

-8-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 9 of 17 Page ID #:9

1

2. LASD-AV’s Enforcement of the Section 8 Voucher Program

2

Discriminates Against African Americans in Violation of the Fair

3

Housing Act

4

42. Beginning in 2004, in response to racially-charged opposition to the

5 growing presence of African-American voucher holders in Lancaster and Palmdale and

6 amid a climate of tolerance for racially derogatory conduct within the LASD, LASD-

7 AV teamed with HACoLA to pursue enforcement of the voucher program and of the

8 administrative requirements of the contract between HACoLA and voucher holders.

9

43. LASD-AV’s enforcement of Section 8 targeted African-American

10 voucher holders.

11

44. LASD-AV deputies joined HACoLA investigators and acted

12 independently to pursue enforcement efforts at voucher program households, including

13 by intimidating, harassing, and facilitating the termination of voucher holders from the

14 program. LASD departed from ordinary procedures employed elsewhere in the county

15 by:

16

a. accompanying HACoLA on a disproportionately large percentage of

17

compliance checks in the Antelope Valley as compared to other areas of Los

18

Angeles County where HACoLA’s and LASD’s jurisdictions overlap;

19

b. sending deputies, sometimes as many as nine, on HACoLA compliance

20

checks of the homes of voucher holders in the absence of any legitimate

21

justification;

22

c. questioning voucher holders about their compliance with the voucher

23

program’s rules;

24

d. referring voucher holders for criminal prosecution for voucher program

25

violations;

26

e. independently using law enforcement tools, such as probation and parole

27

checks and arrest warrants, to obtain information about voucher program

28

violations;

-9-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 10 of 17 Page ID #:10

1

f. failing to properly issue Miranda warnings even when deputies had a

2

legitimate reason to enter voucher-holder homes; and

3

g. providing confidential information about voucher holders to third parties.

4

45. LASD deputies improperly comingled their law enforcement functions

5 with HACoLA’s administrative process and participated in HACoLA investigations

6 without justification.

7

46. As a result of these practices, LASD deputies were able to interview

8 people and conduct searches before the individuals understood their rights, including

9 that they might be incriminating themselves by participating in the housing contract

10 compliance check.

11

47. LASD-AV deputies’ questions often had no purpose other than to

12 substantiate voucher program violations. LASD deputies also used information

13 gathered during these administrative compliance checks to further criminal

14 investigations based solely on the voucher holders’ alleged voucher program

15 violations.

16

48. LASD’s role in the enforcement of the voucher program’s rules was

17 motivated, at least in part, by the unsubstantiated perception among some members of

18 the Antelope Valley community, including public officials, press, residents and

19 deputies themselves, that African Americans in the voucher program had brought

20 increased crime to the region.

21

49. LASD-AV’s enforcement efforts were part of racially biased opposition

22 to African-American voucher holders moving to and living in Lancaster and Palmdale.

23

50. As a result of LASD’s role in the enforcement of the voucher program in

24 Lancaster and Palmdale, voucher holders in the Antelope Valley were subjected to far

25 more intrusive and intimidating searches of their homes, and in some cases, harsher

26 administrative or criminal consequences of those searches, than voucher holders

27 elsewhere in the county.

28

-10-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 11 of 17 Page ID #:11

1 C. LASD’s Inadequate Accountability Systems Help Perpetuate Unlawful

2

Policing

3

51. While many LASD policies and practices are appropriate, some poor

4 LASD policies and practices, and a failure to adhere to good policy and training,

5 permit and facilitate the unlawful conduct described above. LASD’s accountability

6 systems, for instance, do not sufficiently detect or prevent unlawful conduct in the

7 Antelope Valley, and LASD does not properly consider and resolve complaints from

8 Antelope Valley community members who allege mistreatment by deputies. LASD’s

9 early warning system does not adequately identify or effectively respond to Antelope

10 Valley deputies with repeated complaints or other histories indicating a need for

11 intervention to prevent future violations of constitutional rights.

12

52. Of the 180 misconduct complaints made by civilians over a one-year

13 period in the Antelope Valley, only one was formally investigated as an administrative

14 investigation. That case resulted in criminal charges being filed against the involved

15 deputy. Among the other 179 complaints were several allegations of significant

16 misconduct, including unreasonable force and discriminatory policing. LASD

17 minimized the seriousness of discrimination complaints by failing to investigate any as

18 a serious complaint that could potentially result in discipline.

19

53. Nearly all civilian complaints of misconduct by deputies are resolved at

20 the unit level through “service reviews” rather than as formal administrative

21 investigations. By official policy, service reviews may not result in formal discipline

22 unless elevated to an administrative investigation. Only official administrative

23 investigations, which are primarily conducted by LASD’s Internal Affairs Bureau

24 (IAB), may result in formal discipline.

25

54. LASD’s practice of handling complaints of serious misconduct as service

26 reviews allows deputies, even those with histories of serious civilian complaints, to

27 evade investigation and discipline, which fundamentally undermines meaningful

28 accountability.

-11-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 12 of 17 Page ID #:12

1

55. Supervisors often also fail to investigate the full range of allegations

2 referenced by a civilian in his or her complaint, despite obvious allegations of

3 misconduct. There are instances, for example, where a complainant specifically

4 alleged that a deputy engaged in racially discriminatory behavior, yet the supervisor’s

5 investigation failed to address this allegation. Allegations of unreasonable force that

6 become apparent during the investigation of a less serious offense also are not always

7 investigated. In one instance, for example, when the reporting party gave a more

8 fulsome explanation of the incident subsequent to the initial complaint, he revealed

9 that the deputy also used force by kicking and pushing him. The supervisor did not

10 categorize the complaint as a force complaint, further investigate the allegation, and

11 request that the investigation be categorized as an administrative investigation since a

12 use of force policy violation could result in discipline.

13

56. Despite policies that require mandatory referral of all allegations of racial

14 discrimination to the Internal Affairs Bureau for formal investigation, the Antelope

15 Valley stations tolerate racially derogatory conduct by failing to elevate discrimination

16 complaints so that discipline, if the allegations are founded, can be imposed.

17

57. LASD sets an inappropriately high bar even to investigate allegations of

18 discriminatory treatment or racial bias. Absent an admission or recording, witnessing

19 deputies invariably state that they “did not hear” offensive language, and LASD

20 consistently credits the deputy’s version over the civilian’s account, notwithstanding

21 objective evidence.

22

58. Even where supervisors find that the alleged conduct occurred, they do

23 not sustain the complaint, instead finding only that the employee’s behavior “could

24 have been better.”

25

59. LASD’s system for conducting service reviews perpetuates patterns of

26 unlawful community interactions and provides disincentives with regard to LASD’s

27 policies prohibiting bias. This has the effect of diminishing and devaluing allegations

28 of discrimination made by civilians. When assessed within the totality of the

-12-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 13 of 17 Page ID #:13

1 circumstances, LASD’s failure to appropriately handle discriminatory policing

2 complaints provides evidence of an equal protection violation, adding to the statistical

3 evidence of bias. LASD has not yet implemented or corrected systems as necessary to

4 routinely detect, correct, and prevent the above-noted patterns and practices of

5 unconstitutional conduct. The policies, training, and systems necessary to correct

6 these patterns and practices of unconstitutional conduct are set out in the Settlement

7 Agreement attached as Exhibit B. This Settlement Agreement will ensure that the

8 policies, training, and accountability systems needed to correct the identified patterns

9 and practices of unconstitutional conduct are implemented and sustained.

10

60. Upon information and belief, and in part because LASD has not yet

11 implemented the measures and systems set out in the attached Settlement Agreement,

12 many of the patterns or practices of unconstitutional conduct in the LASD’s Antelope

13 Valley stations continue.

14

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

15

DEFENDANTS’ LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES VIOLATE

16

SECTION 14141 AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

17

61. The United States re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations

18 set forth above.

19

62. The United States is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 14141(b) to seek

20 declaratory and equitable relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of law enforcement

21 officer conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or

22 protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

23

63. Defendants and their agents, including LASD deputies, have intentionally

24 discriminated against African-American and Latino persons in Los Angeles County on

25 the basis of their race, ethnicity, or national origin.

26

64. Defendants’ discriminatory law enforcement practices and those of their

27 agents constitute a pattern or practice of depriving persons of rights protected by the

28

-13-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 14 of 17 Page ID #:14

1 Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

2 Constitution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a).

3

65. On information and belief, unless Defendants are restrained by this Court,

4 Defendants will continue to engage in the illegal conduct averred herein, or other

5 similar illegal conduct, against African Americans and Latinos in the Antelope Valley.

6

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

7

DEFENDANTS’ LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES VIOLATE

8

SECTION 14141 AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

9

66. The United States re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations

10 set forth above.

11

67. The United States is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 14141(b) to seek

12 declaratory and equitable relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of law enforcement

13 officer conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or

14 protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

15

68. Defendants and their agents, including LASD deputies, have unreasonably

16 seized numerous persons in Los Angeles County. These unreasonable seizures include

17 seizures made without probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

18

69. Defendants and their agents, including LASD deputies, use force that is

19 objectively unreasonable against individuals.

20

70. The unreasonable seizures made by Defendants and their agents constitute

21 a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives persons of

22 their rights under the Fourth Amendments, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a).

23

71. On information and belief, unless Defendants are restrained by this Court,

24 Defendants will continue to engage in the illegal conduct averred herein, or other

25 similar illegal conduct targeted against the people of the Antelope Valley.

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

-14-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 15 of 17 Page ID #:15

1

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

2

DEFENDANTS’ LAW ENFORCMENT ACTIVITIES VIOLATE

3

THE FAIR HOUSING ACT

4

72. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth

5 above.

6

73. The houses and apartments of voucher holders are dwellings within the

7 meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(b).

8

74. The conduct of Defendants described above constitutes:

9

a. A denial of housing or making housing unavailable because of race, in

10

violation of Section 804(a) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a);

11

b. Discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of a dwelling,

12

or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because

13

of race, in violation of Section 804(b) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §

14

3604(b); and

15

c. Coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference with persons in the exercise or

16

enjoyment of, or on account of their having exercised or enjoyed, their rights

17

under Section 804 of the Fair Housing Act, in violation of Section 818 of the

18

Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617.

19

75. The conduct of Defendants described above constitutes:

20

a. A pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights granted by

21

the Fair Housing Act, in violation of 42 U.S.C.§ 3614(a); or

22

b. A denial to a group of persons of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act,

23

which raises an issue of general public importance, in violation of 42 U.S.C.

24

§ 3614(a).

25

76. Persons who may have been victims of the Defendants’ discriminatory

26 practices include African-American voucher holders and members of their households

27 in the Antelope Valley. Such persons are aggrieved persons as defined in 42 U.S.C. §

28 3602(i), and may have suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s conduct.

-15-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 16 of 17 Page ID #:16

1

77. Defendant’s conduct was intentional, willful, or taken with reckless

2 disregard for the rights of others.

3

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

4 WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court:

5

78. Declare that the Defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of

6 conduct by LASD officers that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities

7 secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in violation of §

8 14141 and the FHA;

9

79. Order the Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees to refrain

10 from engaging in any of the predicate acts forming the basis of the pattern or practice

11 of conduct described herein;

12

80. Order the Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees to adopt and

13 implement systems that identify, correct, and prevent the unlawful conduct described

14 herein that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by

15 the Constitution or laws of the United States;

16

81. Order the Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees to take such

17 action as may be necessary to restore all persons aggrieved by the Defendants’

18 discriminatory housing practices to the position they would have occupied but for such

19 discriminatory conduct;

20

82. Award monetary damages, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(B), to all

21 persons harmed by the Defendants’ discriminatory practices;

22

83. Assess a civil penalty against the Defendants to vindicate the public

23 interest, in an amount authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(C); and

24

84. Order such other appropriate relief as the interests of justice may require.

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

-16-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 17 of 17 Page ID #:17

1 Respectfully submitted this 28th day of April, 2015.

2
LORETTA E. LYNCH

3

Attorney General

4
5 STEPHANIE YONEKURA 6 Acting United States Attorney
7
8 LEON W. WEIDMAN 9 Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Civil Division
10

_____/s/_________________ VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
_____/s/_____________________ JUDITH C. PRESTON Acting Chief, Special Litigation Section

11

_______/s/________________________ ______/s/____________________ 12 ROBYN-MARIE LYON MONTELEONE STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM

13 Assistant United States Attorney

Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement

14 Assistant Division Chief Civil Rights Unit Chief, Civil Division
15

Section _______/s/_______________________

16

CHRISTY E. LOPEZ

Deputy Chief, Special Litigation Section
17

18

_______/s/________________________

19

R. TAMAR HAGLER

Deputy Chief, Housing and Civil

20

Enforcement Section

21

______/s/________________________

22

CHARLES HART

23

Trial Attorney, Special Litigation Section

24
______/s/_________________________

25

NORRINDA BROWN HAYAT

26

CARRIE PAGNUCCO

KATHRYN LADEWSKI

27

Trial Attorneys, Housing and Civil

28

Enforcement Section

-17-

 
 Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 58 Page ID #:126

1 VANITAGUPTA

2

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General JUDITH C. PRESTON (MD Bar)

3 STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM (NY Bar Reg. #1901958)

4 CHRISTY E. LOPEZ (DC Bar #473612)

R. TAMAR HAGLER (CA Bar #189441)

5 CHARLES HART (NY Bar Reg. # 4282281)

6 NORRINDA BROWN HAYAT (DC Bar #479640)

7

CARRIE PAGNUCCO (DC Bar #1000551) KATHRYN LADEWSKI (MI Bar #P74431)

8 Civil Rights Division

9 U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

10 Washington, DC 20530

11 Tel: (202) 305-3192

12

Fax: (202) 514-0212 Email: charles.hart@usdoj.gov

13

norrinda.hayat@usdoj .gov

14 Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

19

)

Plaintiff,

)

20

)

21

v.

)

22

) THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

23 and THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY )

24 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

)

)

25

Defendants.

)

26

)

)

27

No. _ CV_15_ -03_ 174_ SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

28

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 58 Page ID #:127

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2

The United States, the County of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles Sheriffs

3 Department ("LASD") (collectively "the Parties") enter into a Settlement Agreement

4 ("Agreement") with the goal of ensuring that police services are delivered to the

5 people of Lancaster and Palmdale, and the surrounding unincorporated areas, in a

6 manner that fully complies with the Constitution and laws of the United States,

7 effectively ensures public and deputy safety, and promotes public confidence in LASD

8 and its deputies. The Parties also recognize that the County of Los Angeles' law

9 enforcement officers often work under difficult circumstances, risking their physical

10 safety and well-being for the public good.

11

For these reasons, and noting the general principle that settlements are to be

12 encouraged, particularly settlements between government entities, the Parties agree to

13 implement this Agreement under the following terms and conditions.

14

The United States has filed a complaint in the Federal District Court for the

15 Central District of California pursuant to the authority granted to the United States

16 Department of Justice ("DOJ") under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 to seek declaratory or

17 equitable relief to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers

18 that deprives individuals of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

19 Constitution or federal law. The complaint is also filed pursuant to the Fair Housing

20 Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a), which grants DOJ the authority to seek declaratory,

21 equitable, and monetary relief to remedy a pattern of practice of housing

22 discrimination. LASD does not admit or agree with DOJ' s findings and conclusions.

23 Nothing in this Agreement will be construed as an acknowledgment, agreement,

24 admission, statement, or evidence of liability ofthe County, LASD, or any of its

25 deputies or officials under 42 U.S.C § 14141, the Safe Streets Act, Title VI, or the Fair

26 Housing Act. LASD enters into the Agreement because it wishes to ensure that its

27 department is functioning at an exceptional level and that it has positive relationships

28 with all its communities.

-2-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 58 Page ID #:128

1

II. DEFINITIONS

2

1. "LASD-AV" or "Antelope Valley stations" means the Los Angeles

3 County Sheriffs Department Lancaster Station and Palmdale Station of the Antelope

4 Valley, and these stations' agents, deputies, supervisors, and employees (both sworn

5 and unsworn).

6

2. "County" means the County of Los Angeles, including its agents,

7 deputies, and employees.

8

3. "DOJ" means the United States Department of Justice's Civil Rights

9 Division and its agents and employees.

10

4. "Court" means the United States District Judge for the Central District of

11 California presiding over this case.

12

5. "Active resistance" means a subject's physical actions to defeat a deputy's

13 attempt at control and to avoid being taken into custody, such as attacking or striking a

14 deputy. Verbal statements, bracing, tensing, pulling away, or fleeing the scene, do not

15 alone constitute active resistance.

16

6. "Administrative investigations" mean investigations conducted by the

17 Internal Affairs Bureau or Palmdale or Lancaster unit-level investigations.

18 Administrative investigations can result in formal discipline.

19

7. "Backseat detention" means restraining a person's freedom by placing

20 him or her in the backseat of a patrol car for any period of time.

21

8. "Community Advisory Committee" means the group of community

22 members currently working with the LASD's Antelope Valley Stations to advise and

23 consult on community related policing issues and assist with the implementation of

24 this agreement as enumerated in Section VII.

25

9. "Defensive resistance" means a subject's attempts to evade deputy

26 attempts to control, including pulling away from an officer's grasp or fleeing the scene.

27

10. "Discriminatory policing" means selective enforcement or non-

28 enforcement of the law, including the selecting or rejecting of particular policing

-3-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 4 of 58 Page ID #:129

1 tactics or strategies based on membership in a demographic category specified in this

2 Agreement. Discriminatory policing does not include using race, ethnicity, or any

3 other status in any reliable and recent suspect-specific description.

4

11. "Effective Date" means the day this Agreement is entered by the Court.

5

12. "Executive Force Review Committee" refers to the LASD committee that

6 reviews all uses of force requiring a rollout by the Internal Affairs Bureau

7 force/shooting response team.

8

13. "Force" means any physical effort used to control or restrain another, or

9 to overcome the resistance of another.

10

14. "Fraud Compliance Check" means search of a voucher holder's home by

11 an agent of the Housing Authority, with or without third parties, including LASD

12 deputies, to determine whether the voucher holder is in compliance with the rules of

13 the Section 8 program;

14

15. "Full and effective compliance" means achieving both sustained

15 compliance with all material requirements of this Agreement and sustained and

16 continuing improvement in constitutional policing and public trust, as demonstrated

17 pursuant to the Agreement's outcome measures.

18

16. "Housing Authority" means Housing Authority of the County of Los

19 Angeles (HACoLA).

20

17. "lAB" means the Internal Affairs Bureau.

21

18. "ICIB" means the Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau, which is the

22 LASD unit that investigates any conduct where a deputy may be criminally liable.

23

19. "Including" and "include(s)" mean including but not limited to.

24

20. "Implement" or "implementation" means the development or putting into

25 place of a policy or procedure, including the appropriate training of all relevant

26 personnel, and the consistent and verified performance of that policy or procedure in

27 actual practice.

28

-4-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 5 of 58 Page ID #:130

1

21. "Investigatory stop" or "investigatory detention" means a temporary

2 restraint where the reasonable person subjected to the stop or detention would

3 reasonably believe that s/he is not free to leave. An investigatory stop or detention

4 may be a pedestrian, vehicle, or bicycle stop.

5

22. "LEP" means Limited English Proficient, and refers to a person who does

6 not speak English as his/her primary language and has a limited ability to read, write,

7 speak, or understand English. LEP individuals may be competent in certain types of

8 communication (e.g., speaking or understanding), but still be LEP for other purposes

9 (e.g., reading or writing).

10

23. "MDC" means the Mobile Digital Computer or Mobile Digital Systems

11 (MDS), which is the electronic system where deputies record daily patrol activity.

12

24. "Monitor" means a person or team of people who shall be selected to

13 monitor and report on implementation of this Agreement.

14

25. "North Patrol Division" means the LASD geographic area covering the

15 cities ofLancaster and Palmdale and the surrounding unincorporated areas of the

16 Antelope Valley. North Patrol Division was previously called Region 1.

17

26. "Personnel complaints" are external allegations of misconduct against an

18 LASD deputy or employee that could be a violation of law or LASD policy. In

19 contrast, a "service complaint" is an external complaint about an LASD service,

20 procedure, or practice that does not involve misconduct by an LASD deputy or

21 employee.

22

27. "PLE" means Performance Log Entry and refers to the hard copy

23 documentation of supervisory notations about a deputy's performance, including

24 commendations, weaknesses, career guidance, and training recommendations.

25

28. "Performance Mentoring Program" refers both to LASD's department-

26 wide mentoring program as well as the North Patrol Division's mentoring program.

27 These performance mentoring programs identify and assist deputies in need of

28 specialized or additional training, supervision, or mentoring.

-5-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 6 of 58 Page ID #:131

1

29. "Policy" means regulations, directives, unit orders or manuals, regardless

2 of the name, describing the duties, functions, and obligations ofLASD deputies and/or

3 employees, and providing specific direction in how to fulfill those duties, functions, or

4 obligations.

5

30. "PPI" mean~ the Personnel Performance ~ndex, which is LASD's early

6 intervention database. The PPI provides a systematic recording of data relevant to

7 incidents such as uses of force, shootings, commendations, and complaints regarding

8 LASD personnel. In addition, PPI tracks the progress of administrative investigations,

9 civil claims and lawsuits, and Pitchess motions that are handled by the Department.

10

31. "Reasonable suspicion" means articulable facts that, within the totality of

11 the circumstances, lead a deputy to reasonably suspect that a crime has been, is being,

12 or is about to be committed.

13

32. "Reportable use of force" means any use of force that is greater than that

14 required for unresisted searching or handcuffing. Additionally, any use of force which

15 results in injury or a complaint of pain must be reported.

16

33. "SCR" means a service comment review, which is the review of an

17 external civilian complaint about an LASD deputy or employee's behavior.

18

34. "Section 8" or the "Voucher Program" means the federal Section 8

19 Housing Choice Voucher Program, which is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 1437f and

20 funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),

21 under which qualifying persons may receive a voucher for a portion of their rental

22 housing costs, which they can use on the open market to obtain housing.

23

35. "Seizure" or "detention" occurs when a deputy's words or actions convey

24 to a reasonable person that he or she is not free to leave.

25

36. "Settlement Agreement" or "Agreement" means this document, filed as a

26 part of the action, United States v. Los Angeles County et al., Civil Action No.

27

28

-6-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 7 of 58 Page ID #:132

1

37. "Shall" or "will" or "agrees to" means that the provision imposes a

2 mandatory duty.

3

38. "Supervisor" means a sworn LASD-AV employee at the rank of sergeant

4 or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn LASD-AV personnel

5 with oversight responsibility for other deputies.

6

39. "Use of force" means any physical coercion used to effect, influence, or

7 persuade an individual to comply with an order by a deputy.

8

40. "Voucher Participant" means a person who is a participant in Section 8.

9

III. STOPS, SEIZURES, AND SEARCHES

1 0

LASD agrees to ensure that all investigatory stops, seizures, and searches are

11 conducted in accordance with the rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected

12 by the Constitution or laws of the United States. LASD shall ensure that investigatory

13 stops and searches are part of an effective overall crime prevention strategy, do not

14 contribute to counter-productive divisions between LASD and the community, and are

15 adequately documented for tracking and supervision purposes. To achieve these

16 outcomes, LASD shall implement the requirements below.

17 A. Investigatory Stops and Detentions

18

41. LASD-AV deputies shall only conduct investigatory stops or detentions

19 where the deputy has reasonable suspicion that a person has been, is being, or is

20 about to be engaged in the commission of a crime.

21

42. LASD agrees to incorporate the following elements in its training of

22 Antelope Valley deputies: (1) introducing themselves at the initiation of contact with a

23 civilian when reasonable and practical; (2) stating the reason for an investigatory stop

24 or detention as soon as practicable; (3) ensuring that an investigatory stop or detention

25 is no longer than necessary to take appropriate action; and (4) acting with

26 professionalism and courtesy throughout the interaction.

27

43. LASD-AV deputies shall not use race, color, ethnicity, national origin,

28 religion, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation as a factor, to any

-7-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 8 of 58 Page ID #:133

1 extent or degree, in establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause, except as part

2 of actual and credible description(s) of a specific suspect or suspects in any criminal

3 investigation.

4

44. LASD-AV deputies shall document the following information about

5 patrol activity in their MDC patrol logs:

6

a. the deputy's name;

7

b. the date and time of the stop;

8

c. the location of the stop;

9

d. the race/ethnicity of each individual stopped, detained, or searched;

10

e. the disposition of the stop, including whether a citation was issued or an

11

arrest made;

12

f. a concise narrative articulating specific facts and circumstances that

13

support reasonable suspicion or probable cause for investigative stops and

14

detentions consistent with the radio clearance code (Noting a radio

15

clearance code, or the code for the resulting citation or other result, will

16

not be deemed sufficient articulation of legal support for the stop or

17

search.);

18

g. whether they asked an individual about his/her probation or parole status,

19

and what the answer was;

20

h. where a backseat detention was conducted, a narrative articulating a

21

reason, consistent with LASD policy and the law, as to why each backseat

22

detention was necessary, as well as the reasonable suspicion for the

23

investigation;

24

1. the length of any backseat detention;

25

J. whether a consent search of an individual was conducted, and if so, the

26

reason for seeking consent; and

27

k. whether a vehicle was impounded and the justification for the

28

impoundment.

-8-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 9 of 58 Page ID #:134

1

45. LASD-AV deputies shall use accurate and specific descriptive language

2 and not rely solely on "boilerplate" or form language in any reports describing factual

3 circumstances of investigatory stops, detentions, and searches.

4

46. LASD-AV shall collect and analyze data related to searches based on

5 probation or parole status. LASD shall assess the efficacy of this tactic and its impact

6 on the community and make policy changes accordingly.

7

47. LASD will revise its policy and training about backseat detentions to

8 ensure that they only occur when a LASD-AV deputy has individualized reasonable

9 suspicion that justifies the detention and when a deputy can articulate reasonable

10 deputy safety concerns, and to ensure that supervisors understand how to assess the

11 reasonableness of a backseat detention.

12

48. LASD-AV deputies may not conduct backseat detentions as a matter of

13 course during routine traffic stops or domestic violence situations. When LASD-AV

14 deputies do conduct backseat detentions, LASD shall continue to require deputies to

15 explain to civilians in a professional and courteous manner why they are being

16 detained in the backseat of patrol cars. LASD will not permit backseat detentions

17 based on unreasonable or factually unsupported assertions of deputy safety. Backseat

18 detentions shall not be used except where the deputy has an objectively reasonable

19 belief that the detained person may pose a threat or be an escape risk. In instances

20 where the backseat detention is premised on weather conditions or the detainee's

21 articulated desire for privacy or personal safety, the deputy will inform the individual

22 that the detention is optional.

23

49. LASD policy will specify that if an individual complains about being

24 detained in the backseat of a patrol car, the LASD-AV deputy shall call for a field

25 sergeant to respond to the scene and take the individual's complaint. If the individual

26 does not want to wait for the field sergeant to respond to the scene, the deputy shall

27 provide the individual with a complaint information brochure, currently called

28 "Procedures for Public Comment" and the deputy's business card.

-9-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 10 of 58 Page ID #:135

1 B. Searches

2

50. LASD-AV deputies shall not use race, color, ethnicity, national origin,

3 religion, gender, gender identity, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity in

4 exercising discretion to conduct a search, except as part of an actual and credible

5 description of a specific suspect or suspects in any criminal investigation.

6

51. LASD-AV deputies shall not conduct arbitrary searches. The request to

7 conduct a consent search must be reasonable and a deputy must be able to articulate a

8 valid reason under law and LASD policy for initially having stopped the individual.

9

52. All LASD-AV deputies equipped with body worn audio or video

10 recorders shall record all requests for consent to search and the individual's response.

11 Where a subject is Limited English Proficient, the deputy shall affirmatively inform

12 the subject in the appropriate non-English language. LASD agrees to work with

13 Community Advisory Committees (CACs) to conduct outreach to explain to AV

14 residents their right to refuse or revoke consent before or during a search. This

15 outreach will include a one-page written explanation of an individual's right to refuse

16 or revoke consent. This written explanation will be posted on the LASD-AV website

17 and provided at community meetings. An LASD-AV deputy shall immediately notify

18 a supervisor when considering a home search based on consent, and the supervisor

19 shall approve the search before it is conducted.

20

53. In conducting searches, particularly searches related to Section 8

21 compliance checks, LASD-AV will use only the number of deputies reasonably

22 necessary for efficacy and officer safety based on the circumstances of the search. A

23 supervisor must approve the use of more than two deputies for any consent search. If a

24 supervisor is not available within a reasonable amount of time, a supervisor will

25 review the documentation or recording of consent as soon after the search as possible.

26

54. LASD-AV deputies shall only be involved with a Section 8 compliance

27 check where the housing authority agent has sufficiently articulated legitimate safety

28 concerns.

-10-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 11 of 58 Page ID #:136

1

55. When LASD-AV deputies conduct searches or Section 8 compliance

2 checks and individuals other than the subject of the search are present, the individuals

3 shall not be detained longer than reasonably necessary to conduct the search and secure

4 the area, and the individuals shall not be subject to frisk or search without the legally

5 requisite level of individualized suspicion or probable cause.

6

56. LASD-AV deputies shall only conduct searches of individuals on

7 probation or parole in accordance with the provisions of this section and when

8 knowledge of a probation or parole search condition has been established.

9 C. Stop, Search, and Seizure Training

10

57. LASD shall provide all Antelope Valley deputies with training on stops,

11 searches, and detentions, including the requirements of this Agreement. Such training

12 shall be taught by a qualified legal instructor with significant experience in Fourth

13 Amendment issues, and shall:

14

a. ensure officers understand Fourth Amendment and related legal

15

restrictions on searches and seizures, including consent searches, backseat

16

detentions, probation and parole searches, and Section 8 related activity,

1 7

as well as additional limitations under LASD policy;

18

b. address the differences between various police contacts by:

19

1. the scope and level of police intrusion,

20

2. differences between probable cause, reasonable suspicion,

21

and mere speculation, and

22

3. true voluntary consent;

23

c. provide guidance on the facts and circumstances in addition to legal and

24

policy limitations, that should be considered in initiating, conducting,

25

terminating, and expanding a stop or search, including consent searches,

26

probation and parole searches, backseat detentions, and Section 8-related

27

activities;

28

-11-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 12 of 58 Page ID #:137

1

d. incorporate role playing scenarios and other adult-learning mechanisms to

2

facilitate deputy ability to exercise good judgment about whether and how

3

to stop and search individuals; and

4

e. provide guidance on stopping and/or searching individuals for

5

discretionary and non-violent offenses, including providing guidance

6

about procedural justice, alternatives to conducting investigatory stops

7

and searches, and the impact on civilians of conducting apparently

8

arbitrary stops and searches.

9 D. Supervisory Review

10

58. LASD agrees to implement additional accountability and supervision

11 practices outlined below in the Antelope Valley, and ensure that existing policies are

12 followed, to ensure that unlawful stops, searches, and seizures are detected and

13 effectively addressed.

14

59. Sergeants assigned as raters shall regularly audit their assigned deputies'

15 stop, search, and seizure documentation in addition to arrest reports and citations for

16 completeness, accuracy, and legal sufficiency. Sergeants shall audit at least one CAD

17 log for each deputy under their supervision each week. Sergeants shall conduct further

18 review as indicated by weekly audits, PPI information and other indicia.

19

60. If a deputy's stop, search, or seizure documentation does not provide

20 sufficient detail or articulate sufficient legal and policy justification for the action, the

21 supervisor shall review the action with the deputy to determine whether there was

22 sufficient legal and LASD policy justification.

23

61. Antelope Valley supervisors and commanders shall take appropriate

24 action to address all violations or deficiencies in stops, searches, and seizures including

25 non-disciplinary corrective action for the involved deputy, and/or referring the incident

26 for disciplinary action.

27

28

-12-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 13 of 58 Page ID #:138

1

62. Antelope Valley supervisors and commanders shall track repeated

2 violations of the provisions of this agreement or deficiencies and the corrective action

3 taken, if any, in PPI.

4

63. LASD agrees to hold accountable supervisors and Antelope Valley station

5 commanders for appropriately and thoroughly reviewing reports and documentation

6 related to stops, searches, and seizures, and requiring deputies to articulate sufficient

7 rationale under law and LASD policy.

8

IV. BIAS-FREE POLICING

9

LASD agrees to deliver police services that are equitable, respectful, and bias-

10 free, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in the

11 department.

12 A. Bias-Free Policing

13

64. In conducting its activities, LASD agrees to ensure that members of the

14 public receive equal protection of the law, without bias based on race, color, ethnicity,

15 national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation, and

16 in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the

17 United States. Deputies shall not initiate stops or other field contacts because of an

18 individual's actual or perceived immigration status.

19

65. LASD agrees to continue to consult with the Museum of Tolerance

20 personnel and others to ensure clear guidance for LASD-AV deputies, through policy,

21 training, and supervision, on prohibited conduct, including selective enforcement or

22 non-enforcement of the law and the selection or rejection of particular tactics or

23 strategies, based upon stereotypes or bias. LASD agrees to consult with experts to

24 ensure that the manner in which guidance is provided to personnel takes into account

25 the influences of implicit bias and stereotype threat.

26

66. LASD agrees to effectively communicate with and provide timely and

27 meaningful access to police services to all members of the Antelope Valley

28

-13-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 14 of 58 Page ID #:139

1 community, regardless of their limited ability to speak, read, write, or understand

2 English. To achieve this outcome, LASD agrees to:

3

a. develop and implement a language assistance plan and policy that

4

complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (42

5

U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.) and other applicable law, and comports with best

6

practices and current professional standards; and

7

b. ensure that all LASD personnel shall take reasonable steps to provide

8

timely, meaningful language assistance services to LEP individuals they

9

encounter.

10

67. LASD-AV agrees to incorporate requirements regarding bias-free

11 policing and equal protection into its performance assessment processes, including

12 giving significant weight to an individual's history of sustained bias-related violations,

13 as well as using all available methods to assess the individual's ability to effectively

14 practice bias-free policing.

15

68. Within one year of the Effective Date, and annually thereafter, LASD will

16 assess all programs, initiatives, and activities involving the Antelope Valley Stations to

17 determine the extent of any disparate impact and to ensure that no program, initiative,

18 or activity is applied or administered in a manner that unlawfully discriminates against

19 individuals on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender,

20 gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation.

21

69. LASD agrees to utilize experts and the community survey outlined below

22 to study organizational climate and culture in the Antelope Valley stations to aid in

23 developing the requirements of this section. Personnel will be allowed to

24 confidentially provide information for the study. LASD will conduct longitudinal

25 climate and culture studies during the course of this Agreement.

26 B. Training to Promote Bias-Free Policing

27

70. LASD will continue to conduct regular training for deputies, training

28 deputies, supervisors, and command staff regarding discriminatory policing. In

-14-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 15 of 58 Page ID #:140

1 addition to LASD's current state-mandated training for Antelope Valley deputies,

2 LASD will provide training that emphasizes how bias may occur in law enforcement

3 activity, and the impact of biased policing on effective crime prevention and police

4 legitimacy. This training further shall include:

5

a. methods and strategies for more effective policing that relies upon non-

6

discriminatory factors;

7

b. police and community perspectives related to discriminatory policing;

8

c. constitutional and other legal requirements related to equal protection and

9

unlawful discrimination, including the requirements of this Agreement;

10

d. the protection of civil rights as a central part of the police mission and as

11

essential to effective policing;

12

e. the requirements of the FHA, with specific emphasis on discrimination on

13

the basis of race;

14

f. the existence and impact of arbitrary classifications, stereotyping, and

15

implicit or subconscious bias;

16

g. instruction in the data collection protocols required by this Agreement,

17

including reasons for data collection/analysis;

18

h. identification of key decision points where prohibited discrimination can

19

take effect at both the incident and strategic-planning levels; and

20

1. methods, strategies, and techniques to reduce misunderstanding, conflict,

21

and complaints due to perceived bias or discrimination, including

22

problem-oriented policing strategies.

23

71. LASD-AV will conduct roll call trainings at least quarterly to emphasize

24 the importance of preventing discriminatory policing. These roll call sessions will

25 include scenario-based discussions of real and hypothetical situations.

26

72. LASD agrees to utilize experts and the survey below to study

27 organizational climate and culture in the Antelope Valley stations to aid in developing

28 these training requirements.

-15-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 16 of 58 Page ID #:141

1

v. ENFORCEMENT OF SECTION 8 COMPLIANCE

2

LASD agrees not to violate the FHA by: (a) making unavailable or denying a

3 dwelling unit to any person because of race; (b) discriminating against any person in

4 the terms, conditions or privileges of renting a dwelling unit, or in the provision of

5 services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race; (c) making, printing,

6 publishing, or causing to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or

7 advertisement with respect to the rental of a dwelling unit that states any preference,

8 limitation or discrimination based on race; or (d) coercing, intimidating, threatening or

9 interfering with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of having

10 exercised or enjoyed, or on account of their having aided and encouraged any other

11 person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted by the Fair Housing Act.

12 A. Housing Non-Discrimination Policy

13

73. LASD shall implement a Housing Non-discrimination Policy which

14 reflects LASD's commitment to the requirements of the FHA and explains how to file

15 a complaint of discrimination in housing.

16

74. LASD shall provide a copy the Housing Non-discrimination Policy to all

17 sworn LASD-AV deputies. LASD shall secure signed statements from each individual

18 subject to this paragraph acknowledging that he or she has received and read the

19 Housing Non-discrimination Policy, has had the opportunity to have questions

20 answered, and agrees to abide by the relevant provisions of this Order and the Housing

21 Non-discrimination Policy.

22

75. During the term of this Settlement Agreement, within 15 days after each

23 new deputy is assigned to LASD-AV, LASD shall provide the individual with a copy

24 of the Housing Non-discrimination Policy and shall secure the same signed

25 acknowledgment.

26 B. Policy Regarding Accompaniment of Section 8 Compliance Checks

27

76. LASD shall revise its policies regarding the review of requests from a

28 housing authority for deputy accompaniment on compliance checks in Field Directive

-16-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 17 of 58 Page ID #:142

1 12-02. The revised policies shall, among other things, specifically outline factors to be

2 considered when assessing the need for deputy accompaniment and the number of

3 deputies necessary for accompaniment.

4 C. Policy Regarding Independent Investigations of Compliance with Section 8

5

77. LASD shall institute policies regarding LASD' s own independent

6 investigations upon referral of a housing authority of allegations of fraud on the

7 voucher program to ensure that those investigations are not being used to harass

8 residents in their homes or motivate residents to relocate from their homes. LASD's

9 policies shall be revised to include guidance on proper procedures for sharing

10 information with a housing authority and guidelines for referral of cases for criminal

11 prosecution for fraud based solely on compliance with the Section 8 contract.

12 D. Fair Housing Reporting and Analysis

13

78. LASD shall require all deputies to document all voucher holder

14 compliance checks using stat code 787 pursuant to Field Operations Directive 12-02.

15

79. LASD shall require all deputies to document each independent

16 investigation for criminal fraud based on voucher holder compliance with the voucher

17 contract using stat code 787.

18

80. LASD shall require all deputies to document calls, observations, or

19 incidents involving voucher holders using stat code 787. Nothing in this paragraph

20 shall authorize deputies to inquire into an individual's Section 8 status during routine

21 law enforcement activity.

22

VI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

23

To identify shortcomings, assess improvement, and increase community

24 confidence in LASD's law enforcement activity in the Antelope Valley, LASD agrees

25 to enhance its data collection, analysis, and reporting as set out below. LASD will

26 develop and implement a protocol for the collection and regular analysis of data to

27 assess whether there are trends and patterns that indicate bias or practices that

28 otherwise run counter to constitutional and effective policing.

-17-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 18 of 58 Page ID #:143

1

81. LASD will continue to collect data currently required by the Statistical

2 Code Guide, Radio Code Book, and related policies and shall create new statistical

3 codes and/or data fields requiring documentation of the following in the MDC patrol

4 log system and Regional Allocation of Police Service (RAPS) database:

5

a. bicycle stops;

6

b. backseat detentions;

7

c. probation or parole stops and searches;

8

d. consent searches; and

9

e. vehicle impoundments.

10

82. LASD will conduct at least semi-annual analysis of, at a minimum, the

11 following AV data:

12

a. stop, search, contraband seizure, and arrest data, including backseat

13

detentions, probation and parole searches, and consent searches;

14

b. stops, searches, and/or arrests for discretionary offenses such as

15

jaywalking, crossing against a traffic light, failing to yield right of way or

16

walking on the wrong side of the street;

17

c. uses of force, including force associated with obstruction arrests and

18

similar violations;

19

d. arrests for California Penal Codes§ 69 (felony obstruction or resisting

20

arrest), § 148(a)(1) (misdemeanor obstruction or resisting arrest), and§

21

243(b) (battery on a peace officer or other public officer without infliction

22

ofinjury);

23

e. vehicle impoundments;

24

f. civilian complaints, by category; and

25

g. Voucher Holder compliance checks involving LASD personnel.

26

83. LASD agrees to base its analysis on accurate, complete, and reliable data.

27 Analysis of this data will include a regression analysis to determine whether law

28 enforcement activity has a disparate impact on any racial or ethnic group. This

-18-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 19 of 58 Page ID #:144

1 regression analysis will control for factors other than race, including but not limited to

2 demographics and crime rates, in describing any potential disparate impact. The

3 regression analysis will include determining whether, after controlling for alternate

4 explanations:

5

a. LASD deputies working in the Antelope Valley are more likely to stop,

6

cite, search, or arrest based race or ethnicity;

7

b. LASD deputies working in the Antelope Valley are more likely to ask

8

persons of certain races or ethnicities for consent searches, and about their

9

probation or parole status;

10

c. LASD deputies working in the Antelope Valley are more likely to stop or

11

search persons of certain races or ethnicities for discretionary and non-

12

violent offenses; and

13

d. LASD deputies working in the Antelope Valley are more likely to

14

impound or store the vehicles of persons of certain races or ethnicities.

15

84. Through this data analysis, LASD will identify any trends or issues that

16 compromise constitutional policing and respond accordingly. Appropriate responses

17 may include reviewing and revising any policies or training that may be leading to

18 problematic trends; and assessing whether any practices should be changed to ensure

19 adherence to constitutional requirements and/or more effective policing.

20

85. This analysis will also determine whether there are reporting districts and

21 deputies with potentially problematic trends and respond accordingly. LASD will

22 make efforts to incorporate regular analysis of this data into its routine operational

23 decisions.

24

86. On a semi-annual basis for the first year of the agreement and annually

25 thereafter, LASD agrees to issue a report summarizing the results of the AV data

26 collected, and the steps taken to correct problems and build on successes. The report

27 will be publicly available in English and Spanish and posted on LASD's website.

28

-19-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 20 of 58 Page ID #:145

1

VII. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

2

LASD agrees to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community, to

3 engage constructively with the community to ensure collaborative problem-solving and

4 bias-free policing, and to increase community confidence in the Department. To

5 achieve this outcome, LASD agrees to implement the requirements below.

6 A. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing

7

87. LASD agrees to actively participate in community engagement efforts in

8 the Antelope Valley, including participating in local community meetings, making

9 itself available for community feedback, developing the Community Advisory

10 Committees (CAC), and working with the community on the development of diversion

11 programs.

12

88. All sworn personnel at the Antelope Valley stations shall actively attend

13 community meetings and events. LASD agrees to develop a plan for such attendance

14 based on the results of annual community satisfaction surveys and feedback from the

15 civilian panel, discussed below. The plan shall indicate the number and types of

16 events to be attended on a regular basis and take into account the need to enhance

17 relationships with particular groups within the community, including, but not limited

18 to, youth, and communities of color.

19

89. LASD agrees to provide structured annual in-service training on

20 community policing and problem-oriented policing methods and skills for all AV

21 deputies, including station supervisors and unit commanders. This training shall

22 include:

23

a. methods and strategies to improve public safety and crime prevention

24

through community engagement;

25

b. scenario-based training that promotes the development of new

26

partnerships between the police and community targeting problem solving

27

and prevention;

28

c. leadership, ethics, and interpersonal skills;

-20-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 21 of 58 Page ID #:146

1

d. community engagement techniques, including how to establish formal

2

partnerships and actively engage community organizations, including

3

youth, immigrant, and LGBT communities;

4

e. problem-oriented policing tactics;

5

f. conflict resolution and verbal de-escalation of conflict; and

6

g. cultural awareness and sensitivity training.

7

90. LASD agrees to ensure that monthly Crime Management Forum meetings

8 with the Assistant Sheriff or his designee and semiannual Risk Management Forum

9 meetings include discussion and analysis of trends in misconduct complaints and

10 community priorities to identify areas of concern, and to better develop interventions

11 to address them. LASD agrees to use techniques such as spatial mapping and scientific

12 deployment analysis to enable the Risk Management Forum to better support and

13 measure community and problem-solving policing efforts.

14

91. To continually improve police-community partnerships, LASD will assess

15 and report on the impact of community engagement initiatives. LASD will issue

16 public reports on the Antelope Valley stations' community engagement efforts,

17 identifying successes, obstacles, and recommendations for future improvement.

18

92. LASD agrees to seek the assistance of community advocates in widely

19 disseminating to the public, in English and Spanish, the requirements of this

20 Agreement.

21 B. Antelope Valley Community Advisory Committees

22

93. LASD will continue to support Lancaster and Palmdale's CACs to advise

23 and provide feedback to the LASD's Antelope Valley stations. The panel will

24 leverage the insights and expertise of the community to address policing concerns,

25 including, but not limited to, racial or ethnic profiling and access to law enforcement

26 services, and promote greater transparency and public understanding ofLASD. The

27 civilian panel shall be authorized to:

28

-21-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 22 of 58 Page ID #:147

1

a. advise the Sheriff and the station commanders on strategies and training

2

to improve community relations, bias-free policing, and access to the

3

civilian complaint system;

4

b. work with the Sheriff and station commanders to establish and carry out

5

community public safety priorities;

6

c. provide the community with information on the Agreement and its

7

implementation; and

8

d. receive and convey to LASD public comments and concerns.

9

94. LASD will memorialize the CACs into LASD-AV policy within 90 days

10 of the Effective Date. The policy will establish the number of members and a

11 mechanism to ensure that membership is representative of the diverse communities in

12 the Antelope Valley, including members from each station, faith communities,

13 minority, ethnic, and other community organizations. LASD shall include student or

14 youth organizations on the CACs or create a separate advisory committee made up of

15 youth representatives. LASD will facilitate quarterly public meetings of the CAC to

16 discuss the Monitor's reports and to receive community feedback about LASD's

17 progress or compliance with the Agreement.

18

95. The CAC's reports and recommendations will be posted on LASD-AV's

19 website. LASD will consider and respond to the civilian panel's recommendations in a

20 timely manner.

21

96. The County will provide the CAC with reasonable administrative support,

22 including meeting space. In addition, the Monitor may provide advice and technical

23 assistance to the CAC.

24

97. The CAC will not have access to any non-public information regarding an

25 individual deputy or allegation of misconduct or disciplinary action.

26 C. Community Survey

27

98. LASD agrees to assist the Monitor in conducting a reliable,

28 comprehensive, and representative annual survey of members of the Antelope Valley

-22-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 23 of 58 Page ID #:148

1 community regarding their experiences with and perceptions ofLASD and of public

2 safety.

3

99. To conduct the annual community survey, the Monitor shall retain an

4 individual or entity that shall:

5

a. develop a baseline of measures on public satisfaction with policing,

6

attitudes among police personnel, and the quality of police-citizen

7

encounters;

8

b. design, conduct, and analyze baseline and subsequent annual surveys of a

9

representative sample of Antelope Valley residents, law enforcement

10

personnel, Section 8 voucher holders, and detained arrestees;

11

c. review and consider prior law enforcement surveys in the Antelope Valley

12

and other cities (including recent community policing surveys in Palmdale

13

and Lancaster), as well as current or recent concerns in the Antelope

14

Valley, in designing the survey;

15

d. engage in informal conversation with Antelope Valley residents, LASD

16

deputies and command staff, and DOJ representatives, and observe

1 7

community meetings;

18

e. ensure that the resident and arrestee surveys are designed to capture a

19

representative sample of Antelope Valley residents including members of

20

each demographic category;

21

f. conduct the survey in English and Spanish as necessary to ensure

22

representation of the entire Antelope Valley community; and

23

g. formally discuss the survey methodology with LASD supervisors and

24

DOJ, and consider these opinions in development of the initial survey and

25

improvements to subsequent surveys.

26

100. LASD agrees to cooperate with the design and conduct of the survey by,

27 for example, helping to organize focus groups of deputies and obtaining and providing

28 previous survey instruments and data.

-23-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 24 of 58 Page ID #:149

1

101. The report of the baseline survey and subsequent annual surveys shall be

2 publically distributed and posted on the LASD-AV website. ·

3

VIII. USE OF FORCE

4

LASD agrees to revise its force policies and practices to reflect its commitment

5 to upholding the rights secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States,

6 protecting human life and the dignity of every individual, and maintaining public

7 safety. LASD agrees to ensure that its accountability measures are implemented

8 appropriately so that Antelope Valley deputies use force only when objectively

9 reasonable, and in a manner that avoids unnecessary injury to deputies and civilians;

10 and to use force as a last resort and de-escalate the use of force at the earliest possible

11 moment. Deputies and staff shall endeavor to use only that level of force necessary for

12 the situation. To achieve these outcomes, LASD will implement the requirements

13 below.

14 A. General Use of Force Policy and Principles

15

LASD will revise its policies and associated training materials to abide by the

16 following requirements:

17

102. LASD agrees to continue to prohibit the use of force above unresisted

18 handcuffing to overcome passive resistance, except where physical removal is

19 permitted as necessary and objectively reasonable.

20

103. Deputies shall use advisements, warnings, and verbal persuasion, when

21 possible, before resorting to force; and de-escalate force immediately as resistance

22 decreases.

23

104. LASD agrees to clarify that Antelope Valley deputies may not use force

24 against individuals who may be exhibiting resistive behavior, but who are under

25 control and do not pose a threat to the public safety, themselves, or to other deputies.

26 LASD agrees to continue to require that Antelope Valley deputies assess the threat of

27 an individual prior to using force, and emphasize that a use of force must be

28

-24-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 25 of 58 Page ID #:150

1 proportional to the threat or resistance of the subject. If a threat or resistance no longer

2 exists, deputies cannot justify the use of force against a subject.

3

105. LASD agrees to explicitly prohibit the use of retaliatory force,

4 particularly against subjects who express criticism of, or disrespect for, LASD

5 Antelope Valley deputies.

6

106. LASD agrees to explicitly prohibit interfering, threatening, intimidating,

7 blocking or otherwise discouraging a member of the public, who is not violating any

8 other law, from taking photographs or recording video (including photographs or video

9 of police activities) in any place the member of the public is lawfully present. Such

10 prohibited interference includes:

11

a. Ordering a person to cease taking photographs or recording video;

12

b. Demanding that person's identification;

13

c. Demanding that the person state a reason why he or she is taking

14

photographs or recording video;

15

d. Detaining that person;

16

e. Intentionally blocking or obstructing cameras or recording devices (not

1 7

including physical barricades or screens used as part of a tactical

18

operation or crime scene);

19

f. Seizing and/or searching a camera or recording device without a warrant;

20

g. Using force upon that person; or

21

h. Detaining or arresting an individual for violating any other law where the

22

purpose of the detention or arrest is to prevent or retaliate for recording

23

police activity.

24

107. LASD will continue to require, and emphasize in its training, that a hard

25 strike to the head with any impact weapon, including a baton, is prohibited unless

26 deadly force is justified. Unintentional or mistaken blows to these areas must be

27 reported to ensure that all reasonable care was taken to avoid them.

28

-25-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 26 of 58 Page ID #:151

1 B. Use of Force Reporting Policy

2

108. LASD agrees to continue to require deputies to report all uses of force

3 above un-resisted handcuffing. LASD shall continue to require Antelope Valley

4 deputies to completely and accurately describe the force used or observed, including

5 describing in detail the actions of the suspect necessitating the use of force and the

6 specific force used in response to the suspect's actions, any injuries or complaint of

7 injuries, and any medical treatment or refusal of medical treatment.

8

109. The use of force reporting policy shall explicitly prohibit the use of

9 conclusory statements without supporting detail, including "boilerplate" language in

10 all statements and reports documenting use of force. Deputies shall be held

11 accountable for material omissions or inaccuracies in their use of force statements,

12 which may include being subject to disciplinary action.

13

110. LASD agrees to continue to require deputies who use or observe force to

14 notify their supervisors immediately following any reportable use of force incident or

15 upon receipt of an allegation of unreasonable or unreported use of force by any deputy.

16 Deputies who use or observe force and fail to report it shall be subject to disciplinary

17 action, up to and including termination.

18 C. Use of Force Supervisory Investigations

19

111. For all reportable uses of force, the investigating supervisor shall conduct

20 a thorough investigation. This investigation will require supervisors to:

21

a. respond to the scene, examine the subject of the force for injury, interview

22

the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject receives

23

medical attention from an appropriate medical provider;

24

b. identify and collect all relevant evidence;

25

c. canvass for, and interview, civilian witnesses;

26

d. collect statements from witness deputies; and

27

e. review all deputy use of force statements for adequacy, accuracy, and

28

completeness.

-26-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 27 of 58 Page ID #:152

1

112. Following the investigation, each supervisor shall continue to complete a

2 Supervisory investigation documented in a "Supervisor's Report on Use of Force."

3 This Report shall include:

4

a. the supervisor's narrative description of the incident, including a complete

5

and comprehensive description of the evidence that either justifies or fails

6

to justify the deputy's conduct based on the supervisor's independent

7

review of the facts and circumstances of the incident;

8

b. documentation of all evidence;

9

c. identities of all deputies witnessing the force;

10

d. the investigating supervisor's evaluation of force, including a

11

determination of whether the deputy's actions appear to be within LASD

12

policy and consistent with state and federal law, and an assessment of the

13

incident for tactical and training implications; and

14

e. documentation of any training or tactical concerns, and/or corrective

15

action taken or recommended.

16

113. Upon completion of the Supervisor's Report on Use ofForce, the

17 investigating supervisor shall forward the report through their chain of command,

18 which will review the report to ensure that it is thorough and complete, and that the

19 analysis and findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

20

114. LASD agrees to continue to require that the Executive Force Review

21 Committee review use of force incidents requiring response by the lAB

22 Force/Shooting Response Team under current policy, and to review the incidents for

23 any policy, training, or tactical concerns and/or violations.

24

115. LASD will hold deputies accountable for uses of force that violate policy

25 or law, and continue to require station commanders to refer uses of force that may

26 violate law or the Department's Prohibited Force policy, to the Internal Affairs Bureau

27 or the Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau for further investigation or review.

28

-27-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 28 of 58 Page ID #:153

1

116. LASD will hold supervisors accountable for not detecting, adequately

2 investigating, or responding to force that is unreasonable or otherwise contrary to

3 LASD policy.

4

117. LASD and Antelope Valley unit commanders will be .responsible for

5 identifying and reporting force trends and for taking preventive steps to curb

6 problematic trends, including issuing or revising policies, directives, training bulletins,

7 or providing additional mentoring and supervision to individual deputies.

8

118. LASD and Antelope Valley unit commanders will regularly review and

9 track "training and tactical review" related findings, recommendations, and comments

10 to ensure that informal supervisory feedback does not replace the need for formal

11 discipline. LASD will ensure that the supervisory feedback, including feedback

12 documented in the "training and tactical review" portion of a Supervisor's Report on

13 Use of Force, is documented in the PPI.

14 D. Use of Force Training

15

119. LASD shall provide all Antelope Valley deputies with annual or biennial

16 use of force training. The topics will include the following:

1 7

a. proper use of force decision making, including when force may be

18

unnecessary in response to minor resistance (biennial);

19

b. role-playing scenarios and interactive exercises that illustrate proper use

20

of force decision making, including training deputies on the importance

21

and impact of ethical decision making and peer intervention (annual);

22

c. principles of procedural justice, and avoiding the use of force in response

23

to minor resistance (biennial);

24

d. de-escalation techniques that encourage deputies to make arrests without

25

using force (annual);

26

e. threat assessment, including how race can impact deputies' threat

27

assessments (biennial);

28

-28-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 29 of 58 Page ID #:154

1

f. LASD-AV deputies will attend LASD's Tactics and Survival (TAS), also

2

known as the Laser Village tactical firearms training (biennial); and

3

g. supervisors shall receive initial and annual refresher training on

4

conducting use of force investigations, how to effectively direct deputies

5

to minimize uses of force and to intervene effectively to prevent or stop

6

unreasonable force, using LASD's accountability and disciplinary systems

7

after encountering a potentially unreasonable use of force, and supporting

8

deputies who report unreasonable or unreported force, or who are

9

retaliated against for using only reasonable force or attempting to prevent

10

unreasonable force (annual).

11 E. Use of Force Analysis

12

120. Within one year of the Effective Date and at least annually thereafter,

13 LASD will analyze the Antelope Valley stations' force data, including the force-

14 related outcome data, to identify significant trends, and identify and correct

15 deficiencies revealed by this analysis.

16

121. LASD-AV's force analysis will include assessment of the frequency and

17 nature of uses of force that are: referred to lAB for investigation; the subject of

18 misconduct complaints; the subject of civil suits; related to criminal obstruction- or

19 resisting-arrest-type charges that are dismissed or declined by the prosecutor; or

20 involve repeat-deputies or units.

21

122. LASD will determine whether policy or training curricula changes must

22 be made as a result of its analysis of use of force incidents.

23

123. LASD will document the results of the use of force analysis in a public

24 report.

25

IX. PERSONNEL COMPLAINT REVIEW

26

The County will ensure that all allegations of personnel misconduct are received

27 and are fully and fairly investigated, and that all personnel who commit misconduct are

28 held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent. To

-29-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 30 of 58 Page ID #:155

1 achieve these outcomes, LASD and the County agree to implement the requirements

2 below.

3 A. Complaint Intake

4

124. LASD shall continue to make personnel complaint forms and

5 informational materials, including brochures and posters, available at appropriate

6 County or municipal properties in the Antelope Valley, including, at a minimum,

7 LASD stations, courts, county libraries, and LASD websites, and make them available

8 to community groups upon request.

9

125. LASD will continue to accept all personnel complaints, including

10 anonymous and third-party complaints, for review and investigation. Complaints may

11 be made in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile, or

12 electronic mail, as well as in the field. Any Limited English Proficient (LEP)

13 individual who wishes to file a complaint about a LASD deputy or employee shall be

14 provided with a complaint form and informational materials in the appropriate non-

15 English language and/or be provided appropriate translation services in order to file a

16 complaint.

17

126. The refusal to accept a personnel complaint, discouraging the filing of a

18 complaint, or providing false or misleading information about filing a complaint, shall

19 be grounds for discipline, up to and including termination.

20 B. Complaint Classification

21

127. LASD will revise its complaint investigation related policies, including

22 MPP 3-04 and its Service Comment Report (SCR) and Internal Affairs Bureau (lAB)

23 policy manuals, to ensure that they are complete, clear and consistent. LASD will

24 implement mechanisms to ensure that all personnel allegations are accurately classified
-
25 at all investigative stages, from intake through resolution, so that each allegation

26 receives the appropriate level of review required under policy.

27

128. LASD will ensure that personnel complaints are not misclassified as

28 service complaints.

-30-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 31 of 58 Page ID #:156

1

129. In consultation with the Monitor and subject to DOJ approval, LASD will

2 revise policies to clarify and strengthen requirements related to:

3

a. which allegations of inappropriate behavior by LASD personnel, if true,

4

would require imposition of discipline, as opposed to non-disciplinary

5

action, to address the misconduct;

6

b. what types of personnel complaints must be investigated as administrative

7

investigations rather than handled exclusively as Service Comment

8

Reviews;

9

c. what types of administrative investigations must be handled by lAB rather

1 0

than at the unit level.

11

130. Antelope Valley unit commanders shall be responsible for appropriately

12 classifying each allegation and personnel complaint raised at the outset or during the

13 investigation/review of a complaint. LASD shall investigate every allegation of

14 misconduct that arises during an investigation even if an allegation is not specifically

15 articulated as such by the complainant.

16 C. Investigations

17

131. All investigations of Antelope Valley personnel complaints, including

18 reviews, shall be as thorough as necessary to reach reliable and complete findings. In

19 each investigation, LASD shall consider all relevant evidence, including

20 circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility

21 determinations based upon that evidence. There will be no automatic preference for a

22 deputy's statement over a non-deputy's statement, nor will LASD disregard a witness'

23 statement merely because the witness has some connection to the complainant or

24 because of any criminal history. LASD shall make efforts to resolve material

25 inconsistencies between witness statements.

26

132. LASD agrees to continue to require station commanders in the Antelope

27 Valley to refer alleged incidents of misconduct to the lAB or ICIB for further

28 investigation or review consistent with the Administrative Investigations Handbook. If

-31-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 32 of 58 Page ID #:157

1 the case proceeds criminally, the Division Chief over the Antelope Valley will review

2 the matter with the unit commander of lAB to determine whether the administrative

3 investigation may proceed on a parallel track. The Division Chief or unit commander

4 of lAB may consult with the prosecuting agency for its input. If the matter proceeds

5 on a parallel track, any compelled interview of the subject deputies may be delayed.

6 The Division Chief shall document the reasons for the decision.

7

133. LASD will not permit any involved supervisor, or any supervisor who

8 authorized the conduct that led to the complaint, to conduct a complaint investigation.

9

134. The misconduct investigator shall seek to identify all persons at the scene

10 giving rise to a misconduct allegation, including all LASD deputies. The investigator

11 shall note in the investigative report the identities of all deputies and other witnesses

12 who were on the scene but assert they did not witness and were not involved in the

13 incident. The investigator shall conduct further investigation of any such assertions

14 that appear unsupported by the evidence.

15

135. All witnesses, including deputies witnessing or involved in an incident

16 that becomes the subject of a personnel complaint, shall provide a written statement

17 regarding the incident or be interviewed as described below.

18

136. The SCR complaint investigator shall interview each complainant in

19 person, if practical. Misconduct investigators will conduct additional interviews as

20 necessary to reach reliable and complete findings. Interviews shall be recorded in their

21 entirety, absent documented extraordinary circumstances.

22

137. Consistent with current policy, interviews shall be conducted separately.

23 An interpreter not involved in the underlying complaint will be used when taking

24 statements or conducting interviews of any LEP complainant or witness.

25 D. Complaint Review and Investigation Training

26

138. LASD agrees to provide updated and revised training to Antelope Valley

27 deputies and supervisors about proper complaint intake, classification, and

28 investigation techniques. LASD will provide training about how to record complete

-32-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 33 of 58 Page ID #:158

1 and thorough complaints from individuals, including how to obtain complaints from

2 individuals who may not be proficient in English, and the consequences for failing to

3 properly take complaints.

4

139. All personnel conducting Service Comment Reviews and unit level

5 administrative investigations in the Antelope Valley shall receive initial training

6 regarding conducting deputy misconduct investigations, and shall receive refresher

7 training each year. This training shall include instruction in:

8

a. investigative skills, including proper interrogation and interview

9

techniques, gathering and objectively analyzing evidence, and data and

1 0

case management;

11

b. the particular challenges of personnel complaint reviews/investigations,

12

including identifying alleged misconduct that is not clearly stated in the

13

complaint or that becomes apparent during the investigation, properly

14

weighing credibility of civilian witnesses against deputies, using objective

15

evidence to resolve inconsistent statements, and the proper application of

16

the preponderance of the evidence standard;

17

c. relevant state, local, and federal law, including state employment law

18

related to deputies and the rights of public employees, as well as criminal

19

discovery rules such as those set out in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S.

20

493 (1967), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and ·

21

d. LASD rules and policies, including the requirements of this Agreement,

22

and protocols related to criminal and administrative investigations of

23

alleged deputy misconduct.

24 E. Personnel Complaint Audits

25

140. LASD shall conduct a semiannual, randomized audit ofLASD-AV's

26 complaint intake, classification, and investigations. This audit will assess whether

27 complaints are accepted and classified consistent with policy, investigations are

28

-33-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 34 of 58 Page ID #:159

1 complete, and complaint dispositions are consistent with a preponderance of the

2 evidence.

3

X. ACCOUNTABILITY

4

LASD will strengthen its accountability mechanisms to provide personnel with

5 the support, mentoring, and direction necessary to consistently police constitutionally.

6 A. Personnel Performance Index

7

141. LASD will continue to implement and modify the Personnel Performance

8 Index (PPI) system and expects that it will be complete within three years. PPI will

9 continue to serve as an LASD-wide decision support system in matters related to risk

10 management and service reviews. LASD will modify PPI so that it can make peer

11 comparisons between deputies and units. If PPI is not modified to make such

12 comparisons during the compliance period, the comparisons will be made through an

13 alternative process. Antelope Valley unit commanders and supervisors will conduct

14 periodic reviews of all deputies and units under their command to identify potential

15 trends.

16

142. LASD will modify PPI (and capture through an alternative process

17 pending PPI modification) to be able to access and report additional data relevant to

18 determining compliance with the Agreement, including but not limited to data about

19 stops, searches, and arrests (described in the Data Collection and Analysis Section),

20 individual compliance with community engagement requirements, and criminal

21 obstruction arrests. LASD will modify its procedure for Performance Log Entries so

22 that all entries are maintained in an electronic format and noted in PPI. LASD-AV

23 will ensure that PPI data is accurate and hold responsible Antelope Valley personnel

24 accountable for inaccuracies in any data entered.

25

143. In consultation with the Monitor, LASD will develop a plan, to be

26 approved by DOJ, to periodically review how the Antelope Valley stations analyze PPI

27 to respond to concerns unique to their stations, such as trends identified through

28 civilian complaints, the CAC, community survey, or other means.

-34-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 35 of 58 Page ID #:160

1 B. Performance Mentoring Program

2

144. LASD will continue to provide mentorship to deputies in the North Patrol

3 Division's locally based Performance Mentoring Program (PMP), as well as through

4 LASD's department-wide PMP, based upon appropriate determination of eligibility.

5 To increase the effectiveness of the remedies and corrective action used to address a

6 deputy's behavior, LASD will support and implement a plan to ensure that the LASD

7 wide PMP program provides mentoring of AV personnel within 30 days after the need

8 for mentoring is identified, and that appropriate procedures are in place for supervising

9 deputies whose performance fails to improve subsequent to mentoring.

10

145. LASD will ensure that the Department-wide PMP and the North Patrol

11 Division's PMP coordinate as appropriate with each other and share information about

12 deputies and their individual mentoring programs.

13

XI. MONITORING

14 A. Selection of Monitor

15

146. The Parties have jointly selected the team of Joseph Brann, Alex

16 Busansky, and Angela Wolf as Monitor to oversee the terms of this Agreement. As

17 described in greater detail below, the Monitor will assess the County's progress in

18 implementing, and achieving compliance with, the Agreement; report on the status of

19 implementation to the Parties and the Court; work with the Parties to address any

20 barriers to compliance; and assist the Parties to informally resolve disputes or

21 differences should they emerge.

22

147. The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the Court,

23 consistent with this Agreement and the Monitoring Plan. The Monitor shall only have

24 the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by this Agreement. The Monitor

25 shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the Sheriff.

26

148. In order to assess and report on LASD's implementation of this

27 Agreement and whether implementation is resulting in constitutional policing, the

28 Monitor shall conduct compliance reviews and audits and outcome assessments as

-35-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 36 of 58 Page ID #:161

1 specified below, and such additional audits, reviews, and assessments that the Monitor

2 or Parties deem appropriate.

3 B. Compliance Reviews and Audits

4

149. The Monitor shall conduct compliance reviews or audits as necessary to

5 determine whether LASD has implemented and continues to comply with the material

6 requirements of this Agreement. Compliance with, or implementation of, a material

7 requirement of this Agreement means that LASD has: (a) incorporated the

8 requirement into policy; (b) trained all relevant personnel as necessary to fulfill their

9 responsibilities pursuant to the requirement; and (c) ensured that the requirement is

10 being carried out in practice. Compliance reviews and audits will contain both

11 qualitative and quantitative elements as necessary for reliability and

12 comprehensiveness. Where appropriate, the monitor will make use of audits

13 conducted by the Internal Monitoring, Performance Audits and Accountability

14 Command (IMPAAC) taking into account the importance of internal auditing capacity

15 and independent assessment of this agreement.

16

150. Where the Monitor recommends and the Parties agree, the Monitor may

17 refrain from conducting a compliance audit or review of a requirement previously and

18 consistently found to be in compliance by the Monitor pursuant to audit or review.

19 Thereafter the County will be deemed to have achieved compliance with those

20 requirements for purposes of this Agreement, absent evidence to the contrary.

21

151. The monitor will conduct an ongoing review and report on LASD use of

22 force on restrained individuals, use of force in response to spitting, and use of OC

23 spray.

24

152. The monitor, in conjunction with LASD, will conduct an ongoing audit of

25 incidents where deputies draw or point their firearms. The audit will include a review

26 of all civilian complaints and an appropriate sample of police reports related to any use

27 or display of a firearm.

28

-36-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 37 of 58 Page ID #:162

1 C. Outcome Assessments

2

153. In addition to compliance reviews and audits, the Monitor shall conduct

3 qualitative and quantitative outcome assessments to measure whether LASD's

4 implementation of this Agreement has eliminated practices that resulted in DOJ' s

5 finding a pattern and practice of constitutional violations. These outcome assessments

6 shall include collection and analysis, both quantitative and qualitative, of the following

7 outcome data:

8

a. Stop and Search Measurements, including:

9

1. the number and rate of stops and searches for which there is

10

sufficient documented reasonable suspicion, overall and

11

broken down by geographic area, type of arrest, and

12

demographic category;

13

2. the number and rate of searches that result in a finding of

14

contraband, overall and broken down by authority to conduct

15

search, reporting district, type of arrest, and demographic

16

category;

1 7

3. the number and rate of arrests, overall and broken down by

18

type of arrest and demographic category;

19

4. the number of consent searches conducted overall and broken

20

down by reporting area, type of arrest and demographic

21

category, and;

22

5. the number and rate of backseat detentions, overall and

23

broken down by reporting area and demographic category

24

including the number of those incidents where there is a

25

reasonably articulated explanation justifying the detention.

26

b. Biased-Free Policing and Community Engagement Measurements,

27

including:

28

-37-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 38 of 58 Page ID #:163

1

1. a regression analysis that will determine, controlling for

2

other intervening factors such as crime rates, etc., whether:

3

(a) LASD deputies working in the Antelope Valley are

4

more likely to stop, cite, search, or arrest based on race

5

or ethnicity;

6

(b) LASD deputies working in the Antelope Valley are

7

more likely to ask persons of certain races or

8

ethnicities for consent searches, and about their

9

probation or parole status;

10

(c) LASD deputies working in the Antelope Valley are

11

more likely to stop or search persons of certain races

12

or ethnicities for discretionary and non-violent

13

offenses; and

14

(d) LASD deputies working in the Antelope Valley are

15

more likely to impound the vehicles belonging to

16

people of certain races or ethnicities.

17

2. the results of the Community Survey set out in Section

18

VII. C.;

19

3. an assessment of responses to calls for service in different

20

reporting districts of Lancaster and Palmdale;

21

4. feedback provided by the CACs; and

22

5. an assessment ofLASD-AV deputies' participation in

23

community meetings and events, including new and

24

continuing partnerships between LASD-AV and community

25

members.

26

c. Section 8 Compliance Enforcement Measurements, including:

27

28

-38-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 39 of 58 Page ID #:164

1

1. the number and rate ofLASD-AV deputy interactions with

2

voucher holders in a voucher holder's home for a compliance

3

check; and

4

2. the number and rate ofLASD-AV independent investigations

5

for criminal fraud based on voucher holder compliance with

6

the voucher contract and how those numbers and rates

7

compare with LASD throughout the rest of the County.

8

d. Use of Force Measurements, including:

9

1. the rate of force used by LASD-AV per arrest, reporting

10

district (i.e. street address, neighborhood, or reporting

11

district), type of arrest, and demographic category;

12

2. the number and rate of uses of force resulting in training or

13

tactical reviews, with formal discipline and/or with informal

14

corrective action; and

15

3. the number and rate of use of external force complaints that

16

result in formal administrative investigations/reviews, and in

17

which each finding is supported by a preponderance of the

18

evidence.

19

e. Training Measurements, including:

20

1. deputy and agency reports of adequacy of training in type

21

and frequency;

22

2. responsiveness to training needs identified by reviews of

23

deputy activity, use of force investigations, and personnel

24

complaint investigations; and

25

3. documentation that training is completed as required.

26

f. Supervision Measurements, including initial identification of deputy

27

violations and performance problems by supervisors (including sergeants,

28

-39-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 40 of 58 Page ID #:165

1

lieutenants, captains, and region commanders), and effectiveness of

2

supervisory response.

3

g. Accountability Measurements, including:

4

1. the number of personnel complaints (by type of complaint),

5

with a qualitative assessment of whether any notable increase

6

or decrease appears related to access to the complaint

7

process;

8

2. rate of administrative investigations resolved as founded,

9

unfounded, unresolved, inactivated or administrative

10

investigations;

11

3. rate of SCRs resolved in all resolution categories;

12

4. the number of deputies who are subjects of repeated

13

personnel complaints or have repeated instances of sustained

14

personnel complaints;

15

5. the number, nature, and settlement amount of all known civil

16

suits against LASD-AV deputies; and

17

6. the number of use of force and discriminatory policing

18

complaints that are handled by the stations or referred to

19

lAB.

20

154. In conducting audits, reviews, and outcome assessments, the Monitor may

21 use any relevant data collected and maintained by LASD that the Monitor and DOJ

22 deem reliable and sufficiently complete, provided that the Monitor has determined, and

23 the Parties agree, that this data is reasonably reliable and complete.

24 D. Monitoring Plan and Review Methodology

25

Monitoring Plan

26

155. Within 90 days of the Monitor's appointment, the Monitor will develop a

27 monitoring plan, including proposed deadlines for implementation for conducting the

28 compliance reviews and audits ("Monitoring Plan"). This Monitoring Plan will

-40-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 41 of 58 Page ID #:166

1 include specific deadlines and timelines for the first year of implementation of the

2 Agreement, including: (1) deadlines for the development of policies and training

3 materials, and (2) schedules for conducting compliance reviews and outcome

4 assessments.

5

156. The Monitor will submit the Monitoring Plan to the Parties for review and

6 approval. The Parties will have 30 days to either approve or propose changes to the

7 Monitoring Plan. If either Party proposes changes, the Monitor will have 15 days to

8 accept or object to those changes. If the Monitor objects to any of the proposed

9 changes and/or the Parties suggest changes that are in conflict, either Party or the

10 Monitor will provide the rationale for its proposal or objection, in writing, and the

11 Parties and Monitor will attempt to confer to resolve the disagreement.

12

157. If after good faith attempts, disagreement regarding the Monitoring Plan

13 remains unresolved between the Parties and/or Monitor so that the Monitoring Plan is

14 not approved by the Parties, either Party or the Monitor may petition the Court

15 thereafter to resolve it.

16

158. For each subsequent year, the Monitor will develop a detailed Monitoring

17 Plan for implementation of the Agreement.

18

159. At least 45 days prior to the initiation of any outcome measure assessment

19 or compliance review, the Monitor shall submit a proposed methodology for the

20 assessment or review to the Parties. The Parties shall submit any comments or

21 concerns regarding the proposed methodology to the Monitor within 15 days of the

22 proposed date of assessment or review. The Monitor shall modify the methodology as

23 necessary to address any concerns, or shall inform the Parties in writing of the reasons

24 s/he is not modifying the methodology as proposed.

25

Development of Policies, Procedures, and Training

26

160. LASD will·submit policies, training curricula, and lesson plans required to

27 be written, revised, or maintained by the Agreement to the Monitor and DOJ prior to

28 publication and implementation. The Parties will share draft policies and meet and

-41-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 42 of 58 Page ID #:167

1 confer as needed to reach agreement on whether revised policies and training materials

2 are in compliance with the requirements of the Agreement, the Constitution, federal

3 and statutory law, best practices, and current professional standards.

4

161. Forty-five days before a compliance deadline, as set out in the Monitoring

5 Plan, the Parties will submit the policy, training curriculum or lesson plan to the

6 Monitor for review. The Monitor will provide written comments to DOJ and LASD,

7 which the DOJ shall consider in determining whether to approve the policy, training

8 curriculum and lesson plan.

9

162. IfLASD, DOJ, and the Monitor do not all agree that the policy, training

10 curriculum or lesson plan is consistent with this Agreement, legal requirements, and

11 best practices, either Party or the Monitor will provide the rationale for its objection in

12 writing and the Parties and Monitor will attempt to confer to resolve the Agreement. If

13 the disagreement remains unresolved, either Party or the Monitor may petition the

14 Court thereafter to resolve.

15

163. LASD will begin implementation of policies and procedures within 30

16 days of DOJ approval or the Court's decision if a dispute arises, unless otherwise

17 specified or agreed to by the Parties in the Monitoring Plan.

18

164. Within 30 days after issuing a PC?licy or procedure pursuant to this

19 Agreement, LASD shall ensure that all relevant LASD personnel assigned to AV have

20 received, read, and understand their responsibilities pursuant to the policy or

21 procedure, including the requirement that each deputy or employee report violations of

22 policy; that supervisors of all ranks shall be held accountable for identifying and

23 responding to policy or procedure violations by personnel under their command; and

24 that personnel will be held accountable for policy and procedure violations. LASD

25 shall document that each relevant LASD deputy or other employee has received, read,

26 and sufficiently understands policy. Training beyond roll-call or similar training will

27 be necessary for many new policies to ensure deputies understand and can perform

28 their duties pursuant to the policy.

-42-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 43 of 58 Page ID #:168

1

165. Within 180 days from the effective date ofthe agreement, LASD shall

2 ensure that each LASD-AV sworn personnel member and custody assistant attends a

3 training briefing on the content of this Agreement and the responsibilities of each

4 deputy and employee pursuant to it. LASD shall begin providing this training briefing

5 within 45 days of the effective date of the agreement.

6

166. All training will include periodic testing to ensure that employees are

7 appropriately comprehending, retaining, and applying the knowledge and skills

8 conveyed during the training required by the Agreement. Based on results of testing,

9 LASD will provide additional periodic training as needed to deputies, supervisors, and

10 commanders that is sufficient in duration and scope to ensure that all deputies can

11 consistently and effectively carry out LASD's policies.

12

167. LASD shall completely and accurately record information regarding

13 LASD-AV deputies' training attendance in LASD's Learning Management System

14 (LMS) system or its successor.

15 E. Monitor Recommendations

16

168. The Monitor may also make recommendations to the Parties regarding

17 measures necessary to ensure timely, full, and effective compliance with the

18 Agreement and its underlying objectives. Such recommendations may include a

19 recommendation to change, modify, or amend a provision of the Agreement, a

20 recommendation for additional training related to the Agreement, or a recommendation

21 to seek technical assistance. The Monitor may also, at the request of either Party,

22 provide technical assistance consistent with the Agreement.

23

169. The Monitor will also review and consider the relevant reports of the

24 Office of the Inspector General and IMPAAC.

25

170. The Monitor shall conduct a comprehensive assessment one year after the

26 Effective Date to determine whether and to what extent: (1) the outcomes intended by

27 the Agreement have been achieved, and (2) any modifications to the Agreement are

28 necessary for continued achievement in light of changed circumstances or

-43-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 44 of 58 Page ID #:169

1 unanticipated impact (or lack of impact) of a requirement. Based upon this

2 comprehensive assessment, the Monitor shall recommend what modifications to the

3 Agreement, if any, are necessary to achieve and sustain intended outcomes. Where the

4 Parties agree with the Monitor's recommendations, the Parties shall work to adopt

5 mutually acceptable modifications ofthe Agreement. LASD will have the option to

6 delay this comprehensive assessment for one additional year if they deem this to be the

7 appropriate time period for the comprehensive assessment. If LASD decides to seek

8 this delay of the comprehensive assessment, they will advise the monitor and DOJ

9 within six months of the effective date of this agreement.

10 F. Monitor Reports

11

171. The Monitor will publicly issue a report every six months that details the

12 Parties' progress in implementing the Agreement and achieving compliance with the

13 Agreement. The reports will include:

14

a. a description of the work conducted by the Monitor during the reporting

15

period;

16

b. a listing of each Agreement requirement indicating which requirements

17

have been: (1) incorporated into policy; (2) the subject of sufficient

18

training for all relevant LASD deputies and employees; (3) reviewed or

19

audited by the Monitor to determine whether they have been fully

20

implemented in actual practice, including the date of the review or audit;

21

and (4) found by the Monitor to have been fully implemented in practice;

22

c. the methodology and specific findings for each audit or review conducted,

23

redacted as necessary for privacy concerns. The underlying data for each

24

audit or review will not be publicly available but will be retained by the

25

Monitor and provided to either or both Parties upon request;

26

d. for any requirements that were reviewed or audited and found not to have

27

been fully implemented in practice, the Monitor's recommendations

28

regarding necessary steps to achieve compliance;

-44-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 45 of 58 Page ID #:170

1

e. the methodology and specific findings for each outcome assessment

2

conducted;

3

f. a qualitative assessment ofLASD's progress in achieving the desired

4

outcomes for each area covered by the Agreement, noting issues of

5

concern or particular achievement; and

6

g. a projection of the work to be completed during the upcoming reporting

7

period and any anticipated challenges or concerns related to

8

implementation of, and achieving compliance with, the Agreement.

9

172. The Monitor shall provide a copy of the reports to the Parties in draft form

10 at least ten business days prior to releasing them publicly. The Parties may provide

11 comment on the reports, and the Monitor shall consider the Parties' comments and

12 make appropriate changes before issuing the report.

13

173. The reports shall be public with the exception of material covered by

14 applicable privacy laws. The reports will not include information specifically

15 identifying any individual deputy. To facilitate public access to the reports, LASD

16 shall post the reports to its public website.

17

174. Except as required or authorized by the terms of this Agreement or the

18 Parties acting together: the Monitor, including, for the purposes of this paragraph, any

19 agent, employee, or independent contractor thereof, shall not make any public

20 statements or issue findings with regard to any act or omission of LASD, or their

21 agents, representatives, or employees; or disclose non-public information provided to

22 the Monitor pursuant to this Agreement. Prior to making any press statement

23 regarding their employment or monitoring activities under this Agreement, the Monitor

24 shall first provide notice to both the DOJ and LASD.

25 G. Public Statements, Testimony, and Conflicts of Interest

26

175. The Monitor may testify as to their observations, findings, and

27 recommendations before the Court with jurisdiction over this matter; however, no

28 Monitor shall testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or

-45-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 46 of 58 Page ID #:171

1 omission of LASD or any of its agents, representatives, or employees related to this

2 Agreement or regarding any matter or subject that the Monitor may have received

3 knowledge of as a result of his or her performance under this Agreement. This

4 paragraph does not apply to any proceeding before a court related to performance of

5 contracts or subcontracts for monitoring this Agreement.

6

176. Unless such conflict is waived by the Parties, the Monitor shall not accept

7 employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest

8 with the Monitor's responsibilities under this Agreement, including being retained (on

9 a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant's or

10 claimant's attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against LASD or its

11 departments, deputies, agents, or employees. This provision does not preclude the

12 Monitor from being retained by the Department of Justice on other matters unrelated to

13 LASD.

14

177. The Monitor is not a state or local agency, or an agent thereof, and

15 accordingly the records maintained by the Monitor shall not be deemed public records

16 subject to public inspection.

17

178. The Monitor shall not be liable for any claim, lawsuit, or demand arising

18 out of the Monitor's performance pursuant to this Agreement.

19 H. Communication Between Monitor and Parties

20

179. The Monitor will maintain regular contact with the Parties in order to

21 ensure effective and timely communication regarding the status of the LASD's

22 implementation of, and compliance with, the Agreement. To facilitate this

23 communication, the Monitor will conduct meetings every two months, or as needed,

24 which will include participation by LASD-AV, LASD, representatives ofthe County

25 Counsel's office, and DOJ.

26 I. Communication Between Monitor and Community Members

27

180. The Monitor will regularly meet with the CACs and/or other interested

28 community stakeholders to discuss the Monitor's reports, and to receive community

-46-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 47 of 58 Page ID #:172

1 feedback about LASD's progress in implementing and achieving compliance with the

2 Agreement.

3 J. Access and Confidentiality

4

181. To facilitate its work, the Monitor may conduct on-site visits and

5 assessments without prior notice to the County. The Monitor shall have access to all

6 necessary individuals, facilities, and documents, which shall include access to

7 Agreement-related trainings, meetings, and reviews such as critical incident reviews,

8 executive force review committee meetings, and disciplinary hearings.

9

182. The County shall provide the Monitor with office space and reasonable

10 office support, such as office furniture, secure internet access, telephone, secure

11 document storage, and photocopying, faxing, and scanning equipment, that the

12 Monitor may use while in the Antelope Valley.

13

183. LASD shall ensure that the Monitor shall have full and direct access to all

14 County staff, employees, and facilities that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to

15 carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement. The Monitor shall

16 cooperate with the County to access people and facilities in a reasonable manner that,

17 consistent with the Monitor's responsibilities, minimizes interference with daily

18 operations.

19

184. LASD shall ensure that the Monitor shall have full and direct access to all

20 LASD documents and data that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out

21 the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement, except any documents or data

22 protected by the attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege may not be

23 used to prevent the Monitor from observing reviews, meetings, and trainings such as

24 use of force review boards; disciplinary hearings; or discussions of misconduct

25 complaint investigations. Should LASD decline to provide the Monitor access to

26 documents or data based on attorney-client privilege, the Defendants shall inform the

27 Monitor and DOJthat it is withholding documents or data on this basis and shall

28 provide the Monitor and DOJ with a log describing the documents or data.

-47-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 48 of 58 Page ID #:173

1

185. For the purpose of implementing this Agreement, DOJ and its

2 consultative experts and agents shall have full and direct access to all LASD staff,

3 employees, facilities, and documents and data who have pertinent information about

4 AV. DOJ and its consultative experts and agents shall cooperate with LASD to access

5 involved personnel, facilities, and documents in a reasonable manner that, consistent

6 with DOJ' s responsibilities to enforce this agreement, minimizes interference with

7 daily operations. Should LASD decline to provide DOJ with access to documents or

8 data based on attorney-client privilege, LASD shall inform DOJ that it is withholding

9 documents or data on this basis and shall provide DOJ with a log describing the

10 documents or data.

11

186. The Monitor or DOJ shall provide the County with reasonable notice of a

12 request for copies of documents or data. Upon such request, the County shall provide

13 in a timely manner copies (electronic, where readily available) of the requested

14 documents to the Monitor and DOJ.

15

187. The Monitor shall have access to all records and information relating to

16 criminal investigations ofLASD-AV deputies as permissible by law. The Monitor

17 shall have access to all documents in criminal investigation files that have been closed

18 by LASD. The Monitor shall also have reasonable access to all arrest reports,

19 warrants, and warrant applications whether or not contained in open criminal

20 investigation files. Where practicable, arrest reports, warrants, and warrant

21 applications shall be obtained from sources other than open criminal investigation

22 files.

23

188. The Monitor and DOJ shall maintain all non-public information provided

24 by the County in a confidential manner. Other than as expressly provided in this

25 Agreement, this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or right the

26 County may assert, including those recognized at common law or created by statute,

27 rule or regulation, against any other person or entity with respect to the disclosure of

28 any document.

-48-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 49 of 58 Page ID #:174

1 K. LASD Antelope Valley Compliance Coordinator

2

189. The Parties agree that LASD will hire and retain, or reassign a current

3 LASD employee for the duration of the Agreement, to serve as a full-time Compliance

4 Coordinator. The Compliance Coordinator will serve as a liaison between LASD, the

5 Antelope Valley stations, the Monitor, and DOJ, and will assist with LASD's

6 compliance with the Agreement. At a minimum, the Compliance Coordinator will:

7

a. coordinate compliance and implementation activities;

8

b. facilitate the provision of data, documents, and other access to LASD

9

employees, and material to the Monitor and DOJ, as needed;

1 0

c. ensure that all documents and records are maintained as provided in the

11

Agreement; and

12

d. assist in assigning compliance tasks to LASD personnel, as directed by

13

the Sheriff or his designee. The Compliance Coordinator will take

14

primary responsibility for collecting the information the Monitor requires

15

to carry out the terms of the Agreement.

16 L. Monitor Budget and Payment

17

190. The County shall bear all fees and costs of the Monitor. In approving

18 budgets, the Parties recognize the importance of ensuring that all fees and costs borne

19 by the County are reasonable. The Parties shall work with the Monitor to reach

20 mutually agreed upon reasonable limits on the Monitor's fees and costs. The Parties

21 will agree on the terms of invoicing and payments and the County will pay invoices

22 within a reasonable period of time.

23

191. Within 30 days of appointment, the Monitor shall submit to the Parties for

24 approval a proposed budget for the first year of implementation of the Agreement. The

25 proposed budget will describe the qualifications of all the persons or entities to be

26 hired or employed by the Monitor as well as the monitoring tasks that they will

27 perform. The Monitor, at any time after his/her appointment, may request to be

28 allowed to hire, employ, or contact such additional persons or entities as are reasonably

-49-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 50 of 58 Page ID #:175

1 necessary to perform the tasks assigned to the Monitor by the Agreement provided that

2 those expenditures fall within the approved budget. The Monitor will notify the

3 County and DOJ in writing if the Monitor wishes to select such additional persons or

4 entities. The notice will identify and describe the qualifications of the person or entity

5 to be hired or employed and the monitoring task to be performed. The County and

6 DOJ must both approve of the person or entity before they may be hired or employed,

7 although substantial deference will be afforded to the Monitor's choice. Any person or

8 entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor will be subject to the provisions of

9 the Agreement.

10

192. Thereafter, the Monitor shall submit annually a proposed budget for the

11 Parties' approval in accordance with the process set forth above.

12

193. At any time, the Monitor may submit to the Parties for approval proposed

13 revisions to the approved budget, along with any explanation of the reason for the

14 proposed revision. Such proposed changes may only be made upon written agreement

15 by the Parties. In the event that a dispute arises regarding the reasonableness or

16 payment of the Monitor's fees and costs, the Parties and the Monitor shall attempt to

17 resolve such dispute cooperatively prior to seeking the assistance of the Court to

18 resolve the dispute.

19

194. In the event that the Monitor is no longer able to perform his/her

20 functions, within 60 days thereof, the County and DOJ will together select and advise

21 the Court of the selection of a replacement Monitor, acceptable to both. The Parties'

22 selection of the Monitor will be made pursuant to a method jointly established by DOJ

23 and the County. If the Parties are unable to agree on a Monitor or an alternative

24 method of selection within 60 days of the Monitor's incapacitation, each Party will

25 submit the names of three candidates, or three groups of candidates, along with

26 resumes and cost proposals, to the Court, and the Court will select and appoint the

27 Monitor from among the qualified candidates/candidate groups.

28

-50-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 51 of 58 Page ID #:176

1

195. Should either of the Parties to the Agreement determine that the Monitor

2 or any member of the Monitor's consulting teams, their agents, employees, or

3 independent contractors have exceeded their authority or failed to satisfactorily

4 perform the duties required by the Agreement, the Party may petition the Court for

5 such relief as the Court deems appropriate, including replacement of the Monitor,

6 and/or any individual members, agents, employees, or independent contractors. Any

7 Party bringing such a petition is required to meet and confer with the other Party at

8 least 21 days prior to such a petition in a good faith attempt to resolve the concern.

9

XII. COMPENSATION FOR AGGRIEVED PERSONS FOR FAIR

10

HOUSING ACT VIOLATIONS

11

196. LASD will pay Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($700,000.00) to

12 compensate any persons harmed by LASD' s allegedly discriminatory conduct in

13 violation of the Fair Housing Act ("aggrieved persons"), which shall be referred to as

14 the "LASD Settlement Fund." The LASD Settlement Fund shall be distributed to

15 aggrieved persons pursuant to the terms and schedule that the parties have agreed to in

16 principle, which the parties will memorialize in an addendum to this Agreement and

17 file with the Court within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date. Within thirty (30)

18 days of the Effective Date, LASD shall deposit the full amount of the LASD

19 Settlement Fund into an interest bearing escrow account.

20

XIII. CIVIL PENALTY

21

197. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, LASD shall pay Twenty-

22 Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) to the United States Treasury as a civil penalty

23 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 3614(d)(1)(C) to vindicate the public interest. The payment

24 shall be in the form of an electronic funds transfer pursuant to written instructions to be

25 provided by the United States.

26

198. In the event that LASD engages in any future violation(s) of the Fair

27 Housing Act, such violation(s) shall constitute a "subsequent violation" pursuant to 42

28 U.S.C. §3614(d)(l)(C)(ii).

-51-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 52 of 58 Page ID #:177

1 XIV. COURT JURISDICTION, MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT,

2

AND ENFORCEMENT

3

199. The Parties agree jointly to file this Agreement with the United States

4 District Court for the Central District of California, in a matter to be captioned United

5 States v. Los Angeles County, et. al., Civil Action No. --CV--. The joint motion shall

6 . request that the Court enter the Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

7 41(a)(2), and conditionally dismiss the complaint in this action without prejudice,

8 while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement. The joint motion shall further

9 request that this action be removed from the Court's active caseload until further

10 application by the Parties or order of the Court. The Parties will request that the Court

11 retain jurisdiction over this action and that the Court's conditional dismissal will not

12 prejudice any party to the action.

13

200. The Agreement will become effective upon entry by the Court.

14

201. This Agreement resolves all of the United States' claims under the

15 §14141 and the FHA against LASD. No prior drafts or prior contemporaneous

16 communications, oral or written, will be relevant or admissible for the purposes of

17 determining the meaning of any provisions herein in any litigation or other proceeding.

18

202. The Agreement is binding upon all Parties hereto, by and through their

19 officials, agents, employees, and successors. If the County establishes or reorganizes a

20 government agency or entity whose function includes overseeing, regulating,

21 accrediting, investigating, or otherwise reviewing the operations of LASD or any

22 aspect thereof, the County agrees to ensure these functions and entities are consistent

23 with the terms of the Agreement and will incorporate the terms of the Agreement into

24 the oversight, regulatory, accreditation, investigation, or review functions of the

25 government agency or entity as necessary to ensure consistency.

26

203. The Agreement is enforceable only by the Parties. No person or entity is

27 intended to be a third-party beneficiary of the provisions of the Agreement for

28 purposes of any civil, criminal, or administrative action, and accordingly, no person or

-52-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 53 of 58 Page ID #:178

1 entity may assert any claim or right as a beneficiary or protected class under the

2 Agreement.

3

204. Unless stated otherwise in the Agreement, if either party disagrees with

4 any aspect of the implementation of the Agreement, that party will engage in good

5 faith informal consultation with the other party and the Monitor to attempt to resolve

6 the disagreement. If the disagreement persists, that party will, within ten days of the

7 apparent impasse, inform the other Parties and the Monitor in writing of the fact of the

8 disagreement. Within 21 days thereafter, the Parties will meet and confer on the

9 disagreement at a mutually agreeable time. If necessary, any party may petition the

10 Court thereafter to resolve the dispute pursuant to the provisions below.

11

205. To ensure that the requirements of the Agreement are properly and timely

12 implemented, the Court will retain jurisdiction of this action for all purposes, including

13 but not limited to any disputed changes to policies, procedures, training, and practices,

14 until such time as the County has achieved full and effective compliance with the

15 Agreement and maintained such compliance for no less than one year.

16

206. The United States acknowledges the good faith of the County in trying to

17 address the remedial measures that are needed to ensure constitutional policing in the

18 Antelope Valley. The United States, however, reserves its right to seek enforcement of

19 the provisions of the Agreement if it determines that the County and LASD have failed

20 to fully comply with any provision of this Agreement. The United States agrees to

21 consult with officials from the County before commencing enforcement proceedings,

22 and to provide opportunity to cure consistent with the informal dispute resolution

23 procedure set forth in Paragraph 204.

24

207. The Monitor, County, and DOJ may jointly stipulate to make changes,

25 modifications, and amendments to the Agreement. Such changes, modifications, and

26 amendments to the Agreement will be encouraged when the Parties agree, or where the

27 reviews, assessments, and/or audits of the Monitor demonstrate, that a Agreement

28 provision as drafted is not furthering the purpose of the Agreement or that there is a

-53-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 54 of 58 Page ID #:179

1 preferable alternative that will achieve the same purpose. The Parties may jointly

2 move for approval of any proposed changes, modifications, and/or amendments, which

3 will become effective upon approval by the Court. No change, modification, or

4 amendment to the Agreement will have any force or effect if not set forth in writing,

5 signed by all the Parties to the Agreement, and approved by the Court.

6

208. The Parties agree to defend the provisions of this Agreement. The Parties

7 shall notify each other of any court or administrative challenge to this Agreement. In

8 the event any provision of this Agreement is challenged in any state, county, or

9 municipal court, the Parties shall seek removal to federal court.

10

209. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to: (a) alter the existing collective

11 bargaining agreements; or (b) impair the collective bargaining rights of employees

12 under State and local law. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to amend or

13 supersede any provision of State or local law.

14

21 0. All Parties agree that, as of the date of entry of this Agreement, litigation

15 is not "reasonably foreseeable" concerning the matters described in this Agreement.

16 To the extent that either Party previously implemented a litigation hold to preserve

17 documents, electronically stored information, or things related to the matters described

18 in this Agreement, the Party is no longer required to maintain such a litigation hold.

19

XV. TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT

20

211. The Parties anticipate that LASD can reach full and effective compliance

21 with this Agreement within four years of the Effective Date.

22

212. The Parties may jointly petition the Court to terminate this Agreement

23 after four years if the Parties believe that LASD has reached full and effective

24 compliance with this Agreement and has maintained that compliance for one year. If,

25 after four years from the Effective Date, the Parties disagree about whether LASD has

26 been full and effective compliance for one year, either party may seek to terminate the

27 Agreement. In the case of termination sought by the County, prior to filing a motion to

28 terminate, the County agrees to notify DOJ in writing when the County has determined

-54-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 55 of 58 Page ID #:180
1 that LASD is in full and effective compliance with this Agreement, including through 2 the alternative method of compliance using outcome assessments, and that such 3 compliance has been maintained for no less than one year. Thereafter, the Parties shall 4 promptly confer as to the status of compliance. The Monitor will certify whether he or 5 she agrees that the County is in compliance with the Agreement or portions of the 6 Agreement at the time of the notification. No later than 21 days thereafter, the Parties 7 will meet and confer at a mutually agreeable time as to the status of compliance. If, 8 after a reasonable period of consultation and the completion of any additional audit or 9 evaluation that DOJ and/or the Monitor may wish to undertake, including on-site 10 observations, document review, or interviews with the County and LASD personnel, 11 the Parties cannot resolve any compliance issues, the County may file a motion to 12 terminate the Agreement. At all times, LASD shall bear the burden of demonstrating 13 compliance with this Agreement. 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 Ill 21 /// 22 Ill 23 Ill 24 Ill 25 Ill 26 Ill 27 Ill 28 ///
-55-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 56 of 58 Page ID #:181

.Apr, I 1 Respectfully submitted this zgrhday of

'2015.

2

3

4 5 For the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

6

7

8

LORETTA E. LYNCH

9

Attorney General

10

11 STEPHANIE YONEKURA 12 Acting United States Attorney

13

14

15

Assistant United S Chief, Civil Div:. i

e

16

17 ROBYN A EL
18 Assistant United St~tes Attorney
19 Assistant Division Chief 20 Civil Rights Unit Chief, Civil Division

21

22
23

24
25
26
27 28

VANITAGUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
Is/
MARK KAPPELHOFF Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Is/
GREGORY B. FRIEL Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Is/
JUDITH C. PRESTON Acting Chief
Is/
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief
Is/
CHRISTY E. LOPEZ Deputy Chief

-56-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 57 of 58 Page ID #:182

1

Is/

2

R. TAMAR HAGLER

3

Deputy Chief

4

Is!

5

CHARLES HART

6

Trial Attorney

7

Is/

8

NORRINDA BROWN HAYAT

CARRIE PAGNUCCO

9

KATHRYN LADEWSKI

10

Trial Attorneys

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19
20 For the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT:
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Senior sistant County Counsel County of Los Angeles

-57-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 4 Filed 04/28/15 Page 58 of 58 Page ID #:183

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8 SO ORDERED this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _____;> 2015.

9

10

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE .

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-58-.

 
 Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 14 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:227

1 VANITA GUPTA

2 Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General JUDITH C. PRESTON (MD Bar)

3 STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM (NY Bar Reg. #1901958)

4 CHRISTY E. LOPEZ (DC Bar #473612) R. TAMAR HAGLER (CA Bar #189441)
5 CHARLES HART (NY Bar Reg. # 4282281)

6 NORRINDA BROWN HAYAT (DC Bar #479640)

7

CARRIE PAGNUCCO (DC Bar #1000551) KATHRYN LADEWSKI (MI Bar #P74431)

8 Civil Rights Division

9 U.S. Department of Justice

JS-6

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

10 Washington, DC 20530

11 Tel: (202) 305-3192

12

Fax: (202) 514-0212 Email: charles.hart@usdoj.gov

13

norrinda.hayat@usdoj.gov

14 Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

19

)

Plaintiff,

)

20

)

21

v.

)

22

) THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

23 and THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY )

24 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

)

)

25

Defendants.

)

26

)

)
27 ____________________________________)

28

No. CV 15-03174
STIPULATION AND [PxRxxOxxPxOxxSxExDxx]x ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER OF RESOLUTION AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 14 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:228

1

INTRODUCTION

2

The parties seek to resolve the Complaint filed by the United States pursuant to

3 the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141

4 (1994) (“Section 14141”) and Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended

5 by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq. (“the Fair

6 Housing Act” or “FHA”), through entry of the attached proposed Settlement

7 Agreement (“Agreement”). See Attachment 1. The Parties request that the Court enter

8 the Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) and conditionally

9 dismiss the complaint in this action without prejudice, retaining jurisdiction to enforce

10 the Agreement, and that the matter be placed on the Court’s inactive docket until

11 further application by the Parties or order of the Court. The Parties will move the Court

12 to dismiss the case with prejudice upon performance of the Agreement. The United

13 States reserves the right to reinstate this action if it deems LASD is not complying with

14 the Agreement.

15

The United States’ Complaint alleges that the LASD engages in a pattern or

16 practice of misconduct by law enforcement officials in its Antelope Valley stations in

17 the Cities of Lancaster and Palmdale (“LASD-AV”) in violation of the Constitution

18 and federal law. Specifically, the United States alleges that LASD-AV law

19 enforcement officials engage in pedestrian and vehicle stops that violate the Fourth

20 Amendment; stops that appear motivated by racial bias, in violation of the Fourteenth

21 Amendment and federal statutory law; the use of unreasonable force in violation of the

22 Fourth Amendment; and discrimination against Antelope Valley residents on the basis

23 of race by making housing unavailable, altering the terms and conditions of housing,

24 and coercing, intimidating, and interfering with their housing rights, in violation of the

25 Fair Housing Act.

26

Although LASD denies the existence of any pattern or practice of

27 unconstitutional or unlawful conduct by its law enforcement officials, it enters into the

28 Settlement Agreement with the goal of addressing the policies, procedures, training,

-2-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 14 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:229

1 and oversight that the United States alleges contributed to a pattern or practice of such

2 violations, and avoiding contested litigation. This Settlement Agreement is intended to

3 ensure that police services are delivered to the Antelope Valley community in a

4 manner that complies with the Constitution and laws of the United States, including

5 the Fair Housing Act, and that persons aggrieved by the LASD’s alleged violations of

6 the Fair Housing Act receive compensation.

7

I. DISCUSSION

8

Entry of the Settlement Agreement is appropriate because the Agreement is

9 fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable, resulted from arms-length negotiations

10 by sophisticated parties, is consistent with the purposes of Section 14141 and the FHA,

11 and is the most effective way to address the allegations of unconstitutional and 12 unlawful policing in the Complaint.1 See Cemex Inc. v. L.A. County, 166 Fed. App’x

13 306, 307 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that consent decree was negotiated in good faith and

14 at “arm’s length,” and was “fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable”). Moreover,

15 public policy favors settlement, particularly in complex litigation such as the pattern or

16 practice claim brought by the United States here. Officers for Justice v. Civil Service

17 Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1217 (1983) (“[I]t

18 must not be overlooked that voluntary conciliation and settlement are the preferred

19 means of dispute resolution.”); United States v. North Carolina, 180 F.3d 574, 581

20 (4th Cir. 1999) (“In considering whether to enter a proposed consent decree, a district

21 court should be guided by the general principle that settlements are encouraged.”);

22

23 1 This Agreement is not a consent decree, but is a settlement agreement that the parties 24
agree should be subject to judicial oversight. In other contexts, the courts have used 25
consent decree analysis to approve and retain judicial enforcement of court26
enforceable agreements that were not consent decrees. See United States v. Oregon, 27
913 F.2d 576, 580 (9th Cir. 1990) (discussing approval and retained jurisdiction over 28
the “Salmon Plan”).

-3-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 14 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:230

1 Arthur v. Sallie Mae, Inc., No. CV10-198-JLR, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3313, at *17-18

2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 10, 2012) (“As a matter of express public policy, federal courts

3 strongly favor and encourage settlements, particularly in class actions and other

4 complex matters.”).

5

In determining whether to approve a proposed settlement, courts consider

6 whether the settlement is “fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” United States

7 v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 580 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Cemex, 166 Fed. App’x 306;

8 United States v. Portland, No. 3:12-cv-02265, at *3 (D. Or. Aug. 29, 2014). In making

9 this determination, courts balance several factors, including but not limited to the

10 “strength of the plaintiffs’ case; risk, expense, complexity and possible duration of

11 continued litigation; relief offered in settlement; extent of discovery already

12 completed; stage of proceedings; experience and views of counsel; governmental

13 participation; and reaction of the class members.” Davis v. City and County of S.F.,

14 890 F.2d 1438, 1445 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, because court-enforceable

15 agreements are a form of judgment, they must conform to applicable laws. See

16 Oregon, 913 F.2d at 580 -81.

17 A. The Settlement Agreement Furthers the Objectives of Section 14141 and

18

the FHA.

19

The parties’ proposed Agreement in this case is meant to resolve the claims in

20 the United States’ complaint. These claims are brought under the United States’

21 statutory authority to ensure lawful and constitutional policing practices under Section

22 14141 and to ensure compliance with, and remedy violations of, the FHA. See 42

23 U.S.C. § 14141; 42 U.S.C. § 3614. Congress enacted Section 14141 to forbid law

24 enforcement officers from engaging in a pattern or practice “that deprives persons of

25 rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the

26 United States.” 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a). Where a pattern or practice of constitutional or

27 statutory violations exists, Congress granted the Justice Department the authority to

28 sue police departments to correct the underlying policies that lead to the misconduct.

-4-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 14 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:231

1 H.R. Rep. No. 102-242, at 137-138 (1991). Similarly, Congress granted the Justice

2 Department the authority to bring a civil action “[w]henever the Attorney General has

3 reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern

4 or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment” of the rights guaranteed by the FHA,

5 “or that any group of persons has been denied” such rights and the “denial raises an

6 issue of general public importance.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 3614(a). The United States is

7 authorized to seek injunctive relief to remedy violations of Section 14141, and to seek

8 injunctive relief and monetary damages for violations of the Fair Housing Act. See 42

9 U.S.C. § 14141; 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d).

10

Here, the Settlement Agreement’s substantive provisions relate directly to the

11 policies, procedures, training, and oversight that the United States alleges contribute to

12 a pattern or practice violations of Section 14141 and the FHA. In the Settlement

13 Agreement, the Parties negotiated and agreed upon revisions to LASD policies,

14 procedures, and practices to address the allegations in the United States’ Complaint.

15 Moreover, the parties negotiated and agreed upon a monetary settlement to compensate

16 the victims of conduct by LASD officials that allegedly violated the FHA.

17

The nexus between this relief and the alleged pattern or practice of violations in

18 the United States’ complaint provides strong evidence that the Settlement Agreement

19 is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The substantive reforms in the Settlement Agreement

20 further the purpose of Section 14141 and the FHA because these reforms directly

21 address the LASD policies and practices creating the alleged pattern or practice of

22 legal and constitutional violations. Similarly, the monetary settlement furthers the

23 purposes of the FHA because the settlement fund will be distributed to persons

24 aggrieved by LASD’s alleged FHA violations in accordance with the FHA, see 42

25 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(B), and LASD will pay a civil penalty to the United States to

26 vindicate the public interest under the FHA, see 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(C).

27

28

-5-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 14 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:232

1 B. The Settlement Agreement Derives from Arms-Length Negotiations and Is

2

Supported by the United States’ Investigation of LASD Enforcement

3

Activities.

4

The process of crafting the Agreement underscores its reasonableness and

5 demonstrates that it is not the product of fraud, collusion, or overreaching. See Cemex,

6 166 Fed. Appx. at 307. All of the Agreement’s provisions derive from intense

7 negotiations between sophisticated parties and are tailored to the findings of the United

8 States’ investigation of LASD’s activities.

9

1. The Settlement Agreement is the Result of Arms-Length Negotiations.

10

The Parties agreed to the Settlement Agreement following extensive

11 negotiations to craft policies and procedures that are capable of preventing LASD

12 officers from engaging in a pattern or practice of legal and constitutional violations as

13 alleged by the United States, and to establish a fund for monetary relief to compensate

14 aggrieved persons under the FHA. Negotiations resulting in the Settlement Agreement

15 began shortly after the United States announced, on June 28, 2013, that its

16 investigation into LASD’s policing activities had found reasonable cause, under

17 Section 14141 and the FHA, to believe that the LASD Antelope Valley stations engage

18 in a pattern or practice of discriminatory and otherwise unlawful policing.

19

The Settlement Agreement reflects the Parties’ efforts to ensure that these

20 alleged violations of Section 14141 and the FHA do not recur, and to compensate

21 victims of the alleged FHA violations. The Parties are intimately familiar with LASD’s

22 practices and invested significant time negotiating the Settlement Agreement.

23 Moreover, during this process, both the United States and LASD consulted with

24 subject matter experts to ensure that each remedial measure in the Settlement

25 Agreement is tailored to address the concern and may be reasonably implemented.

26 This adversarial posture, combined with the respective duties of these government

27 agencies towards those they represent, provides further assurance that the Settlement

28 Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

-6-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 14 Filed 05/01/15 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:233

1

2. The Settlement Agreement is Tailored to the Findings of the United

2

States’ Extensive Investigation.

3

The Settlement Agreement is supported by the findings of the United States’

4 investigation, which were released on June 28, 2013. The investigative team consisted

5 of lawyers and other staff from the Civil Rights Division (“DOJ”) working closely

6 with law enforcement experts. The LASD fully cooperated with the investigation.

7

During this investigation, DOJ and its policing experts gathered information

8 through interviews and meetings with LASD officers, supervisors and command staff,

9 as well as members of the public, community groups, and other community

10 stakeholders. The investigation included on and off-site review of a wide array of

11 documents, and multiple on-site tours in which DOJ personnel and experts

12 accompanied LASD officers during their shifts. In sum, DOJ reviewed tens of

13 thousands of pages of documents, including LASD policies and procedures, training

14 materials, internal use of force reports, public reports, and investigative files and

15 information gleaned from databases at LASD and the Housing Authority of the County

16 of Los Angeles. The evidence underlying the United States’ investigative findings is

17 summarized in its Findings Letter dated June 28, 2013. While litigation of LASD’s

18 liability would create an even more extensive factual record, an adequate factual record

19 supporting the legitimacy of this Settlement Agreement already has been established.

20 The Settlement Agreement is based upon the results of the United States’ investigation,

21 and reflects the input of hundreds of individuals, including LASD officers and

22 members of the community.

23

This extensive investigation, combined with the extensive negotiation

24 discussions, demonstrates that the Settlement Agreement is tailored to the alleged

25 deficiencies identified by the United States. Accordingly, the Settlement Agreement is

26 consistent with and furthers the objectives of Section 14141 and the FHA because it

27 embodies LASD’s agreement to ensure that no pattern or practice of unconstitutional

28 police conduct exists, and to remedy the harm caused by the alleged FHA violations.

-7-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 14 Filed 05/01/15 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:234

1 The Settlement Agreement requires LASD to implement numerous reforms in its

2 Antelope Valley stations in the areas of stops, searches, and seizures; bias-free

3 policing; participation in enforcement of the Housing Choice Voucher Program; use of

4 force; and accountability systems. Moreover, the Settlement Agreement provides for

5 an independent Monitor to assess implementation of these reforms. See Settlement

6 Agreement ¶¶ 146-195. Finally, the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms

7 of this Settlement Agreement. See Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 199-210.

8 C. Voluntary Compliance is a Preferred Means To Remedy Allegations of

9

Unconstitutional Patterns of Conduct

10

Finally, approval and entry of the Settlement Agreement is appropriate here

11 because voluntary compliance is more likely to conserve public resources and

12 accomplish the statutory goals of Section 14141 and the FHA than orders imposed at

13 the end of protracted litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) advisory committee’s note

14 (“Since it obviously eases crowded court dockets and results in savings to the litigants

15 and the judicial system, settlement should be facilitated at as early a stage of the

16 litigation as possible.”); Kirkland v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 711 F.2d 1117,

17 1128 n.14 (2d Cir. 1983) (in the Title VII context, explaining that settlements “may

18 produce more favorable results for protected groups than would more sweeping

19 judicial orders that could engender opposition and resistance”).

20

Here, the Settlement Agreement provides an opportunity to continue the Parties’

21 considerable efforts to ensure lawful and constitutional policing in the Antelope

22 Valley. Settling this dispute without protracted litigation allows the Parties to achieve a

23 shared goal: ensuring effective and constitutional policing. This undertaking likely will

24 enjoy far broader support as part of the negotiated Settlement Agreement than as a one

25 ordered by the court after litigation.

26

II. CONCLUSION

27

The Settlement Agreement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable and

28 should be entered by this Court. The Parties negotiated the Settlement Agreement over

-8-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 14 Filed 05/01/15 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:235
1 an extended period to provide a framework for ensuring that LASD enforcement 2 activities will comply with constitutional and legal requirements, including the Fair 3 Housing Act. Moreover, the Settlement Agreement represents a compromise forged 4 through lengthy negotiations between experienced and sophisticated litigants, aided on 5 both sides by subject matter experts, and with an eye towards their shared goals of 6 effective and constitutional policing. The Settlement Agreement furthers the shared 7 goals of the parties, as well as the intent of Congress in enacting Section 14141 and the 8 FHA. For those reasons and the others described herein, the parties request that this 9 Court enter the Settlement Agreement as an Order of the Court. 10 /// 11 /// 12 /// 13 /// 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 ///
-9-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 14 Filed 05/01/15 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:236

1 Respectfully submitted this 28th day of April, 2015.

2 3 For the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

4

LORETTA E. LYNCH

5

Attorney General

6 STEPHANIE YONEKURA

VANITA GUPTA

7 Acting United States Attorney

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney

8 9 LEON W. WEIDMAN

General Civil Rights Division

10 Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division
11

____/s/______________________ JUDITH C. PRESTON Acting Chief

12 _____/s/__________________________ STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM

13

ROBYN-MARIE LYON MONTELEONE Assistant United States Attorney

Chief CHRISTY E. LOPEZ

14 Assistant Division Chief

R. TAMAR HAGLER

15 Civil Rights Unit Chief, Civil Division 16

Deputy Chiefs CHARLES HART NORRINDA BROWN HAYAT

17

CARRIE PAGNUCCO

18

KATHRYN LADEWSKI Trial Attorneys

19

20 For the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S
21 DEPARTMENT:

22

______/s/________________________

23

JIM MCDONNELL

24

Sheriff

25

_____/s/________________________

26

MARK J. SALADINO

27

County Counsel

County of Los Angeles

28

-10-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 14 Filed 05/01/15 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:237

1

_____/s/_________________________

ROGER GRANBO

2

Senior Assistant County Counsel

3

County of Los Angeles

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

-11-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 14 Filed 05/01/15 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:238

1 VANITA GUPTA

2 Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General JUDITH C. PRESTON (MD Bar)
3 STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM (NY Bar Reg. #1901958)

4 CHRISTY E. LOPEZ (DC Bar #473612) R. TAMAR HAGLER (CA Bar #189441)
5 CHARLES HART (NY Bar Reg. # 4282281)

6 NORRINDA BROWN HAYAT (DC Bar #479640)

7

CARRIE PAGNUCCO (DC Bar #1000551) KATHRYN LADEWSKI (MI Bar #P74431)

8 Civil Rights Division

9 U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
10 Washington, DC 20530

11 Tel: (202) 305-3192

12

Fax: (202) 514-0212 Email: charles.hart@usdoj.gov

13

norrinda.hayat@usdoj.gov

14 Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

19

)

Plaintiff,

)

20

)

21

v.

)

22

) THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

23 and THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY )

24 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

)

)

25

Defendants.

)

26

)

)
27 ____________________________________)

28

No. CV 15-03174
[PxxRxOxxPxOxxSxExxDx] ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER OF RESOLUTION AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 14 Filed 05/01/15 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:239

1 [xPxRxxOxxPxOxxSxExxD] ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND

2

ORDER OF RESOLUTION AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

3

4

AND NOW, upon consideration of the Complaint of the United States of

5 America, and the Parties’ attached Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Order of

6 Resolution, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the

7 Settlement Agreement and Order of Resolution is APPROVED and Judgment shall be

8 ENTERED in this matter in the attached form. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), the

9 Complaint is hereby conditionally dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the matter

10 is placed on the Court’s inactive docket until further application by the Parties or order

11 of the Court. The Court retains complete jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the

12 terms of the Settlement Agreement until the Defendants have fulfilled their

13 obligations, at which point the case will be dismissed.

14

15 Dated: _5_/1_/_15_____________

________________________

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 ///

18 ///

19 ///

20 ///

21 ///

22 ///

23 ///

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

-2-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 14 Filed 05/01/15 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:240

1 Respectfully submitted this 28th day of April, 2015.

2 3 For the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

4

LORETTA E. LYNCH

5

Attorney General

6 STEPHANIE YONEKURA

VANITA GUPTA

7 Acting United States Attorney

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney

8 9 LEON W. WEIDMAN

General Civil Rights Division

10 Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division
11

___/s/_______________________ JUDITH C. PRESTON Acting Chief

12 ___/s/____________________________ STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM

13

ROBYN-MARIE LYON MONTELEONE Assistant United States Attorney

Chief CHRISTY E. LOPEZ

14 Assistant Division Chief

R. TAMAR HAGLER

15 Civil Rights Unit Chief, Civil Division 16

Deputy Chiefs CHARLES HART NORRINDA BROWN HAYAT

17

CARRIE PAGNUCCO

18

KATHRYN LADEWSKI Trial Attorneys

19

20 For the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S
21 DEPARTMENT:

22

____/s/__________________________

23

JIM MCDONNELL

24

Sheriff

25

___/s/__________________________

26

MARK J. SALADINO

27

County Counsel

County of Los Angeles

28

-3-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 14 Filed 05/01/15 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:241

1

_____/s/_________________________

ROGER GRANBO

2

Senior Assistant County Counsel

3

County of Los Angeles

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

-4-

 
 Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 17 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:254

1 VANITA GUPTA

2 Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General JUDITH C. PRESTON (MD Bar)

FILED
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

3 STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM (NY Bar Reg. #1901958)

4 CHRISTY E. LOPEZ (DC Bar #473612)

7/21/2015

R. TAMAR HAGLER (CA Bar #189441) 5 CHARLES HART (NY Bar Reg. # 4282281) 6 NORRINDA BROWN HAYAT (DC Bar #479640)

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
cw BY: ___________________ DEPUTY

7

CARRIE PAGNUCCO (DC Bar #1000551) KATHRYN LADEWSKI (MI Bar #P74431)

8 Civil Rights Division

9 U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
10 Washington, DC 20530

11 Tel: (202) 305-3192

12

Fax: (202) 514-0212 Email: charles.hart@usdoj.gov

13

norrinda.hayat@usdoj.gov

14 Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

19

)

Plaintiff,

)

20

)

21

v.

)

22

) THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

23 and THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY )

24 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

)

)

25

Defendants.

)

26

)

)
27 ____________________________________)

28

No. 2:15-cv-03174
ORDER APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 17 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:255

1

AND NOW, upon consideration of the parties’ attached Stipulation and

2 Supplemental Settlement Agreement, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

3 DECREED that pursuant to paragraph 196 of the Settlement Agreement, the

4 Supplemental Settlement Agreement is APPROVED.

5

6 Dated: July 21, 2015

________________________

7

Judge John F. Walter

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 17 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:256

1 Respectfully submitted this 20th day of July, 2015.

2 3 For the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

4

LORETTA E. LYNCH

5

Attorney General

6 EILEEN M. DECKER

VANITA GUPTA

7 United States Attorney

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney

8 9 LEON W. WEIDMAN

General Civil Rights Division

10 Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division
11

/s/ JUDITH C. PRESTON Acting Chief

12 __/s/ _________ _________

STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM

13

ROBYN-MARIE LYON MONTELEONE Assistant United States Attorney

Chief CHRISTY E. LOPEZ

14 Assistant Division Chief

R. TAMAR HAGLER

15 Civil Rights Unit Chief, Civil Division 16

Deputy Chiefs CHARLES HART NORRINDA BROWN HAYAT

17

CARRIE PAGNUCCO

18

KATHRYN LADEWSKI Trial Attorneys

19

20 For the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT:
21

22

_/s/_______________________

MARY C. WICKHAM

23

Interim County Counsel

24

County of Los Angeles

25

/s/______________________

26

ROGER GRANBO

27

Senior Assistant County Counsel

County of Los Angeles

28

-3-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 17 Filed 07/21/15 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:257

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 17 Filed 07/21/15 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:258

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 17 Filed 07/21/15 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:259

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 17 Filed 07/21/15 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:260

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 17 Filed 07/21/15 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:261

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 17 Filed 07/21/15 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:262

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 17 Filed 07/21/15 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:263

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 17 Filed 07/21/15 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:264

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 17 Filed 07/21/15 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:265

 
 U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Special Litigation Section - PHB 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington DC 20530
Resumen de la Carta de Hallazgos del Valle de Antelope
El 28 de Junio del 2013, la División de Derechos Civiles del Departamento de Justicia anuncio los resultados de su investigación en la practicas del Departamento del alguacil del Condado de Los Ángeles (“LASD”, por su sigla en inglés) en las estaciones de Lancaster y Palmdale, ambos cuales estan localizadas en el Valle de Antelope en el sur de California. El Departamento encontró que LASD está realizando un patrón y practica de paradas, registros y arrestos, incluyendo uso de fuerza excesiva, en violación de la Constitución y la ley federal. Además, el Departamento de Justicia encontró un patrón y practica de discriminación contra los afro-americanos en la ejecución del programa de Vivienda Pública en violación de la Ley de Equidad de Vivienda. La investigación, la cual se comenzó el 19 de agosto del 2011, se llevo a cabo del Acto de Control de Delitos Violentos del 1994, Título 7 del Acto de los Derechos Civiles del 1964, y el Acta de Equidad de Vivienda.
Los resultados de la investigación están basados en una investigación comprehensiva llevado a cabo por dos secciones de la División de Derechos Civiles: la Sección de Litigio Especial y la Sección de Vivienda y Cumplimiento Civil. Esta investigación incluye un análisis a fondo de documentos y datos proveídos por LASD y la Autoridad de Vivienda del Condado de Los Ángeles ("HACoLA”, por su sigla en inglés), así como la participación extensa de la comunidad. Abogados y expertos en el tema revisaron más de 35,000 documentos de LASD, incluyendo, pero no limitado a póliza, materiales de entrenamiento, informes sobre el uso de fuerza, informes de detención, reportes de quejas de civiles, y planes de operación. La División también realizó una visita de seis días a Palmdale y Lancaster y entrevistó varios comandantes de LASD y empleados de primera línea, viajaron con diputados de patrulla, visitaron a las estaciones del Valle de Antelope y sus distritos, entrevistaron a oficiales del gobierno local, y tuvieron juntas con otras agencias pertinentes del gobierno. Esta visita incluyó dos juntas con la comunidad que fueron asistidas por cientos de miembros de la comunidad y hubo esfuerzos adicionales para entrevistar a más miembros de la comunidad. En total, sobre el curso de la investigación, aproximadamente 400 miembros de la comunidad fueron entrevistados en persona o por teléfono. El Departamento de Justicia trabajó de manera cercana con dos expertos en las prácticas policiales con experiencia extensa en este tema y el sistema de responsabilidad, e igual con un experto quien realizo un análisis de los datos de búsqueda y detención de LASD de casi 49,000 encuentros con peatones y de vehículos por un año entero. El alguacil Leroy Baca y el director ejecutivo de HACoLA Sean Rogan fueron cooperativos durante la investigación e inmediatamente comenzaron trabajando con el Departamento de Justicia para negociar una solución a los problemas revelados por nuestra investigación.
Historial
El Valle de Antelope queda aproximadamente a 70 millas al noreste de Los Angeles, California, e incluye las ciudades de Lancaster y Palmdale junto con áreas no incorporadas. LASD es la agencia principal del orden público para el Valle de Antelope, y las ciudades de
1

Lancaster y Palmdale contratan con LASD para que provean servicios del orden público. Un total de aproximadamente 400 deputados son asignados a las estaciones de Lancaster y Palmdale. Históricamente, los contratos de LASD con las ciudades han incluido los servicios de patrullas. Entre 2004 y 2011, LASD dedico recursos extensos a vigilar participantes del Programa de Vivienda Pública en el Valle de Antelope, que es un programa de asistencia de vivienda conocido comúnmente como el programa de la Sección 8 que provee oportunidades de vivienda para familias de bajos ingresos.
La intolerancia racial es una parte desafortunada de la historia del Valle de Antelope. En la década siguiente a1960, las familias afro-americanas que querían vivir en Lancaster o Palmdale fueron dirigidos a la vecindad históricamente de grupos de la minoría de Sun Valley debido a las prácticas discriminatorias de bienes raíces por el Valle de Antelope. En los 1980, la demografía en el Valle de Antelope empezó a cambiar debido a los bajos precios de bienes raíces que atrajo a familias de otras partes del condado de Los Angeles, quienes fueron principalmente afro-americanos y latinos. Mientras las poblaciones de afro-americanos y latinos aumentaban, también aumento las tensiones raciales. Durante la década siguiente a 1990, hubo una serie de crímenes raciales en el Valle de Antelope. En la última década, los crímenes raciales han continuado: dos hombres afro-americanos fueron apuñalados por el hijo del candidato para alcalde, quien es blanco, y que estaba recitando dichos de “Poder Blanco”1 la noche del crimen; dos hogares en Palmdale fueron vandalizados con palabras ofensiva y raciales y una esvástica; y en agosto 2010, una iglesia que es mayormente afro-americana fue atacada con bombas incendiarias. A partir del 2010, el Valle de Antelope tenía los niveles más altos de crímenes raciales de cualquier región en el condado de Los Angeles.
Según la oficina del Censo, entre 1990 y 2010, la población de Lancaster creció de 97,291 a 156,633, mientras que la proporción de blancos en la población total disminuyo del 79% a 49.6%. También durante ese tiempo la población de afro-americanos aumento casi el triple, de 7.4% de la población a 20.5% de la población; y la población latina aumento del 15% al 38% de la población. Durante el mismo periodo de 20 años, la población de Palmdale creció de 68,917 a 152,750, mientras que el porcentaje de blancos en la población total disminuyo del 76% al 49% de la población. También durante ese tiempo, la proporción de afro-americanos aumento más del doble, creciendo del 6.4% de la población al 14.8% de la población; y la población de latinos aumento drásticamente del 22% al 54.4% de la población. Además, el número de afro-americanos quienes tienen el comprobante de asistencia de vivienda en el Valle de Antelope ha aumentado en los últimos diez años. Entre el 2000 y el 2008, el número aproximado de familias afro-americanas con comprobantes en Lancaster aumento de 510 a 1,530, y en Palmdale, de 455 a 825. Para el 2010, 73% de los hogares con comprobantes de asistencia de vivienda en Lancaster y 69% en Palmdale eran Afro-Americanos. En comparación, para ese mismo periodo en 2010, solo el 37% de la población de personas con comprobantes de asistencia de vivienda de HACoLA y aproximadamente 40% de los hogares en la lista de espera eran afro-americanos.
En Lancaster y Palmdale, algunos residentes han sido vocales sobre su oposición al aumento del número de personas con comprobantes de asistencia de vivienda, en particular los
1 Frases de “poder blanco” indican que la persona cree en la superioridad de la raza blanca sobre los demás.
2

que son afro-americanos. Algunos oficiales de la cuidad de Lancaster y Palmdale han expresado en varias ocasiones hostilidad hacia ciertos grupos de personas quienes tienen comprobantes de la Sección 8. En respuesta a esta hostilidad, el NAACP y la Liga de Acción Comunitaria presentaron una demanda contra Lancaster, Palmdale, y la Autoridad de Vivienda del Condado de Los Ángeles (HACoLA), y LASD, que resultó en acuerdos por ambas ciudades a dirigirse a los mensajes hostiles que han venido desde los mismos oficiales de la ciudad sobre personas que participan en el programa de asistencia de vivienda.2 Ambas ciudades entraron en acuerdos parecidos con los demandantes en donde prometieron, entre otras cosas, emitir un comunicado de prensa anunciando que las ciudades condenan la discriminación y dan la bienvenida a personas de antecedentes diversos, incluyendo participantes en el programa de asistencia de vivienda, y a acatar a todas las leyes federales, estatales y locales de la vivienda justa. En el anuncio del acuerdo de Lancaster, el alcalde Parris dijo, “Estoy emocionado de trabajar con los [líderes de TCAL y NAACP], son buenos hombres y hombres inteligentes y parece que queremos las mismas cosas.” Continuo con, “Sin duda, 97 por ciento de las personas que reciben beneficios de la Sección 8 están beneficiando a la comunidad.”
Estereotipos raciales evidentes en declaraciones hechos en el pasado por algunos dentro de los líderes de Lancaster y Palmdale también se reflejan dentro del liderazgo de LASD en el Valle de Antelope. Durante nuestra visita investigativa, un oficial supervisor de LASD ofreció una opinión no solicitada que todos los residentes afro-americanos recién llegados al Valle de Antelope son o eran miembros de pandillas. Tan temprano como el 2004, en la estación de Lancaster el antes capitán de la estación hizo comentarios a la prensa sobre recipientes del comprobante de asistencia de vivienda que incluyo una fusión similar de raza, crimen, y el programa de asistencia de vivienda: “Muchas veces, [el recipiente del comprobante] está tratando de hacer algo bueno: su sobrino de South Central se está metiendo en problemas así que lo mandan acá. El les recompensa con la continuación de sus actividades en las pandillas.” Entre 2010 y 2011, civiles introdujeron por lo menos 25 quejas sobre el comportamiento discriminatorio de los deputados del Valle de Antelope, incluyendo por lo menos dos quejas alegando que los deputados usaron lenguaje racial y discriminatorio (uno de cuales fue grabado por video). Estas alegaciones en las quejas formales de discriminación están de acuerdo con las vastas quejas no reportadas de discriminación y acoso que miembros de la comunidad fueron relatados a nosotros durante el curso de nuestra investigación.
Las leyes debajo de cual el Departamento de Justicia comenzó esta investigación autorizan los Estados Unidos a presentar una acción legal cuando tienen causa razonable de creer que una agencia de la aplicación de la ley participa en un patrón o practica de violaciones de la Constitución o leyes de los Estados Unidos. Un patrón o práctica se puede encontrar con ejemplos representando conducto típico, al opuesto a situaciones aisladas. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 336 n.16 (1977) (señalando que la frase “patrón o practica” “no fue destinado ser un término de la técnica”, sino debería ser interpretado de
2 Ve los acuerdos entre el demandante y las ciudades de Palmdale y Lancaster resolviendo las demandas civiles en The Cmty. Action League, et al. v. City of Palmdale, et al., No. CV 11-4817 ODW (VBKx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2012). Ninguna de las ciudades admitieron las violaciones allegadas en la demanda.
3

acuerdo con sus significados usuales ’consistente con el entendimiento de las palabras mismas‘ usadas en otras leyes federales de los derechos civiles). Para que una corte encuentre un patrón o práctica, no necesita encontrar una cierta cantidad de incidentes o actos. Ve United States v W. Peachtree Tenth Corp., 437 F.2d 221, 227 (5th Cir. 1971) (“El numero de [violaciones]… no es determinativo…En todo caso, ninguna formula matemática es posible, ni fue destinado. Cada caso debe depender de sus propios hechos).
Resumen de los Hallazgos
Las prácticas policiales en el Valle de Antelope reflejan, y desafortunadamente contribuyen a, una división entre algunos de los residentes de más largo plazo, principalmente residentes blancos en la comunidad, y más nuevos residentes, probablemente no-blancos, al Valle de Antelope. La investigación demostró causa razonable para creer que deputados de LASD del Valle de Antelope participan en un patrón o practica de mala conducta en violación de la Constitución y la ley federal en varias maneras, incluyendo:
• Paros peatonales y vehiculares que violan la 4ª Enmienda;
• Paros que parecen ser motivados por prejuicio racial, en violación de la 4ª Enmienda y ley estatutaria federal;
• El uso de fuerza excesiva en violación de la 4ª Enmienda; y
• Discriminación racial contra residentes del Valle de Antelope haciendo la vivienda inaccesible, cambiando las condiciones de la vivienda, y coercer, intimidar, y interferir con sus derechos de vivienda, en violación de la Acta de Vivienda Justa (FHA, por su sigla en ingles)3
La investigación también demostró que los sistemas de rendición de cuentas de LASD no son efectivos en la detección o prevención de estos patrones de conducta ilegal en el Valle de Antelope. Las estaciones de LASD del Valle de Antelope no consideran ni resuelvan de manera adecuada las quejas de los miembros de la comunidad quienes alegan mal trato por los deputados. El programa de advertencia temprana no identifica adecuadamente y no responde efectivamente a los deputados del Valle de Antelope con varias quejas u otros historiales indicando una necesidad de intervenir para prevenir futuro y posiblemente violaciones más atroces de los pólices de LASD y la ley.
3 Junto con estos hallazgos, encontramos que, mientras que LASD ha tenido la práctica de violar los derechos de la cuarta enmienda de los recipientes de comprobantes de vivienda, este patrón de violaciones constitucionales aparece ser corregida, en parte porque LASD, con la asistencia de su oficina de revisión independiente, instituyó nuevas pólizas y prácticas que entraron en vigor en marzo 2012 (después de que empezó nuestra investigación) para prevenir búsquedas prohibidos por la Constitución.
4

Paradas y búsquedas racialmente dispares
Con la asistencia de un experto en estadística, realizamos un análisis de regresión de todos las 4,084 paradas peatonales y las 44,672 paradas vehiculares grabadas en Lancaster y Palmdale durante el 2011.4 Este análisis nos permitió controlar para factores aparte de raza que posiblemente pueden influir las razones por cuales los afro-americanos y los latinos son detenidos y/o cacheados a una proporción más alta. Los datos revelaron aplicación de la ley parcial, ya que los afro-americanos, y a un menor grado, los latinos, son más probables de ser parados o cacheados que los blancos. A pesar de la creencia que prácticas de aplicación de la ley más agresivas son necesarias debido a la recién fluctuación en el grado de crímenes en el área, no hay ninguna explicación aparente relacionado al seguro público que justifica este patrón de paradas y búsquedas racialmente dispares. El más alto grado de búsquedas de los peatones afroamericanos, por ejemplo, no ha correlacionado a un nivel más alto del descubrimiento del contrabando. De hecho, en Lancaster, la toma de contrabando alrededor del 50% más bajo para afro-americanos que para blancos.5 Mas aparte, aun usando el análisis de regresión para controlar para una variedad de factores, encontramos que en las ofensas donde la discreción del oficial es particularmente alta, los peatonales afro-americanos en Lancaster son 25% más probables de ser parados que los blancos.
Detenciones Inapropiadas del Asiento de Atrás
Consistente con el efecto desproporcionado total de la actividad policial sobre comunidades de color en el Valle de Antelope, un repaso de los informes de incidentes y entrevistas con los miembros de la comunidad revelan interacciones problemáticas y en casos inconstitucionales, entre deputados con individuales. Miembros de la comunidad relataron reportes de deputados conduciendo detenciones inapropiadas y nuestras observaciones confirmaron que estos incidentes no eran aberrantes. Por ejemplo, deputados de Valle de Antelope, en violación de la ley y de manera rutinam detienen a miembros de la comunidad, incluyendo víctimas de violencia domestica y transgresores de violaciones de trafico menores, en el asiento de atrás de la patrulla sin una valoración individual de peligro o sospecho. LASD de manera rutina falla en hacer determinaciones de criminalidad, amenaza, o riesgo requeridas por la Constitución cuando los detienen en el asiento de atrás de la patrulla. No solamente es este uso indistinto del asiento de atrás no constitucional, también viola las pólizas de LASD que requieren uso juicioso de esta práctica. Uso inapropiado de esta táctica socava la legitimidad de LASD por que asustan y humillan a las personas que los deputados esta jurados a proteger, y refleja una aparente suposición que cada persona que encuentra presenta una amenaza criminal.
4 El análisis de regresión demostrado disparidades raciales se pueden usar para comprobar un patrón o practica de discriminación. Ve Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 400-02 (1986) (alegando un patrón o practica de discriminación en el trabajo); Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 337-40 (1977) (alegando un patrón o practica de discriminación en el trabajo).
5 No encontramos una tasa desproporcionada de tomas de contrabando en Palmdale.
5

Uso de Fuerza Excesiva
Aunque la investigación demostró que la fuerza fue usada de varias maneras no razonables, dos prácticas en particular eran más frecuentes: el uso irrazonable y/o vengativo contra un individual en manillas y el uso innecesario de bofetadas a la cabeza o cara de individuales en manillas. Los deputados del Valle de Antelope usan fuerza contra individuales en manillas con una frecuencia sorprendente y en circunstancias donde la fuerza parece claramente irrazonable. Notablemente, la gran mayoría de los incidentes del uso de fuerza excesiva contra individuales manillas fueron contra personas de color. Mientras que la mayoría de los incidentes aparecen contrarios a los pólices de LASD, algunos pólizas y prácticas de LASD aparecen permitir e incluso fomentan el uso de fuerza por deputados que es fuera de proporción a la amenaza de daño que se presenta.
La investigación también examina los informes sobre el uso de fuerza donde el sujeto fue acusado de solo los siguientes, y ningún otro, crimenes: resistir la detención o obstruir los deberes de un oficial, sea una felonía, California Penal Code (PC) § 69; un delito, PC § 148(a)(1); y agresión dirigido a un oficial de la paz o un oficial público sin la imposición de lesiones, PC § 243(b). Sorprendentemente, 81% de los incidentes de uso de fuerza que fueron revisados donde la única acusación era relacionado a la obstrucción, involucraron a personas afro-americanos o latinos. En los 25 arrestos de felonías de obstrucción, 88% de los victimas involucrados eran personas de color. Este número de los acuses de obstrucción involucrando el uso de fuerza contra personas de color es extraordinariamente desproporcionado y merece atención especial por el Departamento. Porque estos tipos de detenciones son particularmente susceptibles al abuso, un reporte del 2010 del Consejo Especial de Los Ángeles recomendó que supervisores deberían “cuidadosamente hacer el repaso de estas detenciones para asegurar que no hay abuso”, y LASD preparo una nueva directiva en diciembre 2011 para identificar algunas categorías de arrestos con cargos de obstrucción. LASD tiene que continuar a revisar este tipo de arrestos, y también poner atención particular a la fuerza usada durante arrestos de afroamericanos y latinos con un cargo de obstrucción
Ejecución Sesgada del Programa de Vales de Elección de Vivienda
Las actividades de LASD en relación a los hogares ocupados por titulares de comprobantes de vivienda en Lancaster y Palmdale resultaron en violaciones del Acta de Equidad de Vivienda y, en algunas instancias, el 4º Eenmiendo. Por lo menos entre 2008 hasta mediados del 2011, LASD participó en las investigaciones de HACoLA de hogares participando en el programa de comprobantes a tasas desproporcionadas en el Valle de Antelope a comparación a las otras partes del condado donde las jurisdicciones de HACoLA y LASD coinciden, desproporcionalmente afectando a los titulares de comprobantes afro-americanos. Las estaciones de LASD en Lancaster y Palmdale han jugado un papel crítico en la campaña contra titulares de comprobantes de vivienda en el Valle de Antelope, incluyendo por intimidar, acosar, y facilitar la terminación de titulares de comprobantes del programa, ambos en conjunto con investigadores de HACoLA e investigadores independientes. La investigación demostró que la conducta de LASD en relación a los titulares de comprobantes de vivienda afro-americanos viola el FHA.
6

Fallos de Rendición de Cuentas
Aunque las pólizas de LASD en general son consistentes con prácticas policiales constitucionales, encontramos que los fallos sistémicos en la aplicación de estas pólizas y procedimientos persisten y han aumentado la falta de confianza en LASD por comunidades afroamericanas y latinas en el Valle de Antelope. Por ejemplo, a pesar del protocolo comprensivo para responder a, clasificar, y revisar quejas de civiles, las violaciones de la póliza por deputados en interacciones raramente resultan en una respuesta significativa de la parte de LASD. De 180 quejas de mala conducta, nombradas “informes de comentarios sobre conducta”, escritos por civiles sobre un periodo de un año en el Valle de Antelope, solo uno fue investigado formalmente como investigación administrativa. Ese caso resulto en acusaciones criminales presentadas contra el deputado involucrado. Entre las otras 179 quejas, que fueron manejadas como revisas informales de servicio en vez de investigaciones formales, eran quejas de mala conducta significante, incluyendo quejas del uso de fuerza excesiva y prácticas policiales discriminatorias. La clasificación de estas investigaciones como “reseña de servicio” es significante. Solo quejas que son elevadas a investigaciones administrativas formales, al contrario a los reseñas informales de servicios, puede resultar en disciplina. Es significativo que durante este periodo de un año, solo una queja presentada por un civil fue suficientemente seria para elevarla a una investigación administrativa (tan seria conducta debería ser investigada como investigación administrativa en vez de cómo reseño de servicio) para que la disciplina sea posible. LASD ha minimizado la seriedad de quejas sobre discriminación con su falla de investigar cualquiera como queja seria que posiblemente puede resultar en disciplina.
Preocupaciones de la Comunidad
Prevención efectiva del crimen incluye la asociación no solo con agencias hermanas como HACoLA, pero también con los miembros de la comunidad. En el Valle de Antelope, una comunidad con una historia de tensiones raciales, es obligatoria para LASD tener consciente las actitudes parciales que pueden ser adoptadas por algunos individuales en la comunidad hasta el punto que afecta la ejecución de las actividades de los deputados. Las pólizas de LASD demuestran que reconoce la importancia de desarrollar y mantener confianza y al mismo tiempo proteger la comunidad que atiende, y durante el curso de la investigación, LASD demostró una mayor dedicación a responder a las preocupaciones de la comunidad.
Algunos patrones recurrentes identificados específicamente por los miembros de la comunidad son capturadas en lo siguiente. Aunque la investigación no obtuvo documentación que confirme estos tipos de alegaciónes reportados por la comunidad, la consistencia entre estos informes de la comunidad merece la atención de LASD. Mientras que estas alegaciones pueden ser instancias aisladas de comportamiento errante, la frecuencia de estas quejas, especialmente en el contexto de nuestros resultados, sugiere más patrones de conducto no profesionales, y posiblemente ilegales.
• En el Valle de Antelope, la práctica de confiscar vehículos cuales conductores no pueden producir una cedula de conducir válida tiene un impacto extremamente dispar en la población afro-americana y latina. En el 2011, hubo 3,811 confiscaciones de vehículos en Lancaster, y 1,061 confiscaciones de vehículos en Palmdale. En Lancaster, 82.6% de
7

estas confiscaciones eran de vehículos que pertenecían a afro-americanos y latinos, que solo son 58.5% de la población. En Palmdale, 88.9% de los vehículos confiscados eran de coches conducidos por afro-americanos y latinos, que solo son 69.2% de la población. La consecuencia de esta práctica en las comunidades de color es particularmente preocupante dado a los cientos de dólares requeridos para la devuelta del vehículo, el tiempo requisito durante que el vehículo esta confiscado, y el hecho de que es difícil mantener un trabajo o ir a la escuela o un entrenamiento de trabajo en esa parte del condado sin un vehículo. El Departamento de Justicia no evaluó si las confiscaciones de vehículos fueron adecuadas, pero dado el impacto que tiene esto en la calidad de vida para residentes de color del Valle de Antelope, y las relaciones entre LASD y la comunidad, se insiste a LASD a usar esa práctica solo cuando es necesario para servir una “función de protección comunitaria”. Cal. Veh. Code § 22651(h)(1). Una opinión reciente del Ministro de la Justicia de California, provea sugerencias que los coches que pertenecen a conductores sin cedula de conducir no tienen que ser automáticamente confiscados. Cal. Attorney General Opinion, No. 12-301, May 3, 2012, at p. 15.
• Hubieron varias quejas de parte de propietarios latinos de pequeños negocios que sus llamadas pidiendo asistencia no fueron resueltos dentro de un período de tiempo razonable. Por ejemplo, un propietario latino de una tienda de ropa alegó que sus llamadas pidiendo asistencia no fueron resueltos dentro de un período de tiempo razonable. Informó que su negocio ha sido robado nueve veces en los últimos cuatro años, pero que deputados solo han contestado a sus llamadas dos veces. Una falla de proveer servicios básicos de aplicación de la ley a ciertas comunidades, si son comprobadas, puede subir al nivel de una violación de la constitución. LASD ha reportado que las estaciones del valle de Antelope han comenzado a trabajar en este asunto atraves de comparar el tiempo de respuesta en 2011 en el lado este con el lado oeste de Lancaster y Palmdale. En su análisis inicial, LASD reportó tiempos de respuesta comparables en el lado este y oeste de Lancaster, y atribuyó tiempos de respuesta más largos en el lado este de Palmdale a un volumen más alto de llamadas para servicio. El Departamento de Justicia espera a un análisis más exhaustivo sobre este tema, incluyendo encuestas con las opiniones de la comunidad sobre la respuesta a llamadas pidiendo servicio.
• Hubieron múltiples reportes que los deputados del Valle de Antelope han sometido a los miembros de familia y compañeros a condiciones degradantes y posiblemente ilegales durante investigaciones de cumplimiento con las condiciones de libertad condicional. En una ocasión particularmente escandalosa, una mujer mayor de edad fue forzada a sentarse en su yarda en pleno invierno mientras que los deputados hacían una investigación de cumplimiento con las condiciones de libertad condicional para un familiar. Este tratamiento recuerda a un caso civil que fue resuelto, en cual, en Noviembre del 2007, varios diputados forzaron a una pareja afro-americana mayor de edad fuera de su casa y
8

los obligaron a acostarse en el piso mientras que los diputados les gritaban profanidades. También se escucharon varios reportes de diputados haciendo una búsqueda en los compañeros de los que están en libertad condicional, aunque carecían de sospecho que el compañero había estado involucrado en alguna actividad criminal.
• Hubieron múltiples reportes de jornaleros recibiendo multas por vagancia mientras que estaban solicitando trabajo en las áreas públicas de Lancaster. Solicitación es una manera de expresión protegida por el Primer Enmiendo, que significa que hay limitaciones en las restricciones que el estado puede imponer sobre los esfuerzos de un individual en su búsqueda de trabajo. Ve Comité de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F3d 936, 945 (9th Cir. 2011); Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 709 F.3d. 808, 828 (9th Cir. 2013). LASD esta advertido contra cualquier actividad que ilegalmente limita los derechos de jornaleros en la solicitación de empleo.
• Algunos deputados del Valle de Antelope tienen tatuajes o comparten parafernalia intimidante con un símbolo de calaveras y víboras como una marca de su asociación con las estaciones del Valle de Antelope. Aunque hay varias interpretaciones de lo que pueden significar estos tatuajes, demuestran una representación visual innegable de la gran división entre los deputados y la comunidad, y son desafortunadamente un recordatorio de la historia de LASD con símbolos asociados con comportamiento problemático de parte de los deputados. LASD ha asegurado el Departamento de Justicia que las estaciones del Valle de Antelope han intentado reprimir la imagen de la calavera y víbora mientras promoviendo el símbolo oficial y más apropiado del Valle de Antelope. El Departamento de Justicia continua estar preocupado que estas imágenes no oficiales aun siguen siendo muy visibles por el Valle de Antelope – recientemente, la imágen fue vista en una pegatina para el parachoques pegada en un coche en el estacionamiento de la estación del alguacil en Lancaster. Porque muchos diputados del Valle de Antelope ambos viven y trabajan en el valle, estas insignias son posiblemente más notables dentro del Valle de Antelope. El Departamento de Justicia fomenta a LASD a tomar medidas más fuertes para disuadir los deputados de mostrar estos símbolos, incluyendo entrenamiento para asegurar que deputados entienden el mensaje inconsistente y divisivo que se envía por la adopción de semejante insignia, mientras respetando sus derechos de la primera enmienda.
El Departamento de Justicia reconoce que las estaciones del Valle de Antelope han estado trabajando para mejorar sus esfuerzos en sus conexiones con la comunidad y felicita a LASD por tomar nuevas iniciativas de conexión con la comunidad y por proactivamente buscarsugerencias sobre estos esfuerzos durante el curso de nuestra investigación. Por ejemplo, LASD se ha comprometido a renovar sus esfuerzos en mejorar su relación con la comunidad para aumentar el nivel de confianza entre el Departamento y la comunidad. En una carta a DOJ del Junio del 2012 sobre los últimos esfuerzos de reforma de LASD, el alguacil Baca repitió que es la responsabilidad de los capitanes a “redoblar sus esfuerzos a identificar todas las
9

oportunidades para desarrollar confianza con líderes de la comunidad quien se pueden sentir menos emancipados, no representados por agencias del gobierno, o simplemente no escuchados.” Los capitanes de la estación del Valle de Antelope han desarrollado el Comité de Asesoría Comunitaria (CAC). Los CACs son compuestos de miembros de la comunidad quien se junta con líderes en la estación para discutir varios temas, incluyendo tiroteos involucrando deputados, relaciones con los grupos en la minoría, el programa de volantes para la vivienda, vigilancia por civiles, y extensión a la comunidad. En Palmdale, el capitán primordialmente escogió líderes de la comunidad que son miembros de grupos en la minoría con antecedentes diversos para participar en el CAC, varios quienes recientemente criticaron públicamente a la policía del Valle de Antelope.
Los líderes de la estación del Valle de Antelope también han ido a juntas de la Comisión de Relaciones Humanas del Valle de Antelope, participaron en Café con Leche, un programa de radio hispano, y se reunieron con la junta directiva de la Liga de Ciudadanos Unidos de América Latina. El Departamento de Justicia más entiende que las estaciones del Valle de Antelope, en conjunto con los Servicios Policiales Orientados hacia la Comunidad, han realizado encuestas comunitarias en Lancaster y Palmdale para identificar crimen y molestias en las vecindades.
Miembros de la comunidad han empezado a expresar su gratitud a DOJ por los esfuerzos recientes de los líderes de LASD a participar en conexión con la comunidad significativa, y miembros de la comunidad han tenido experiencias positivas trabajando con los nuevos líderes de la estación del Valle de Antelope, Capitán Don Ford y Capitán Patrick Nelson. El Departamento de Justicia anima a LASD a continuar en este camino de desarrollar esta relación colaborativa con la comunidad y buscar una estrategia de cómo mejor involucrar a otros empleados de la estación del Valle de Antelope, incluyendo a deputados de patrulla, en estos esfuerzos. Este esfuerzo concertado a dedicarse a conectarse con la comunidad es una manera importante de empezar a mejorar la relación difícil entre la estación del Valle de Antelope y la comunidad. Cambiando prácticas enraizadas y la cultura en las estaciones va a requerir a LASD a continuar su trabajo en los cambios a sus prácticas en las áreas de uso de fuerza, paradas, búsquedas, y arrestos, al igual que en los sistemas de responsabilidad anteriormente citados.
El Departamento de Justicia también anima a LASD a continuar sus esfuerzos de reclutamiento de deputados afro-americanos y latinos, especialmente los que están interesados y dispuestos a trabajar en el Valle de Antelope, y a revisar su reclutamiento, selección, y proceso de asignación para determinar si alguno de estos crea barreras no necesarias en el aumento de la presencia de deputados afro-americanos y latinos en el Valle de Antelope. Tan recién como el 1º de Noviembre del 2012, solo 21 de los 391 de los empleados juramentados en las estaciones del Valle de Antelope eran afro-americanos (6.6% de los empleados juramentados de Lancaster y 6.7% de los empleados juramentados de Palmdale), y 46 empleados juramentados eran latinos (22.1% de los empleados juramentados de Lancaster y 18.6% de los empleados juramentados de Palmdale). Las estaciones de LASD del Valle de Antelope están una situación única por que la mayoría de sus deputados viven y trabajan en el Valle de Antelope. A consecuencia, creemos que es aun más importante que en el Valle de Antelope que LASD se enfoque en intentar a reflejar la demografía cada vez más diversa de las comunidades, y generalmente mejorar la relación entre LASD y la comunidad del Valle de Antelope.
10

Mientras las estaciones se mueven a fortalecer el enlace con la comunidad que sirven, urgimos a LASD a redoblar sus esfuerzos para escuchar abiertamente a la comunidad y ser sensibles a las preocupaciones expresadas. El Departamento de Justicia precauciona a LASD y a los miembros de la comunidad contra pensar que las divisiones culturales muy arraigadas entre LASD y la comunidad en general cambiaran de un día para el otro, y recomendamos el desarrollo lento y constante de relaciones que últimamente sanan la relación entre las estaciones del Valle de Antelope y muchos segmentos de la comunidad.
Conclusión
Las prácticas ilegales identificadas en la investigación socava la legitimidad de LASD y fomenta la falta de confianza dentro la comunidad, especialmente con los residentes afroamericanos y latinos. Semejante falta de confianza perpetúa la división entre deputados y residentes, haciendo que los esfuerzos policiales sean menos efectivos e innecesariamente escalen encuentros diarios entre deputados y miembros de la comunidad. Por ejemplo, interrogaciones rutinas de miembros de la comunidad sobre su estatus de libertad condicional, que nuestra investigación indica sucede más con los miembros de la comunidad afro-americanos y latinos, fomenta una falta de confianza en la comunidad. Aunque LASD ha aumentado sus esfuerzos en conectarse a la comunidad en el Valle de Antelope después del comienzo de nuestra investigación, y estos esfuerzos han sido bien recibidos por muchos miembros de la comunidad, estos esfuerzos no desplazan la necesidad de asegurar que funciones policiales básicas, como conducir paradas y búsquedas, son hechas de una manera constitucional y de manera que fomenta la confianza en la comunidad.
Junto con los patrones problemáticos observados, hay razón de creer que LASD tiene la potencial de resolver los problemas más rápidamente que otras agencias. Primero, LASD tiene un conocimiento único e independiente de infraestructura de supervisión.
Mas aparte, las interacciones del Departamento de Justicia con los líderes de LASD durante la investigación provea optimismo sobre la habilidad de LASD a poder rápidamente atender a los hallazgos. El alguacil Baca ha sido claro en su dedicación en asegurar que todos los oficiales deputados de LASD comporten su conducta a los valores esenciales de la agencia y la Constitución. Los comandantes del Valle de Antelope, Jefes Tyler y La Berge, fueron proactivos en comunicarcon DOJ durante la investigación, buscando información durante la investigación para facilitar una respuesta inmediata a nuestras preocupaciones. Su iniciativa ya a resultado a la ejecución de muchos esfuerzos de conexión con la comunidad, que ha empezado a reparar las relaciones con muchos sectores de la comunidad en el Valle de Antelope. Este tipo de respuesta proactiva de las agencias policiales es un buen pronóstico para la remediación, y se reconoce a LASD por aceptar esta investigación con esa actitud.
11

 
 Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:272

1 MARY C. WICKHAM,County Counsel ROGER H. GRANBO Senior Assistant County Counsel
Z (SBN 108372)_• ~gran~o~counsel.lacounty.gov 648 Kenneth Hahn Hallo Administration
3 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012-2713
4 Telephone:(213)974-1609 •Fax:(213)626-2105

5 Attorneys for
6 The County ofLos Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department
7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,WESTERN DIVISION

11

12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CASE NO.2:15-CV-03174-JFW-FFM

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' INITIAL SIX MONTH REPORT

15 THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
16 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

17

Defendants.

18

19

On May 1,2015,the Court approved and entered the parties' Settlement

20 ~ Agreement("Agreement")to resolve the United States'claims against the County of

21' !Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department pursuant to

22 42 U.S.C. 14141 and the Fair Housing Act,42 U.S.C.3601 etseq.

23

Paragraph 171 ofthe Agreement requires the Monitors to publically issue a

24 report every six months that details the Parties'progress in implementing the

25 Agreement and achieving compliance with the Agreement. The initial six month

26 report was originally due on November 2,2015,but that date was extended by

27

28
HOA.1729062.1
SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' INITIAL SIX MONTH REPORT

2:15-CV-03174

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:273

2 Monitors`initial six month report.

3 4 DATED ~' 2 ~Z—~ S

MARY C. WICKHAM Count

5

6

ROGER .GRANBO

7

Seruox ~stant Counsel Counsel

8
9
~a~
11 DATED: ~ ~ z'z- + ~
12

.Attorneys for the County o~Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriff`s Department
NDY C,PRESTON Acting Chief

x3 ].4

BY ~:-~

_-----. .~

CHRI5TY E. LOPEZ

15

Deputy Chie£

CYNTHIA COE

16

CHARLES HART

17

Trial Attorneys

Special Litigation Section

18

Civil Rights Division

19

U.S. Departme~at ofJustice

20

Attorneys for the United States ofAmerica

21

22

23

24
zs

26

27

28 xon,in~o~.i
STIPULATI{aI~T TQ EXTEND TIME -2TO FILE MONITORS'INITIAL STX MONTT~ 12.EPOR`T

2' S- .V-03174

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:274
ATTACHMENT

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:275
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Antelope Valley Evaluation Monitoring Team
Six-Month Report December 22, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #:276

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................................1

II.

WORK TO DATE...........................................................................................................................................................4

A. Monitoring Work Plan ..............................................................................................................................4

B. Policy Revision and Updates..................................................................................................................5

1. Unit Orders Updates..................................................................................................................5

2. Policy Updates.............................................................................................................................6

C. Community Engagement Activities ....................................................................................................7

D. Training Curricula Development and Implementation................................................................8

E.

Data Systems ...............................................................................................................................................9

III. CHALLENGES ...............................................................................................................................................................9

IV. FUTURE ACTIVITIES................................................................................................................................................. 11 A. Immediate Priorities............................................................................................................................... 11 B. Additional Priorities for the Next Reporting Period.................................................................... 11

V. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................................ 12

Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #:277

I.

INTRODUCTION

As per paragraph 171 of the Settlement Agreement between the Parties, the Monitoring Team submits this initial semiannual report, dated December 22, 2015.

In August 2011, the US Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division, launched an investigation of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) in response to complaints and allegations of violations of the Fair Housing Act in the Antelope Valley, California. Upon completion of their investigation in June 2013, the DOJ issued a letter documenting their findings that the LASD’s Lancaster and Palmdale Stations had engaged in a pattern and practice of conducting stops, searches, and seizures that were unreasonable and in violation of the Constitution and federal law. Additionally, the DOJ concluded there was evidence of discrimination against African Americans in the enforcement of the Housing Choice Voucher Program (commonly known as Section 8), which is a violation of the Fair Housing Act.

The LASD and DOJ subsequently entered into negotiations regarding appropriate remedies, and the parties developed the Settlement Agreement (SA), which was ultimately signed and filed with the US District Court for the Central District of California in April 2015. The purpose of the SA is to ensure that the residents of the Antelope Valley are provided with police services that are lawful and fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States and contemporary policing practices.

The SA specifically identifies a variety of reforms and objectives to be met by LASD in the Antelope Valley, which are briefly summarized below.1

1. Stops, seizures, and searches. LASD agrees to ensure that all investigatory stops, seizures, and searches are conducted in accordance with the Constitution or laws of the United States. Investigatory stops shall be part of an overall crime prevention strategy and will not contribute to counterproductive divisions between LASD and the community. All investigatory stops will be adequately documented for tracking for supervision purposes.

2. Bias-free policing. LASD shall deliver police services that are equitable, respectful, and bias-free and in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in the department. LASD will continue to conduct regular training for deputies, supervisors, and command staff regarding discriminatory policing.

3. Enforcement of Section 8 compliance. LASD agrees not to violate the Fair Housing Act by (a) making unavailable or denying a dwelling unit to any person because of races; (b), discriminating against any person in terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling unit, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race; (c) making, printing, publishing, or causing to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement with respect to the rental of a dwelling unit that states any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race; or (d) coercing, intimating, threatening, or interfering with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of any right granted by the Fair Housing Act. LASD shall document, report, and analyze all incidents involving voucher holders.

1 The complete SA is available at http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2015/04/29/antelope_agreement_428-15.pdf

Final Version

1

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 7 of 18 Page ID #:278

4. Data collection and analysis. LASD agrees to enhance its data collection, analysis, and reporting. LASD will develop and implement a protocol for the collection and regular analysis of data to assess whether there are trends and patterns that indicate bias or practices that would otherwise run counter to constitutional and effective policing.
5. Community engagement. LASD agrees to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community, to engage constructively with the community to ensure collaborative problem solving and bias-free policing, and to increase community confidence in LASD.
6. Use of force. LASD agrees to revise its force policies and practices to reflect its commitment to upholding the rights secured or protected by the Constitution in regard to protecting human life and the dignity of every individual, and maintaining public safety. LASD agrees to ensure that its accountability measures are implemented appropriately so that Antelope Valley deputies (1) use force only when objectively reasonable and in a manner that avoids unnecessary injury to deputies and civilians, and (2) use force as a last resort and de-escalate the use of force at the earliest possible moment. Deputies and staff shall endeavor to use only that level of force necessary for the situation. LASD will continue to require deputies to report and document all uses of force completely and accurately. All uses of force shall be investigated thoroughly by supervisors, and LASD will hold deputies accountable for uses of force that violate policy or law. LASD shall provide all Antelope Valley deputies with annual or biennial use of force training. LASD will analyze and report the Antelope Valley stations’ force data, including the force-related outcome data, to identify significant trends and to identify and correct deficiencies revealed by analysis.
7. Personnel complaint review. LASD will ensure that all allegations of personnel misconduct are received and are fully and fairly investigated, and that all personnel who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent. LASD agrees to provide updated and revised training to the Antelope Valley deputies and supervisors about proper complaint intake, classification, and investigative techniques. LASD shall conduct semiannual audits of the Antelope Valley stations’ complaint intake, classification, and investigations.
8. Accountability. LASD will strengthen its accountability mechanisms to provide personnel with the support, mentoring, and direction necessary to consistently police constitutionality. LASD will continue to implement and modify the Personnel Performance Index (PPI) system and will develop a plan to periodically review how the Antelope Valley stations analyze the PPI to respond to concerns unique to their stations.
The SA also stipulates that a professional monitor be selected to track and assess the LASD’s progress in implementing and achieving compliance with the SA, work with the Parties to address obstacles to achieving compliance, and to report on the status of implementation to the Parties and the Court.
The Monitoring Team wants to acknowledge and thank the Parties to the SA for the patience and diligence they have displayed and the assistance provided to date in the initial phase of launching this important endeavor. The LASD, and particularly the staff of the Compliance Coordinator’s Unit, have been especially helpful to the Monitoring Team during this critical stage of the work. The LASD has

Final Version

2

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 8 of 18 Page ID #:279

been very mindful of and attentive to the importance of establishing a productive working relationship with the Monitoring Team and to submitting documents and materials in a timely fashion, such as policy revisions and unit orders, documentation of community engagement activities, and progress updates on the development and implementation of training curricula.
Over the last six months, the Monitoring Team has endeavored to begin familiarizing its members with the Antelope Valley and its unique characteristics and to establish an effective working relationship with the LASD, the Office of the Los Angeles County Counsel, and the DOJ. In the course of its work, the Monitoring Team has met with many members of the LASD, including Sheriff Jim McDonnell, Chief Jacques “Anthony” La Berge, Commander Mike Parker, Palmdale Station’s Captain Don Ford, and Lancaster Station’s Captain Patrick A. Nelson, among others.
The Monitoring Team is routinely meeting and working with the LASD Compliance Coordinator’s Unit, which was established by the sheriff and funded by the Board of Supervisors, to initiate and coordinate the more than 150 reforms being undertaken in the Antelope Valley. In some cases, this has implications for department-wide policies. That unit is commanded by Lieutenant Eric Lasko, who is assisted by Sergeant Dan Stanley; Deputy Charity Brown; and Jasmine Khojasteh, a non-sworn professional staff member. The Monitoring Team has also toured the stations in Lancaster and Palmdale, met with station personnel, and conducted “ride-alongs” for the purpose of familiarizing Monitoring Team members with the community composition and significant features of the Antelope Valley. The LASD has also been working with the Monitoring Team to provide working space adjacent to the facility where the compliance team is located.
The Monitoring Team has held preliminary meetings with a variety of community representatives from the Antelope Valley, participated in a large community forum, attended Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings both in Lancaster and in Palmdale and met separately with members of Antelope Valley’s African American and Latino communities.
It is important to note that the framework and approach being employed by the Monitoring Team to ensure that all requirements of the SA are met is predicated on the Parties subscribing to a collaborative reform model in carrying out this work. This approach is intended to not only foster greater collaboration among the Parties to the SA but also to promote increased trust and cooperation between the LASD and the various communities and constituencies it serves. A primary objective is to identify and directly address those issues that affect public trust and promote efforts to improve performance and mutual accountability among all the stakeholders. This approach, in which improved communication and transparency are paramount, helps facilitate permanent organizational and cultural change and ensure a sustained commitment on the part of all Parties to incorporating best practices in policing.2 Apropos of this approach, in addition to some of the early work that is underway in relation to certain policy and unit order revisions, the Monitoring Team has noted a positive atmosphere and constructive communications, which are crucial to establishing a successful monitoring process. This has been particularly helpful and encouraging in the early stages of this work.
The remainder of this initial report will provide an update on LASD compliance activities to date, Monitoring Team activities and observations, a sense of the general progress being made towards fulfilling the requirements of the SA, and outlining future activities.
2 Community-Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice. (2015). Collaborative Reform Initiative for Technical Assistance: Fact sheet. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/file/cri-fact-sheet/download

Final Version

3

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 9 of 18 Page ID #:280

It should be noted that there is relatively little progress to report at this time in relation to meeting major implementation milestones or assessing significant outcomes. This is not due to any lack of readiness or effort on the part of LASD. Rather, it is tied more to the need during the initial phase of this work to establish systems and protocols to guide the work of the Monitoring Team, and to several significant changes which occurred late in this reporting period related to the composition both of the Monitoring Team and of project administration. In October, one of the three Monitors named in the SA withdrew from the Monitoring Team, and the administrative responsibilities for the project shifted to the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD).3 The remaining Monitors, Joseph Brann and Dr. Angie Wolf, have subsequently worked with the Parties to reconfigure the Monitoring Team. There appears to be agreement among the Parties and the Monitoring Team that it is now better positioned to undertake its full range of responsibilities, and the team expects to make significant progress in the coming months toward meeting the timelines established in the SA. Therefore, the next semiannual report will reflect a fully staffed Monitoring Team and will provide more detailed information regarding major monitoring activities and outcomes.
II. WORK TO DATE
The following areas of progress since the establishment of the Settlement Agreement will be described in this section.
A. Monitoring Work Plan B. Policy Revision and Updates C. Community Engagement Activities D. Training Curricula Development and Implementation E. Data Systems
A. Monitoring Work Plan
Following the change in project administration and the withdrawal of the monitor associated with the original administrative organization, the processes for building the Monitoring Team and for developing the monitoring work plan essentially began anew. However, substantial progress has already been made in reconstituting the team and bringing on additional resources so that a complete Monitoring Team is nearly in place. Specific new roles for additional team members have been delineated, individuals to fill each of these spots have been identified, and contracts are currently being developed.
Some of the timelines originally identified for the development of the monitoring work plan are likely to be affected. This is due to the loss of some materials and work product from the previous administrative organization; the need to develop a new budget and restart the LASD data-request process; and the general lack of continuity in plan development, staffing, and workflow. However, the current team is committed to working closely with the Parties to ensure that the initial delays in this area are quickly overcome.

3 See the “Challenges” section below for further discussion of these changes.

Final Version

4

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 10 of 18 Page ID #:281

B. Policy Revision and Updates
Below is a summary of LASD’s activities relating to the revision and submission of documents (policies and unit orders) identified in the SA and the status of the review process, which is underway. The Monitoring Team applauds LASD for having commenced this work even before the SA was in place and for their continuing efforts to keep this work on track over these past six months.
The following list includes those policies and unit orders that were submitted to the Monitoring Team and DOJ for review. LASD wrote and implemented several of these unit orders and policies prior to signing the SA in a good-faith effort to accelerate their compliance efforts. These unit orders and policies were prioritized by LASD because they were either viewed as being particularly vital elements of the SA or necessary first steps affecting the implementation of other key activities, such as training and community engagement. The Monitoring Team supports LASD’s initiative in this regard. Any revisions necessary after review by the DOJ and the Monitoring Team will be incorporated by January 2016. (Note that this section indicates the subject matter of the unit order or policy addressed and its associated SA item numbers. This section does not, however, include the new language submitted for review.)
In order to ensure that changes to policy accurately meet the current Monitoring Team’s expectations, as required by the SA, a number of these policy and unit order revisions have been resubmitted to DOJ for formal comment. Approval of this first set of policy and unit orders is an immediate priority. The Monitoring Team will be discussing these policies and all comments with the Parties in early December. For all the policies except the use of force policy, approval is expected at approximately the time of the release of this report on December 15, 2015. The use of force policy will require further review, with final approval expected during the next semiannual reporting period.

1. Unit Orders Updates

These unit orders were provisionally implemented by LASD in 2014, prior to the signing of the SA, and submitted for review by both the DOJ and the Monitoring Team on or before June 12, 2015. LASD received comments from the Monitoring Team on October 5, 2015, and from the DOJ on December 2, 2015. Revisions will be incorporated by January 2016.

a. Unit Order #68, on supplemental patrol procedures, regarding investigatory stops and detentions, searches, and bias-free policing. Related to SA items 42, 44f, 44g, 44j, 45, 49, 52, 53, 55, and 66b.

b. Unit Order #69, on supplemental supervisory procedures, regarding investigatory stops and detentions, searches, supervisory review, bias-free policing, community engagement, general use of force reporting policy, use of force supervisory investigations, complaint intake, complaint classification, and investigations. Related to SA items 45, 49, 52, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66b, 67, 87, 88, 109, 115, 116, 117, 118, 125, 126, 128, 130, 131, 134, 133, and 136.

c.

Unit Order #72, on Community Advisory Committees, regarding Antelope Valley

community advisory committees, community survey, performance mentoring

program, and access and confidentiality. Related to SA items 52, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 143,

Final Version

5

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 11 of 18 Page ID #:282

and 180. While Unit Order #72 is still under review, LASD has taken the step of creating Community Advisory Committees (CAC), and CACs in Lancaster and Palmdale are meeting on an ongoing basis.

2. Policy Updates

LASD implemented the following policies in early 2015, with the exception of item j regarding housing authority inspections, which was implemented in 2012. As of June 12, 2015, LASD had submitted these policy revisions for review by the Monitoring Team and the DOJ.

a. The policy on Limited English Proficiency in the context of searches, bias-free policing, and complaint intake. Related to SA items 52, 66, and 125.

b. The policy on photography, audio, and videotaping by the public and members of the press, which establishes a prohibition against discouraging members of the public from documenting police activities. Related to SA item 106.

c.

The policy on seizure of photographic video or audio evidence from a private citizen

or member of the press, related to item b., above.

d. A policy on constitutional policing, regarding the right of members of the public to receive equal protection of the law, without bias as to race, color, ethnicity, national origin, relation, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation. The related SA item states that stops shall not be initiated because of an individual’s actual or perceived immigration status. Also, after review by an expert in constitutional policing, LASD created/revised their policy on consensual encounters. Related to SA item 64.

e. The policy on stops, seizures, and searches, which establishes that investigatory stops and detentions shall be initiated and carried out based on the tenets of constitutional policing and bias-free policing, as in item d., above. Related to SA items 41, 43, 50, 51, 52, 56, and 64.

f.

A policy on backseat detentions, addressing when and by what rationale backseat

detentions can be used and how to handle citizen complaints about such detention.

Related to SA items 48 and 49.

g. The policy on logging public contacts. Related to SA item 44.

h. The policy on statistical codes for traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle stops. Related to SA item 44.

i.

The policy on logging field activities. Related to SA item 44.

j.

The policy on housing authority non-criminal investigations/inspections (FOD),

regarding searches, accompaniment on Section 8 compliance checks, and fair housing

reporting and analysis. Related to SA items 54, 76, 77, 78, 79, and 80. (This policy was

implemented in 2012 subject to a separate lawsuit.)

Final Version

6

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 12 of 18 Page ID #:283

As of September 4, 2015, LASD had submitted:
a. A revised policy on use of force, to address general use of force policy principles, use of force reporting policy, and use of force supervisory investigations. Related to SA items 103, 105, 110, 109, 111a, 111b, 111e, 112a, 112d, 113, 116, 117, 118, and 117.

C. Community Engagement Activities

As part of broader community engagement efforts, the SA requires that LASD work with CACs within the Antelope Valley to leverage the insights and expertise of the community to address policing concerns. CACs were already in place in both Lancaster and Palmdale, but after the DOJ started its investigation in 2011, they were reconfigured to better reflect the diversity of their communities. Some of the more vocal critics of the LASD during the DOJ’s investigation now serve on the CACs, and this brings a more diverse representation of community perspectives. Meetings are held at the stations and include members of the community and LASD. Additionally, both stations host and attend a variety of other community meetings and events.

While the specific unit orders associated with CACs are currently under review by DOJ and the Monitoring Team, LASD correctly prioritized this important work and has already implemented these Unit Orders at both stations. This work is responsive to SA item 93 (Palmdale Unit Order #14-07 and Lancaster Unit Order #72).

LASD has begun tracking and providing information on community engagement and outreach meetings, as well as events in which deputies have participated. The information is collected on a tracking form that will be shared with the Monitoring Team on the 15th of each month. The Monitoring Team is reviewing the information provided to determine whether LASD efforts meet the requirements of the SA and if broader outreach and engagement might be required.

In June, July, and August, members of the Monitoring Team met with community members in the following forums to introduce team members to the community, describe their roles moving forward, and begin to establish a base for future community engagement efforts:

•

A CAC meeting held at Lancaster Station;

•

A “town hall” meeting in Antelope Valley, which included over 100 members of the

community;

•

A meeting with community members from various segments of the African American

community, including The Community Action League and the African American

Leadership Council;

•

A meeting with a group of community members from the Latino community; and

•

Additional informal meetings with community members from throughout the African

American community to collect feedback on the current climate of police-community

relations in the Antelope Valley.

Final Version

7

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 13 of 18 Page ID #:284
The Monitoring Team will periodically attend and observe CAC meetings and other community engagement meetings and activities throughout the monitoring period. Through the community survey and its own outreach and data collection, the Monitoring Team will assess to what extent outreach and community engagement efforts have successfully reached representatives of the entire Antelope Valley community and if further efforts are required in that regard.
D. Training Curricula Development and Implementation
SA item #165 mandated that LASD create a training briefing in order to brief all sworn personnel at Palmdale and Lancaster stations on the content of the SA within 180 days following the SA’s effective date. LASD’s Compliance Unit quickly developed the materials for the training briefing and submitted it to the Monitoring Team for review and approval. Following approval, LASD launched their formal briefings and subsequently reported 100% compliance to the Monitoring Team within the 180-day timeframe.
Monitoring Team members attended one of the training briefings at the Palmdale Station to observe the briefing’s content and the trainers’ interaction with employees. This briefing was conducted by Commander Mike Parker, Lieutenant Eric Lasko, Sergeant Dan Stanley, and Deputy Charity Brown. The Monitoring Team members who attended noted that the briefing was thorough, consistent with the intent of the SA, and well presented.
The Thomas & Means Law Firm has been retained by LASD to develop the training curricula for certain mandated trainings required by the SA. The firm will be teaching the constitutional policing training, which includes materials on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and stops, searches, and seizures. The firm also will be teaching the training on bias-free policing, which includes training in the areas of equal protection, bias-free policing, human relations, and interpersonal communication. These efforts are responsive to SA items 42, 57 (a-e), 70 (a-i), and 138, and reflective of the spirit of SA items 47, 48, 49, 64, and 65. The Monitoring Team has approved these appointments. The training curricula and accompanying post-training testing for both of these trainings were submitted to DOJ and the Monitoring Team on November 20, 2015. The Compliance Unit has indicated its readiness to implement them immediately upon approval.
Mr. Means will be providing LASD and the Monitoring Team with his proposed materials for conducting quarterly roll-call trainings to emphasize the importance of preventing discriminatory policing (SA item 71) and for structured annual in-service trainings on community policing and problem-oriented policing methods (SA item 89).
The mandated training for supervisors is currently being developed by LASD’s Training Bureau. It is unknown when this will be completed, and the Monitoring Team stresses that implementation of this training must await approval of any policy changes that are ultimately required and incorporated into the policies governing use of force, administrative investigations, and investigation of citizen complaints. Supervisor training efforts are responsive to SA items 70, 119, 138, and others.

Final Version

8

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 14 of 18 Page ID #:285
E. Data Systems
The Monitoring Team has been provided with some briefings on the LASD data systems, as these will be a key element of the monitoring work. These briefings have included an initial meeting with LASD Division Director Dean Gialamas, who provided an introduction to LASD’s data collection and management capacities. Data are captured in several databases, including the PPI (use of force, public complaints, administrative investigations, civil claims, and lawsuits), CAD/RAPS (traffic stop data, calls for service, and stops), and LARCIS (crime data and police reports). In the next semiannual reporting period, the Monitoring Team will further assess LASD data management systems and processes in order to ascertain policies, procedures, and practices regarding how each type of data is collected and processed, and what reliability safeguards are in place. A review of data analysis and reporting processes will follow.
Data is an essential element of nearly every monitoring task. While observation, review of documents, and formal and informal interviews and conversation with stakeholders also provide essential information, data will be used to identify characteristics and patterns among the thousands of calls for service, stops, and other interactions between the community and LASD and among various processes and activities that LASD deputies, supervisors, and department leadership engage in to perform their various functions. These characteristics and patterns will be then be used to objectively determine how LASD’s practices relate to SA mandates, most importantly those regarding constitutional policing and the fair and equal treatment of all the various Antelope Valley community groups. For this reason, it is extremely important that the Monitoring Team understand and monitor what data are or should be collected; by what methods; and how those data are or should be processed, analyzed, interpreted, and used by LASD, its representatives, and the community.
III. CHALLENGES
While monitoring personnel and project administration changes have delayed the completion of the work plan and the launching of some preliminary tasks, the Monitors and their new team are nevertheless establishing effective working relationships and coordinating well with the Parties. They have also identified which areas require immediate attention and are working closely with the Parties to ensure timely progress is made.
Throughout this initial reporting period, members of the LASD’s Compliance Unit have been diligent in carrying out their duties and keeping the Monitors apprised of their work. They have continued to submit revisions to policies, training curricula, and information documenting compliance efforts to the team during this time. In fact, the Monitoring Team’s experiences with personnel from the Compliance Unit have been positive and highly productive. There are no concerns relative to the quality of their work or their willingness to take on any task they have been assigned.
Although the Monitors are pleased with the progress and spirit of cooperation displayed by LASD, they have noted and expressed concerns to the agency regarding the long-term adequacy of the staffing level of the Compliance Coordinator’s Unit. Based on the work to be done and the aggressive timelines involved, the Monitors feel the current staffing level will need to be increased in the not-toodistant future. A Compliance Unit consisting of three sworn members is insufficient to deal with the numerous tasks involved, which include policy planning and revision, training development and coordination, data collection and analysis, creating public reports, ensuring community engagement,

Final Version

9

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 15 of 18 Page ID #:286
planning and coordination of activities involving LASD’s data system updates, tracking of compliance measures, and investigating Section 8–related civil claims.
While the SA clearly applies exclusively to the experiences and activities of the two Antelope Valley stations, the policy and training implications and the organizational issues involved will likely extend beyond the geographic range of the Antelope Valley. It may be impractical for LASD to develop and refine policies, adopt new performance metrics, and change organizational systems solely in the Antelope Valley region. Therefore, the Monitors urge LASD to consider applying some of the SAmandated changes systemwide, as appropriate and feasible. Should this occur, the additional work required would be another reason to consider expanding the staffing of this unit.
Furthermore, the Monitors are concerned about the possibility or assumption that the local stations will monitor their own compliance moving forward. That responsibility will likely require further departmental infrastructure, and in the interest of promoting accountability and objectivity, this should be done by a body that will ensure objectivity and be independent in carrying out those duties. The Monitoring Team understands that the current plan is for the existing department-wide auditing unit (Internal Monitoring, Performance Audits, and Accountability Command) to perform long-term oversight and monitoring. The Monitoring Team will assess whether their current staffing levels are sufficient for this additional task and what additional training and institutional support they may need to be successful in ensuring that the gains made in the Antelope Valley during the monitoring period are maintained.
For the preceding reasons and because LASD has set an ambitious goal of achieving full compliance within three years, the Monitors believe it would be prudent and necessary to commit additional members to the LASD Compliance Coordinator’s Unit. As a possible model, we urge LASD to give consideration to the plan developed and the model that was utilized by their Custody Division’s Compliance Unit in moving forward with the implementation of reforms advocated by the Jail Violence Commission.
The Monitors noted expressions of significant concern among some community members that LASD has not yet changed its practices regarding constitutional policing. The Monitors recognize that there are also Antelope Valley community members who express strong support for the LASD and voice corresponding satisfaction with the LASD’s community outreach efforts. However, it does appear that among some groups, there is currently inadequate public awareness and understanding regarding the SA, what it contains, and what this means to the community. At the community meetings, the Monitors heard a desire expressed for a summary of the SA’s goals and objectives, written in layman’s terms, to be widely disseminated. There were also requests for something along the lines of a “Know Your Rights” pamphlet, or similar information, regarding community members’ rights when interacting with law enforcement. LASD reports that they are currently working on updating a trifold pamphlet entitled “What to Do If You Are Stopped by a Deputy Sheriff,” which may address some these concerns (SA item 52). This work is encouraging. However, there appears to be a need for further consideration of efforts to support this type of education and outreach. The SA addresses this need, and it is the hope of the Monitors that the Parties recognize the importance of this to the long-term success of these endeavors. Not only do the SA’s specific requirements need to be met, but the community also needs to understand the changes that have been made and realize they are empowered to play a role in maintaining that success moving forward.

Final Version

10

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 16 of 18 Page ID #:287

IV. FUTURE ACTIVITIES The Monitoring Team’s next steps include the following.

A. Immediate Priorities

•

Complete the review of policies and unit orders which have already been submitted

by LASD. (Expected completion date is December 2015.)

•

Prioritize and establish a schedule, in coordination with LASD, of timelines for

completion of policy revisions. (Completion of this is expected in January 2016.)

•

Complete policy revisions by June 2016.

Approval of departmental policies is critical to establishing compliance. Also, many action items related to procedure and practice in the SA are contingent upon the development or revision of a given policy. While all SA-mandated changes will eventually be made, the Monitoring Team will work with the LASD Compliance Unit to prioritize the review of policies in a manner that keeps other elements of the work plan moving forward and hastens compliance. Other factors that may prioritize one policy change over another include how crucial the policy is to achieving the core goals of the SA and how complicated the changes may be (and thus, how long the process is expected to take). For instance, the use of force policy is particularly farreaching in the SA and impactful to compliance efforts. Thus, work on changes to the use of force policy has already started and will continue to be a priority.

•

Develop an annual work plan. (Expected completion date is January 2016.)

A well-designed, collaborative, and transparent work plan is crucial to the success of the monitoring. The Monitoring Team will draft a work plan establishing first-year objectives, goals, activities, and timelines for the Parties’ review.

•

Review of the constitutional policing training and the bias-free policing training.

(Expected completion date is December 2015.)

B. Additional Priorities for the Next Reporting Period

•

Finalizing priorities through discussion with Parties. (Expected completion date is

December 2015, with ongoing reassessment as necessary.)

As discussed in previous sections, the monitoring work is currently behind schedule. The Monitoring Team will continue to work with the Parties to identify those areas that require the most immediate attention, in order to avoid any further delays in pursuing timely progress and success in achieving the LASD reforms.

Final Version

11

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 17 of 18 Page ID #:288

•

Additional site visits. (Ongoing and expected to continue throughout the monitoring

period.)

Additional site visits accomplish several goals. Site visits help build relationships with departmental personnel and community members. Site visits are integral to collecting the observational data that allow the Monitoring Team to assess the linkage of policy, procedure, and practice and provide a context for quantitative data. Site visits also allow the Monitoring Team to develop a shared understanding of the processes around data collection and documentation of important information regarding meeting the mandates of the SA and long-term compliance.

•

Community survey. (First survey expected to be administered in February 2016.)

The community survey is critical to establishing a baseline of information about community attitudes towards LASD and periodic reassessments of changes in those attitudes. The Monitoring Team will oversee the development of the community survey, as well as the methodology used in its implementation.

•

Attendance at community meetings. (Ongoing and expected to continue throughout

monitoring period.)

The Monitoring Team will attend community meetings to better understand how effectively LASD is engaging with the community.

•

Implementation of the work plan.

•

An assessment of LASD’s data collection and management capacities.

V. CONCLUSION
The Monitors are quite optimistic about the near- and long-term prospects of success for this project. We believe the skill sets and experience among the Monitoring Team now in place are the right fit for establishing effective, collaborative relationships and providing capable oversight that will ensure the goals of the SA are met. We also believe LASD’s leadership is committed to supporting and facilitating meaningful change in policing and improving community relations in the Antelope Valley. There are positive signs of this, based on the work underway with policy revisions, community engagement, and the start of new training protocols. The Parties have already shown an ability and willingness to collaborate productively with honesty and transparency through a difficult period, which bodes extremely well as we move into the heart of the work on these reforms.

Final Version

12

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 20 Filed 12/22/15 Page 18 of 18 Page ID #:289
Cover Photos Credits
“Palmdale and Mountains” by Jamesb01 at English Wikipedia - Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Logan using CommonsHelper. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palmdale_and_Mountains.jpg#/media/File:Palmdale_and_ Mountains.jpg
“Sunset over Lancaster CA” by LancasterCA at English Wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunset_over_Lancaster_CA.jpg#/media/File:Sunset_over_La ncaster_CA.jpg

Final Version

13

 
 Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:290

1 MARY C. WICKHAM,County Counsel ROGER H.GRANBO,Senior Assistant County Counsel
2 (SBN 108372)• ~g~anbo~counsel.lacounty.gov 648 Kenneth Hahn Hallo Administration
3 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012-2713
4 Telephone:(213)974-1609 •Fax:(213)626-2105

5 Attorneys for
6 The County ofLos Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department
7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,WESTERN DIVISION

11

12 ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CASE NO.2:15-CV-03174-JFW-FFM

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' SECOND SIX MONTH REPORT

15 THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
16 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

17

Defendants.

18

19

On May 1, 2015,the Court approved and entered the parties' Settlement

20 Agreement("Agreement")to resolve the United States' claims against the County of

21 Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department pursuant to

22 42 U.S.C. 14141 and the Fair Housing Act,42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.

23

Paragraph 171 ofthe Agreement requires the Monitors to publically issue a

24 report every six months that details the Parties' progress in implementing the

25 Agreement and achieving compliance with the Agreement. The initial six month

26 report was originally due on November 2,2015, but that date was extended by

27 stipulation and Court order to December 22,2015,on which date the initial six

28
HOA.100776705.1
SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' SECOND SIX MONTH REPORT

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 29 Page ID #:291

1 month report was filed. The parties hereby submit the Monitors'second six month

2 report.

3 DATED:
4

~ 22 ~l,~

MARY C. WICKHAM County C

5

6

By -

--__

ROGER GRANBO

7

Senior A sistant Counsel Counsel

8

Attorneys for the County ofLos Angeles and

9

the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
HOA.100776705.1

SUBMISSION OF MONITORS'

-2-

SECOND SIX MONTH REPORT

2:15-C'V-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 3 of 29 Page ID #:292

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 4 of 29 Page ID #:293
Antelope Valley Monitoring Team
Second Semi-Annual Report

V y :. ,:.
„r ~~1

~~ ~,~# A~~~

~

.

'-~ _l .~_

June 2016

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 5 of 29 Page ID #:294

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................................1

II. SUMMARY OF WORK TO DATE..............................................................................................................................1 A. Monitoring Team........................................................................................................................................2 B. Antelope Valley Monitoring Website..................................................................................................2 C. Monitoring Work Plan ..............................................................................................................................2 D. Multiple Onsite Meetings and Events.................................................................................................3 E. Overview of Progress on Policies, Unit Orders,and Training Curricula..................................3

III. DETAILED WORK TO DATE......................................................................................................................................6 A. Stops,Seizures,and Searches................................................................................................................6 B. Bias-Free Policing .......................................................................................................................................8 C. Community Engagement.....................................................................................................................13 D. Data Collection and Analysis ..............................................................................................................19 E. Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance............................................................................................20 F. Use of Force and Personnel Complaint Review ........................................................................... 21

IV. FUTURE ACTIVITIES.................................................................................................................................................22

V. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................................22

Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 6 of 29 Page ID #:295
I. INTRODUCTION
This is the second semi-annual report issued by the Monitors, which covers the monitoring activities that have taken place during this reporting period and describes our observations as to the progress of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department(LASD)in meeting the requirements ofthe Settlement Agreement(SA)for the Antelope Valley(AV).This report is primarily focused on work undertaken between December 2015 and June 2016.
Following the approval and concurrence ofthe Parties regarding the final composition of Monitoring Team members,the team members were brought together in the Antelope Valley during the first quarter ofthis year and introduced to the Parties and various community representatives.Subsequent to that initial orientation meeting, members of the Monitoring Team have been conducting site visits, been engaged in various meetings,and continue to work on their respective areas of responsibility, which correspond to the sections ofthe Settlement Agreement(see Sections II and III ofthis report).
This report provides an overview of the activities the team has been engaged in and issues the Monitors have been focused on, both administrative and operational. As is typical in this stage of monitoring work,considerable attention has been devoted over the past six months to reviewing policy documents,the development of work plans relating to each ofthe major topics in the Settlement Agreement,and addressing the development of important community engagement efforts by both the Monitoring Team and the LASD.The progress achieved in those areas will be covered in more depth here,along with identification and discussion as to some future needs and priorities the Monitors have identified.
The Monitors want to acknowledge and express our appreciation to the LASD—especially the Compliance Unit staff—and the Office of County Counsel for Los Angeles County for their continued cooperation and efforts to meet the requirements ofthe Settlement Agreement.'The Monitors also thank the community members in the Antelope Valley for their candid participation in meetings facilitated by the Monitoring Team and for their willingness to include Monitoring Team members in their own respective meetings and functions. Finally, the Monitors continue to enjoy an open and effective working relationship with the representatives ofthe US Department ofJustice(DOJ),to whom we also extend our appreciation.
II. SUMMARY OF WORK TO DATE
This section provides an overview of the primary tasks undertaken and key policy documents that the Monitoring Team has been addressing over the previous six months.In particular,this overview summarizes Monitoring Team activities and provides brief updates on changes to LASD policies, unit orders,and training.In Section III, many ofthese same activities are described in more detail and situated in the context of LASD's broader work toward implementation ofthe Settlement Agreement and related efforts by the Monitoring Team.
'Settlement Agreement,No.CV 15-03174,United States v. Los Angeles County et al.(D.C. Cal. Apr.28,2015).
Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 7 of 29 Page ID #:296
A. Monitoring Team
The court-appointed Monitors,Dr. Angie Wolfand Joseph Brann,have assembled an experienced group ofteam members with credentials and skills uniquely suited to this project.The current membership ofthe Monitoring Team was finalized in March 2016.The two Monitors and seven team members have extensive expertise and experience in monitoring and evaluation work in policing and corrections. Additionally,the majority ofteam members have served in law enforcement or continue to have distinguished careers in this field.Several ofthese team members have served in leadership positions in departments during the implementation of the compliance period of a settlement agreement or consent decree,and therefore understand the unique challenges that large organizationsface in those circumstances.Team members also have particular expertise in dealing with the diverse issues addressed in the Settlement Agreement,such as those related to use offorce, training,the Fair Housing Act,and the complexities ofcommunity engagement.
This constellation of team members was assembled to support the Monitors' philosophy of collaborative reform and will use the principles of evaluation and technical assistance to provide an actionable assessment of LASD's progress toward implementation of the Settlement Agreement.
B. Antelope Valley Monitoring Website
The Monitoring Team has created a website where AV community members can learn more about the Settlement Agreement,the backgrounds ofthe Monitoring Team members,and the monitoring activities; access documents related to the monitoring work;follow links to LASD's homepage and other relevant websites;and—mostimportantly—submit questions and comments directly to the Monitoring Team.The website's URL is antelopevallevsettlementmonitorina.info.
C. Monitoring Work Plan
In alignment with the Monitors'values and desire to utilize a collaborative reform approach,the Monitoring Team submitted for review by the Parties sample "template" work plans addressing several SA requirements.These were tentatively approved by the Parties. After discussion ofthese samples,a plan for developing the final work plans was adopted that initially focuses on the development of the expected outcomes and monitoring activities related to each paragraph or provision ofthe Settlement Agreement.Detailed compliance measures for each provision will then be developed at later time,just prior to beginning work on that particular provision.This approach ensures that the Parties have a common understanding of(1)the Monitors'expectations regarding LASD's policies,training,and responsibilities and accountability of LASD deputies,supervisors,and managers;and (2)the scope and specific types ofactivities,information,and analysis that the Monitoring Team will require to assess compliance with each provision. Using this approach,reaching consensus on the work plans will take more time, but once in place,the work that stemsfrom them will proceed with greater efficiency and speed.
The Monitoring Team has completed detailed work plans for SA paragraphs 102 through 110,the first paragraphs in the Settlement Agreement that relate to the use offorce.This first set of work plans is being reviewed by the Parties.The remaining work plans are under development and scheduled for submission to the Parties for their review and input in the next reporting period.
2 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 8 of 29 Page ID #:297
D. Multiple Onsite Meetings and Events
Over the past six months,the Monitoring Team hasfacilitated, participated in,or observed multiple meetings at various locations in Antelope Valley,as well as at LASD facilities in downtown Los Angeles. The Monitoring Team held an onsite meeting in Antelope Valley with representatives from all Parties for the purposes of meeting one another in person as a group for the first time and building a common understanding ofthe history ofthe Settlement Agreement and how the monitoring process could best move forward. LASD also gave several presentations on various data systems and departmental processes,including the processing ofcitizen complaints.The Monitoring Team also participated in several LASD and community meetings:asemi-annual LASD risk management meeting and an LASD Executive Force Review Committee meeting, which allowed the Monitoring Team to observe important SA-related departmental processes firsthand;several one-on-one meetings with the captains of both AV stations; multiple onsite meetings with LASD's Compliance Unit, usually regarding specific issues such as policy review,data system briefings,and patrol and supervision characteristics at each AV station;and several small- and larger-group community meetings in Palmdale and Lancaster to discuss various topics such as the scope of the Settlement Agreement, community attitudes toward LASD and its approach to policing,and the Community Advisory Committees(CAC). Most ofthese meetings and events are described in greater detail,along with Monitoring Team observations,in Section III, Detailed Work to Date.Inaddition to in-person meetings, the Monitoring Team has had several telephone calls per month and nearly daily email communication with representatives of DOJ,the County of Los Angeles,and LASD,eitherjointly or individually.The Monitoring Team also facilitates a monthly telephone conference call with the Parties to discuss workflow,future events and meetings,and other salient topics.
E. Overview of Progress on Policies, Unit Orders,and Training Curricula
Four policies or unit orders have now been formally approved by DOJ,while 11 others are currently under review by either the Monitoring Team or DOJ,with several ofthose very close to approval. Similarly,in this reporting period,the Monitoring Team began reviewing training curricula.
Policies and unit orders are similar in that they both set out the goals, procedures,and requirements of LASD;they both contain the rules,duties,and responsibilities that guide the work of all LASD staff. However,"policies"apply to LASD countywide,while unit orders apply only to specific units—in this case,the LASD stations in Antelope Valley(LASD-AV). Policies and unit orders are compiled in the various chapters ofthe LASD Policy Manual. Besides policies,the manual also contains or refers to various other documents that dictate and clarify departmental policy and procedure,such as directives, newsletters,and training curricula.
The Monitoring Team recognizes and appreciates the many complexities encountered and the challenges involved when a large organization undertakes policy changes and related steps to implementthem.The Monitors also recognize that there are many considerations LASD management has to accountfor when dealing with matters ofthis nature,such as whether the changes will be confined to the AV stations or whether they might potentially affect the entire organization;the possibility or likelihood that other existing policies could be affected and therefore would also have to be updated/revised;that evolving "best practices"and legal considerations also influence policies related to such things as use offorce,video recordings,and so on;and the need/requirement in many instances to recognize and consult with labor groups as well as legal resources before such policy
Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 9 of 29 Page ID #:298

changes can be effected.In the course ofthe work that has been undertaken to date,the Monitors havefound the Parties to be strongly committed to ensuring that the requirements ofthe Settlement Agreement will not be weakened or overlooked because ofthese considerations and,based on the ongoing collaboration that has been displayed by the Parties, we believe the objectives agreed to in the Settlement Agreement can be achieved in a timely manner.
This section provides an overview of progress concerning additions and changes to policies, unit orders,and training to date.See Section III, Detailed Work to Date,for a more thorough description of each ofthese, how they relate to SA provisions,related work completed to date,and work expected to be completed during the next reporting period.Those policies indicating "Pending Final Approval" have been reviewed by the Monitors and DOJ and will be approved pending a final discussion of a few matters;final approval is anticipated early in the next reporting period.

Status of Unit Orders

Approved: Unit Order #68,on Supplemental Patrol Procedures,covering investigatory stops and detentions,searches,and bias-free policing. Related to SA paragraphs 42,44f,44g,44j,45,49,52,53,55,and 66b.

b. Approved: Unit Order #69,on Supplemental Supervisory Responsibilities,related to investigatory stops and detentions,searches,supervisory review, bias-free policing, community engagement,general use offorce reporting policy, use offorce supervisory investigations,complaint intake,complaint classification,and investigations. Related to SA paragraphs 45,49,52,58,59,60,61,62,63,66b,67,87, 88,109,115,116,117,118,125,126,128,130,131,134,133,and 136.

c.

Approved: Unit Order #72,on Community Advisory Committees,regarding AV CAC

composition,duties, meetings,and reporting procedures. Related to SA paragraphs

53,95,96,97,98,99,145,and 182.

2. Status of Policv Reviews

a. Pending Final Changes:The policy on Limited English Proficiency(3-09/004.00), which requires LASD staff to take various steps to ensure that a person's lack of proficiency in English will not be a barrier to effective communication with deputies or fair and equal treatment in the context ofsearches, bias-free policing,and complaint intake. Related to SA paragraphs 52,66,and 125.This policy has been approved by all Parties pending a few final changes.

b. Under Review by the Monitoring Team:The policy on Photography,Audio,and Videotaping By the Public and Members ofthe Press(3-01/080.16),which establishes a prohibition against discouraging members of the public from documenting police activities. Related to SA paragraph 106.

c.

Under Review by the Monitoring Team:The policy on Seizure of Photographic Video

or Audio Evidence From a Private Citizen or Member ofthe Press(5-04/110.12)

4 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 10 of 29 Page ID #:299

which limits the seizure of visual or audio recordings without a warrant and establishes procedures to follow when specific law enforcement—related exceptions apply. Related to SA paragraph 106.

Pending Final Approval:The policy on Constitutional Policing (5-09/520.00), regarding the right of members of the public to receive equal protection under the law,without bias as to race,color,ethnicity, national origin, religion,gender,gender identity,disability,or sexual orientation.The related SA paragraph (1164)also prohibits stops from being initiated because of an individual's actual or perceived immigration status.This policy also includes language on consensual encounters,in which members of the public voluntarily interact with deputies and are free to leave at any time(5-09/520.15). Related to SA paragraph 64.

e. Pending Final Approval:The policy on Stops,Seizures,and Searches (5-09/520.05), which establishes that investigatory stops and detentions shall be initiated and carried out based on the tenets of constitutional policing and bias-free policing,as in item 2d.,above.Related to SA paragraphs 41,43,50,51,52,56,and 64.

Pending Final Approval: A policy on Backseat Detentions(5-09/520.10),addressing when and by what rationale backseat detentions can be used and how to handle citizen complaints about such detention. Related to SA paragraphs 48 and 49.

g. Pending Final Approval:The policy on Logging Public Contacts(5-09/520.20). Related to SA paragraph 44.

h. Pending Final Approval:The policy on Logging Field Activities(5-09/520.25). Related to SA paragraph 20.

Pending Final Approval:The policy on Statistical Codes For Traffic,Pedestrian,And Bicycle Stops(5-09/520.30). Related to SA paragraph 44.

j.

Under Review by the Monitoring Team:The Field Operations Directive describing

LASD policy on Housing Authority Non-Criminal Investigations/Inspections(FOD

12-02),regarding searches;accompaniment on Section 8 compliance checks;and the

Housing Non-Discrimination policy, which addresses fair housing issues. Related to

SA paragraphs 54,76,77,78,79,and 80.

k.

Under Review by the Monitoring Team and DOJ, with discussions scheduled for June

or July 2016: A revised policy on Use of Force(3-10/000.00-140.00),to address general

use offorce policy principles,the use offorce reporting policy,and use offorce

supervisory investigations. Related to SA paragraphs 103,105,109,110,111 a, 111 b,

111e,112a,112d,113,116,117,and118.

Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 11 of 29 Page ID #:300

3. Status ofTraining Curricula
Pending conference of Parties to review: LASD developed their Bias-Free Policing training curriculum and their Constitutional Policing training curriculum,which were submitted it to the Monitoring Team,who have reviewed the materials, made comments and suggested changes,and submitted it to DOJ.The Parties will meet in June or July 2016 to review and finalize.

III. DETAILED WORKTO DATE

The nearly 200 substantive provisions of the Settlement Agreement are each represented by a numbered paragraph and laid out in eight sections.

• Stops,Seizures,and Searches

• Bias-Free Policing

•

Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance

•

Data Collection and Analysis

• Community Engagement

•

Use of Force

• Personnel Complaint Review

• Accountability

While there is a large amount ofoverlap in the objectives and specific requirements ofthese sections, they broadly represent the areas offocus ofthe Monitoring Team's work.This part ofthe report presents the progress to date—with an emphasis on the past six months—of LASD's efforts to reach compliance with the Settlement Agreement in each of those eight sections. It is too early at this stage of the process for the Monitoring Team to provide a detailed assessment of LASD's compliance with every provision ofthe Settlement Agreement. However,as a result ofthe monitoring activities over the past six months,reflections and observations are included below on the work that LASD has done in the Antelope Valley to comply with the Settlement Agreement.
Critical to the successful implementation and sustainability of the reforms outlined throughout the Settlement Agreement is a commitment and adherence to constitutional policing principles. LASD's ability to meet these responsibilities isaffected by actions such as establishing clear policies and providing effective training to ensure that deputies honor these constitutional standards and possess a clear understanding of what the organization's expectations are of them during the course of their community interactions. This is also affected by having sufficient accountability systems and mechanisms in place to monitor and evaluate both employee performance and management oversight practices so as to ensure adherence to constitutional standards,as well as the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement.

A. Stops,Seizures,and Searches
The Settlement Agreement sets out the guiding principles pertaining to constitutionally based stops, seizures,and searches:

6 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 12 of 29 Page ID #:301

LASD agrees to ensure thatallinvestigatorystops,seizures,andsearches are conducted in accordance with the rights,privileges,orimmunitiessecured orprotected by the Constitution orlawsofthe United States. LASD(further agrees to]ensure thatinvestigatorystops andsearches are partofan effective overallcrime prevention strategy,do notcontribute to counterproductive divisions between LASD and the community, and are adequatelydocumented for tracking andsupervision purposes.(SA,page 7,lines 10-15)
The changes and revisions to LASD policies related to stops,searches,and seizures that have been addressed thus far are contained within several broader sets of policies and unit orders referred to as Constitutional Policing,Supplemental Patrol Procedures,Supplemental Supervisory Responsibilities, and the Limited English Proficiency and Language Assistance Plan.(Progress toward compliance on these and other policies was briefly summarized in Section II.) The goal of the SA paragraphs pertaining to deputy and community interaction during law enforcement-related encounters is to establish policies and related training and procedures to:ensure that the rights ofcommunity members are respected; measure the quality ofdeputy decision making;enhance LASD's ability to capture relevant data points;and,ultimately,improve rather than reduce LASD's level oftrust among community members and its level oftransparency with regard to these important constitutional policing principles.These requirements are detailed in paragraphs 41-56 ofthe SA.

Constitutional Policina

The specific LASD policy provisions pertaining to constitutional policing and investigatory stops include the following:

• Stops,Searches,and Seizures(520.05);

•

Backseat Detentions(520.10);

• Consensual Contacts(520.15);

•

Logging Public Contacts(520.20);

•

Logging Field Contacts(520.25);and

• Statistical Codes for Stops(520.30).

Each of these substantive LASD policies is specifically addressed within the Settlement Agreement (paragraphs 41 -63).

Supplemental Patrol Procedures
Policies pertaining to LASD deputies'interactions with community members(including investigatory stops),and reporting and data collection requirementsfollowing such interactions, have been approved by the Monitoring Team and DOJ.These policies address:
Investigatory stops and detentions(SA paragraph 42);
Data and narrative reporting required subsequent to an investigatory stop or detention (SA paragraph 44);
Reporting of reasonsfor seeking consentfrom a subject(SA paragraph 44j);

Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 13 of 29 Page ID #:302

•

Accurate,specific descriptive language required when completing an investigatory

stop and detention report(SA paragraph 45);

• The individualized reasonable suspicion that would justify a backseat detention (SA paragraph 47);

• The handling of complaints arising from backseat detentions(SA paragraph 49);

•

Required recording of consensual searches using the issued body-worn camera

systems(SA paragraph 52);and

• A series of other provisions that are specific to Section 8 housing investigations and parole/probation compliance checks(SA paragraphs 53-56).

Supplementar rLSupervisory Responsibilities
With regard to effectively overseeing compliance with the provisions ofthe Settlement Agreement that pertain to stops,searches,and seizures,the following supplementary supervisory responsibility unit orders have been approved by the Monitoring Team and DOJ:
• The reporting requirements pertaining to investigatory stops and detentions(SA paragraph 45);
• The handling of complaints arising from backseat detentions(SA paragraph 49);
• The use of body-worn cameras during consent searches(SA paragraph 52);
• The implementation of additional accountability and supervision practices regarding stops,searches,and seizures(SA paragraph 58);
• The review of reports and logs pertaining to investigatory stops and detentions(SA paragraph 60);and
• The remedial steps to be taken regarding violations of policy and deficiencies in stops, searches,and seizures(SA paragraphs61-63).

B. Bias-Free Policing
Section IV ofthe Settlement Agreement,Bias-Free Policing,requires LASD to deliver police services that are equitable,respectful,and bias-free,and delivered in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in the Department.The SA also requires LASD to continue to conduct regular training for deputies,supervisors,and command staff regarding discriminatory policing.(These requirements are detailed in paragraphs64-72 ofthe SA.)
In an effort to be proactive,and prior to the signing ofthe Settlement Agreement and the assignment ofthe Monitoring Team,LASD implemented a policy on constitutional policing that includes a

8
Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 14 of 29 Page ID #:303
prohibition against bias-based policing.The policy incorporated the languagefrom paragraphs 43 and 64 ofthe SA:"LASD-AV deputies shall not use race,color,ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender,gender identity,disability,or sexual orientation as a factor,to any extent or degree,in establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause,except as part of actual and credible descriptions)ofa specific suspect or suspects in any criminal investigation.... Deputies shall not initiate stops or other field contacts because of an individual's actual or perceived immigration status."
LASD's quick action on this change was an indication oftheir commitment to following through on the SA requirements affecting deputy performance in the Antelope Valley. LASD understands that this, and any other SA-related policies put into place before the Monitoring Team was assigned, must still undergo a formal review process before a determination is made as to whether the policy is in compliance with the SA.(As described in the previous section,the Monitoring Team hasforwarded its comments on the Constitutional Policing policy to DOJ,and discussions with all Parties on those changes are scheduled for June 2016.)
Bias-Free Policing and Constitutional Policing Training
LASD has also worked to develop a training curriculum for this new policy. It may be altered pending final approval ofthe policy, but in the meantime,the Monitoring Team has reviewed the curriculum.
In addition to having effective policies and accountability systems in place that meet the expectations ofthe Settlement Agreement,the quality oftraining and the manner in which such training is carried out provides a foundation for establishing SA compliance in the field. During the previous monitoring period, members ofthe Monitoring Team reviewed the existing training materials pertaining to constitutional and bias-free policing. As a result ofthat review,the Monitors made a number of recommendations to augment the existing curriculum in order to provide training that is both effective and consistent with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement.
LASD has contracted with the law firm Thomas &Means,LLP,for their assistance in developing and providing constitutional policing and bias-free policing training to LASD-AV staff. This training will address a wide array oftopics and issues that influence actual bias as well as public perceptions of bias.Topics include proceduraljustice, police legitimacy,implicit bias, racial profiling,cultural competence,community engagement,problem-oriented policing,and strategies to prevent implicit bias/racial profiling. This training is intended to provide employees with a clear understanding of organizational expectations related to ensuring that constitutional and bias-free policing is carried out in the field.
LASD submitted these bias-free training documents for review and the Monitoring Team raised several questions related to defining key terms, methods used to effectively train adult learners,and testing to ensure the material will be retained by learners. If the material is not retained by personnel, institutionalization will be hampered or not occur at all. The Monitoring Team will continue to work with all Parties to finalize the training materials. DOJ has reviewed those materials and requested a meeting with all Parties to discuss. Final approval is anticipated early in the next reporting period.
The Monitoring Team will assess the impact of this training and work with LASD to ensure it is consistent with contemporary practices and the provisions ofthe Settlement Agreement.The Monitoring Team will observe the training sessions and provide implementation feedback to the
9 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 15 of 29 Page ID #:304
Parties if deemed necessary.As with all training courses,the material will not take hold unless it is reinforced in practice and supervisors hold employees accountable for knowing and applying it. Training is ineffective unless it positively impacts the day-to-day interactions between deputies and the community members they serve in real and tangible ways.Therefore,in addition to auditing the training sessions,the Monitoring Team will assess whether both the letter and the spirit ofthe related policies are reflected as deputies carry out their duties in the field.
A crucial consideration in the Monitoring Team's feedback to LASD on the training was that it did not adequately incorporate the requirements related to Section 8 housing inspections(see Section III-E, below).Once the new LASD housing policies are formally approved,they must be incorporated into this training. LASD is also required to conduct quarterly training in bias-free policing (see SA paragraph 71),and the Monitoring Team will review those training materials once they have been submitted.
The Monitoring Team has offered feedback to LASD on process-related elements of the training in order to facilitate the Monitoring Team's future review of training materials related to other SA provisions. For instance, we found it was difficult to navigate the documents provided and to make connections between the lesson plan,PowerPoint,and test questions.Subsequent discussion took place to allow the Monitoring Team to gain a better understanding of LASD's processes for developing curriculum,training,and testing materials. As a result, we offered recommendations on the types of documents needed to facilitate a speedy review.The Monitoring Team has suggested the lesson plan serve as the base documentfrom which all other training materials are developed to ensure consistency across all documents. Using a base document for training is particularly critical for full or multi-day courses.This change will provide clarity and consistency for both the Monitoring Team's review oftrainings and LASD's internal work.The Compliance Unit expressed willingness to meet these recommendations asthe Monitoring Team's review of training curricula continues.
2. Limited Enalish Proficient
Another policy related to bias-free policing addresses LASD interactions with members of the public who speak little or no English.The Limited English Proficiency and Language Assistance Plan (LEP) has been tentatively approved,pending certain changes.This policy requires LASD staffto take various steps to safeguard against a person's lack of proficiency in English becoming a barrier to receiving fair and equal treatment. It should serve to improve communication between deputies and individuals who do not speak English,or who have limited English-language proficiency.The policy mandates that the public be provided with ready access to essential forms that have been translated.
Deputies are also required to use bilingual personnel or translation services as needed during the course offield contacts,and translation services must be available to members ofthe public when they are in custody facilities, when they are making personnel complaints,and during community engagement and outreach efforts.
The Compliance Unit has gone beyond what was required in the Settlement Agreement in order to create a comprehensive policy.The Monitoring Team will assess and evaluate ongoing compliance with the policy in the future. Ensuring that members of the public have access in alternate languages is critical for providing equitable public safety services to all communities.
10
Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 16 of 29 Page ID #:305
Organizational Climate and Culture StudX To date,there has not been a formal study ofthe "organizational climate and culture"(see SA paragraph 69)at the LASD-AV stations. According to the Settlement Agreement,LASD must utilize experts to assist in its study efforts.The Monitoring Team believes that assessments should be conducted on a regular basis and may serve as excellent indicators of areas for growth and improvement. These types of reviews or assessments typically include surveys, review of organizational communications(external and internal),interviews,document review,and community surveys.Such studies can be very useful in helping establish priorities,as well as in determining the most effective means for bringing about organizational change.For example,they can assist in understanding the perceptions of,and levels ofacceptance or resistance to,the reforms being implemented.They can also provide an opportunity to test collective feelings about various crime reduction strategies and identify foundational beliefs that must be addressed within the organization. Evidence suggests that employees'feelings about their work and their value to the organization affect how they treat people within the community.This critical point is discussed in the Final Report ofthe Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Effective assessments regularly look inward and outward,and the Monitoring Team looks forward to discussing possible next steps in this area with the Parties.
11 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 17 of 29 Page ID #:306
4. Volume of Calls for Service
In concert with various ride-alongs undertaken with LASD deputies, Monitoring Team members observed LASD-AV roll calls and deputies during the course oftheir work in the field.
Monitoring Team Direct Observation
Roll calls and ride-alongs provide opportunities for direct observation of deputies who are providing services in the field. The events they deal with can be unpredictable and provide opportunities to see the SA provisions applied under a wide array of circumstances. Specifically, ride-alongs provide the following advantages.
• Observing the tone and tenor of police/community interactions in numerous settings and circumstances.
• Discussing the effectiveness ofthe practices and gaining valuable feedbackfrom line staff responsible for practicing key provisions of the Settlement Agreement.
• As long as police response or safety is not compromised,the ability to interact directly with community members.
• Viewing firsthand how supervisors/commanders provide direction to deputies regarding priorities and expectations.
• Allowing Monitoring Team members to observe how well the SA requirements blend and whether they meet the intended expectations ofthe Parties and the community.Audits typically look at specific items to ensure technical compliance, but actually viewing how the requirements flow together and related business is carried out is critical for a complete assessment. For example,a deputy might stop a driver(need to record data), have a reason to conduct a backseat detention (requiring documentation ofthe circumstances and justification for the detention)ofa person with limited English proficiency(requiring translation services or forms in alternate languages),and this might possibly result in a complaint(accurate intake and competent investigation).The Settlement Agreement is not a set of individual requirements; rather, it is a document built on principles designed to protect the constitutional rights of all people in a variety of circumstances. Ride-alongs are simply one of the tools that can assist in assessing how all the provisions work together and whether the requirements are being practiced by deputies.
• Making direct field observations byway of ride-alongs complements other data-gathering techniques and sources that will be used to evaluate compliance with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement.This particular mode of observation allows the Monitoring Team to periodically observe field activities and evaluate subtle influences and nuances that may affect deputies' performance as they carry out their duties.
Ride-alongs offer a unique and direct opportunity to view deputies'interactions with the public,and they can also assist with evaluation ofcommunity members'views through immediate interviews or post-interaction reviews.
During certain shifts, Monitoring Team members observed LASD-AV stafffacing challenges with both the number of calls and the sheer magnitude of land area to cover. Most notably, LASD-AV patrol deputies were focused on clearing the calls(or"tags")on the screen so that requests for service from the community did not go unanswered for extended periods oftime.In fact,on one day,there were so many calls that a roll call was cut short so deputies could respond to the numerous requests for
12 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 18 of 29 Page ID #:307
assistance.There is no question that law enforcement must respond to emergency calls for service, but we look forward to future community policing plans that will provide for specific time to be dedicated to community interactions and community policing activities. Ensuring patrol officers have time to engage in meaningful community engagement is often difficult, but it is a staple of effective community policing.
5. Data Collection on Stogs
The Monitoring Team received a copy of LASD-issued instructions directing officers to collect statistical codes for traffic, pedestrian,or bicycle stops.The data are collected in the Computer-Aided Dispatch System.The Monitoring Team observed a log for one officer that showed the data fields captured for the observed stops during aride-along.These were encouraging observations,and the Monitoring Team acknowledges LASD's efforts tojump-start the data collection.The Monitoring Team will begin a thorough review of data collection procedures and LASD's overall compliance with this provision.
Over the next six months,the Monitoring Team anticipates conducting additional field observations; interacting with the AV community;observing implementation ofthe LEP policy; moving forward with a cultural assessment;giving final approval to the housing policies for inclusion in training sessions; performing initial reviews of enforcement data available in LASD databases; making site visits to LASD training facilities;and recommending any further modifications to,and then approving,the Bias-Free and Constitutional Policing training materials.
C. Community Engagement
The Settlement Agreement states that"LASD agrees to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community,to engage constructively with the community to ensure collaborative problemsolving and bias-free policing,and to increase community confidence in the Department."(SA,page 20,lines 1-5.)The Monitoring Team's role in this process is to observe and assess LASD's efforts to improve its relations with the AV community as per the goals ofthe Settlement Agreement.The Monitoring Team may also provide advice and technical assistance as appropriate and necessary.
"Community engagement'thus primarily refers to LASD's efforts to engage the community.However, the Monitoring Team also needs its own process of community engagement with AV community members in order to understand and assess the nature of LASD's relationship to the community and, in particular,the community's attitudes and perceptions regarding LASD.Therefore,the objectivesfor the Monitoring Team over the past six months with regard to community engagement were twofold: (1)to develop relationships, promote trust,and establish open lines ofcommunication between the Monitoring Team and the community;and (2)to gain a better understanding of LASD's approach to community engagement and to begin to assess the Department's progress in meeting the requirements ofthe SA's community engagement provisions.This section first describes the Monitoring Team's own engagement efforts and then discusses LASD's community engagement work.
13 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 19 of 29 Page ID #:308
1. Monitoring Team Community Engagement Activities
During this reporting period(December 2015 through May 2016),the Monitoring Team's community engagement activities have included meeting with a broad cross-section ofcommunity members,as well as interviewing various community representatives and leaders; participating in a number of community events; meeting with LASD's CACs; meeting with the captains and key staff responsible for community outreach activities at the AV stations; participating in ride-alongs and interacting with deputies as they go about their work; reviewing LASD community engagement reports and LASD policies regarding community engagement;and fielding many calls and emailsfrom community members who desired to express their opinions regarding the quality of policing services in the Antelope Valley.
The Monitoring Team has made five site visits during this period,each of which has contributed to team members developing a better understanding of and greater familiarity with the Antelope Valley; the various community interests and needs that exist; LASD operations;and the dynamics,challenges, and successes stemming from the relationships between the community and AV station personnel.
In January 2016,the Monitoring Team's primary representative on matters related to community engagement,David Muhammad,participated in the annual AV Martin Luther King Jr. celebration and community forum. During the course of this important community event, David met with numerous community members as well as the newly appointed captain of the Palmdale Station, Dennis Kneer. In addition, David was honored to give the keynote address and provide those in attendance with an update on the progress of the Settlement Agreement.
In March 2016, members of the Monitoring Team again met with Captain Kneer and members of his station. During this site visit,the Monitoring Team hosted a meeting with community members,which afforded an opportunity for those in attendance to meet with team members and learn about the work that has been done since the inception ofthe Settlement Agreement,and for the Monitoring Team to hear from the community about their concerns and input. Approximately 25 members of the community,along with LASD representatives, participated in this meeting.The nearly three-hour discussion touched on a number of salient issues;community members shared their perspective on LASD's progress and improvements,as well as their concerns about the manner in which policing services are carried out in their community and neighborhoods.These concerns are described below. The Monitoring Team continues to document these concerns and track LASD's efforts to respond and work collaboratively with the various stakeholders to ensure these matters are addressed in accordance with the requirements and expectations established by the Settlement Agreement.
The Monitoring Team will also continue to work to educate and assist the AV community in distinguishing between community concerns that do and do not fall within the scope ofthe Settlement Agreement and the Monitoring Team's role in it. The Monitoring Team has found that some issues or complaints raised by community members do not necessarily fall within the scope of the monitoring role.There have been several occasions where the Monitoring Team found it necessary to redirect people to other resources in the county's governmental structure(such as the Los Angeles County Office ofthe Inspector General,the Board of Supervisors,or other county agencies).Similarly,community members with complaints about LASD staff members'conductor performance who have not filed their complaint with the Department are being directed to use the established complaint system.The Monitoring Team mayfollow up to see that the complaint is appropriately handled,but it is generally not the role ofthe Monitoring Team to process such complaints.
14 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 20 of 29 Page ID #:309
During an April site visit,the Monitoring Team again conferred with community leaders,including the president ofthe AV National Association for the Advancement of Colored People(NAACP),the president ofthe AV League of United Latin American Citizens(LULAC),leaders ofThe Community Action League(TCAL),and other community members who provided valuable input representing various constituencies.This information helps the Monitoring Team understand the nature ofthe relationships among community members and between various community groups and LASD.This in turn allows the Monitoring Team to assess how well LASD engages with all ofthe various AV community groups, what obstacles may inhibit successful engagement and compliance with the Settlement Agreement,and how we can better assist LASD in improving lines ofcommunication and overcoming obstacles.
During this visit,the Monitoring Team also met with the Palmdale CAC.The members ofthe CAC provided a wide range of perspectives as well as personal experience working with LASD.They shared stories that exhibited the progress made in Palmdale while also expressing some of their remaining concerns.The CAC members will continue to be a conduitfor constructive criticism—and,in some cases, complaints—from the broader community.
The Monitoring Team has received several calls and emails from community members bringing specific concerns to our attention. As previously noted,some ofthe concerns were related to matters outside of our purview and were referred to the appropriate investigatory resources,consistent with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement.
2. LASD Community Engaaement Activities
LASD has increased its engagement in community events and outreach efforts in the past six months. Additionally, LASD had previously instituted CACs in Lancaster and Palmdale, which comprise a crosssection of members from the community who meet monthly with the leadership of the stations that serve the Antelope Valley. LASD has drafted a policy codifying the duties and responsibilities ofthe CAC;this policy has been reviewed and approved by the Monitoring Team and DOJ.
CAC Community Meeting
The Settlement Agreement requires LASD to facilitate quarterly public meetings of the CAC to discuss the Monitoring Team's report and receive community feedback about LASD's progress and compliance with the Agreement.During the May site visit, members ofthe Monitoring Team attended the Palmdale CAC's first such meeting. LASD had broadly publicized the event using a variety of communication methods:the LASD website;Facebook; Nixel(a social networking tool);flyers in English and Spanish that were disseminated in the Palmdale station and local apartment complexes; and automated phone calls that were conducted in the neighborhoods within walking distance of the meeting location. Additionally,the CAC members disseminated the meeting notice to their respective constituents. Approximately 45 to 60 community members attended the meeting.The meeting was structured to provide detailed introductions ofthe CAC members,list the sections ofthe SA,provide an overview and discuss the relevance ofsome ofthose sections,and review the"Challenges"section ofthe Monitoring Team's first six-month report.
15 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 21 of 29 Page ID #:310
The CAC members in attendance appeared to be invested in carrying out their charge of representing the community;each ofthem indicated their desire to be supportive ofthe community and LASD. However,there were questions raised regarding the composition ofthe Palmdale CAC;some in attendance recommended that greater outreach be made to non-traditional community leaders.The Monitoring Team will work with LASD to examine this particular issue during the next phase of our work.
4. LASD Community Engagement Report
In April,the Monitoring Team reviewed,provided detailed feedback,and recommended various edits to an LASD report on community engagement.The publishing ofthis report meets a compliance mandate in the Settlement Agreement.Overall,the report was easy to read and documented the meetings,events,and other activities that LASD has participated in or facilitated.The Monitoring Team has encouraged LASD to create a document that communicates a clear,concise,and appropriate message to the residents of Antelope Valley—one that genuinely seeks to improve relationships and restore public trust. Acknowledging the challenges ofthe future and admitting the mistakes ofthe past will be a substantial step toward reform, building social capital,and restoring trust and communication between LASD and those whom they serve in the Antelope Valley.This should include but not be limited to a focus on those positive community programs that allow deputies and community members to build positive and sustainable relationships.
5. Community Meetings and Events
The Settlement Agreement requires LASD deputies assigned to AV stations to participate regularly in community meetings. In an effort to effectively monitor this particular requirement, LASD keeps a monthly log of all such meetings attended by deputies and officials(the April 2016 report is included in the appendix).While there are often many meetings listed on the monthly logs,the station captain, a lieutenant,or the community relations deputies most often attend these meetings.It remains important for the head of each AV station to attend community meetings and be available to community members. But in order to improve relationships between the deputies and the community,it is also critical,as laid out in the Settlement Agreement,that all deputies regularly attend community meetings. LASD still has much progress to make in this area,and the Monitoring Team looks forward to working with LASD in accomplishing this important task. As recommended below,a wider range ofcommunity meetings should be attended by deputies,and genuine engagement with community members should occur at these meetings.
6. Progress in LASD's Community Engaaement and Concerns Expressed by the Community
It appears that in the pastfew years,since the completion ofthe DOJ investigation that resulted in the Settlement Agreement,increased efforts have been underway to improve relations between LASD and the community.In fact, both LASD and community members have acknowledged that greater efforts have been undertaken and improvements have been made, particularly with regard to Section 8 compliance checks.
16 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 22 of 29 Page ID #:311
LASD has fully implemented CACs in Lancaster and Palmdale,is making the effort to consistently engage the community and have deputies regularly attend community meetings,and is actively engaged in addressing the provisions of the Settlement Agreement.
The Monitoring Team has learned much based on the community input received.The March 9 meeting appears to be emblematic of the many complicated dynamics that exist in the Antelope Valley. For example, both station captains have expressed their desire to have community representatives serve on their CAC who have been outspoken and constructive critics of LASD in the past. Each station's liaison is working closely with their CAC to provide a significant amount of training to the CAC members.(The CAC Unit Order requires a total of24 hours oftraining,which is provided to members during the course oftheir time on the committee.)So far,the training seems to have contributed to the members having more knowledge and a better understanding of LASD operations. While it appears CAC members feel valued and included by LASD and are proud of the work they are doing with respect to community engagement,certain members ofthe broader community continue to express feelings of being marginalized and are often critical of LASD and the CAC's composition. In particular, it seems that the monolingual Spanish-speaking community and the LGBT community express frustration about being disenfranchised or ignored.
There are several other ongoing community concerns that should be noted in this report.Community perceptions strongly influence the quality ofthe relationship between the community and law enforcement agencies. However, not all perceptions are based on established facts that all Parties can or will agree upon.The fact that some community members believe their perceptions to be true should be viewed by LASD as an opportunity to engage in dialogue;examine their own perspectives (e.g., a law enforcement reason for their tactics); hear from the community about the real and/or perceived impact oftheir policies and tactics;and discuss how legitimate law enforcement objectives can be effectively achieved and responsibilities carried out with no,or minimal,alienation occurring in the community.
There is the perception by some in the community that LASD is engaging in biased "stop-and-frisk" practices as a systematic effort to target communities ofcolor.There are specific paragraphs within the Settlement Agreement that address this issue,and it will be aggressively monitored during the course of the Settlement Agreement.
There is also the perception that the Latino community in Antelope Valley,especially those who live in or visit Lancaster, have been treated unfairly or targeted disproportionately bydeputies through the placement of DUI checkpoints,as well as traffic enforcement efforts that result in vehicles being impounded.Community members claim that the majority of vehicle impounds are for lack of identification, not for DUIs.
Many ofthe community leaders interviewed by members ofthe Monitoring Team expressed concern that both the Lancaster and Palmdale CACs were not adequate representations ofthose communities,were made up solely of LASD supporters,and did not provide any necessary criticism of Lancaster deputies.Community leaders suggested that members ofthe community who live on the east side of Lancaster,and perhaps others who may have had negative experiences with LASD, be allowed to serve on the CACs.With limited space on each CAC,both LASD and the community have to work together and understand that it may not be possible to represent all
17 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 23 of 29 Page ID #:312

perspectives in the CACs, but that an earnest effort should be made to make the composition ofthe CACs broadly representative ofthe community,especially those communities that experience more police contact.
There seems to be a perception by some that the purpose of the CACs is to teach the community how to behave and interact with the police.This sentiment was repeated in the LASD Community Engagement draft report.The purpose ofthe CACs is to provide communityfeedback and perspective to LASD,as well as to help with community education and outreach.

7. Monitoring Team Suagestions Regarding Community Engagement

The Monitoring Team has begun discussions with LASD about improving community relations, and has made the following suggestions. LASD should see community engagement as a process of working to establish long-term relationships with communities and community members,especially in communities of color and with youth (as specified by the Settlement Agreement), by having sincere community dialogues,implementing a comprehensive community policing strategy, participating in meaningful and relevant community meetings and events,and receiving and responding to
community input.

The Monitoring Team has the following suggestions on how LASD-AV can improve community engagement.

•

Participate in meetings being held in the community where deputies attend,and

engage in the meetings,notjust stand up in the back or sit without saying anything.

Attend open NAACP meetings,LULAC meetings,church meetings,neighborhood

meetings, etc.

•

Host quarterly town hall meetings for the purpose of hearing from the community,not

just talking at the community or giving reports. LASD should have more than just the

captains of each station and a few others in leadership. Deputies should attend these

meetings and sit among and engage with community members.

•

LASD should continue attending special events and engaging with those groups and

populations that could be considered to be disenfranchised or harder to reach.

• One of the community members suggested that each station hold a community event or series oftown-hall-type meetings in Spanish—not a meeting held in English that offers translation, but a meeting conducted in Spanish that provides translation into English for those that need it. It was also suggested that LASD make it clear that the undocumented community is invited to the meeting and will be safe to attend.

In particular,the view that there could be a disproportionate focus on traffic enforcement appears to be hurting perceptions within the Latino community ofthe legitimacy ofthe LASD-AV stations.This issue must be addressed through a focused and ongoing engagement with the community so it does not erode trust in the police. Ifthe practice is based in a law enforcement necessity,then station leadership must make sure the practice does not contain bias or result in disparate treatment.The

18 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 24 of 29 Page ID #:313
Monitoring Team recommends engagement with Latino community leaders to co-design a way forward that both maintains safety and addresses these concerns.
D. Data Collection and Analysis
One ofthe foundational elements in implementation ofthe Settlement Agreement is LASD's ability to collect, manage,and analyze data. Data will be used to "identify shortcomings,assess improvement, and increase community confidence in LASD's law enforcement activity in the Antelope Valley ... LASD will develop and implement a protocol for the collection and regular analysis of data to assess whether there are trends and patterns that indicate bias or practices that otherwise run counter to constitutional and effective policing."(SA,page 17,lines 23-28.)
The need for appropriate and timely collection of data underscores much of the Settlement Agreement.In March 2016, members ofthe Monitoring Team met with LASD supervisory staff, command personnel,and members ofthe Compliance Unit. During the course ofthat meeting,we became oriented to the collection and management of the current data pertaining to investigatory stops,searches,and seizures;the Personnel Performance Index System;and the complaint review and internal investigations tracking process.
The Settlement Agreement sets out very specific and objective information that is to be captured during the course ofan investigatory stop and detention (see paragraph 44).The Settlement Agreement also outlines the type of analysis that will be used to examine the potential disparate impact of policing practices. Whether or not the current data collection and management is the most robust,comprehensive,efficient,and effective management and accountability mechanism will be the subject offurther discussion between the Monitoring Team and the Parties as this important process continues into the next phase of work.In order for the terms and conditions ofthe Settlement Agreement to be effectively assessed, it is imperative that the data systems capture the comprehensive data and information necessary for LASD and the Monitoring Team to ensure compliance with policy,law,and the terms and conditions ofthe Settlement Agreement.
In order to accomplish this critical task, it is imperative that LASD have in place proper systems to capture and analyze information pertaining to the requirements set out in the Settlement Agreement. A good part of the Monitoring Team's work in the months ahead will be focused on continuing collaborative work with LASD to examine the manner in which current data are captured,the system or systems in which the data are captured,and the manner and frequency in which they are reviewed. In reality,true sustainable reform and substantial compliance with the terms and conditions ofthe Settlement Agreement will be best demonstrated —and ultimately achieved—bythe manner in which the organizational policies are strictly adhered to by LASD deputies,and carefully monitored by comprehensive and robust accountability systems that are routinely examined by LASD supervisors and command personnel,and openly,effectively,and frequently communicated to the citizens of Antelope Valley.
Specifically,in the months ahead,the Monitoring Team will work with LASD in the analysis of data pertaining to investigatory stops,searches,and seizures,as well as data pertaining to citizen complaints arising from alleged improper investigatory stops,searches,and seizures. An important part of that review will concentrate on what accountability and management tools LASD has in place to ensure the collection ofaccurate data; how LASD assesses the quality ofthe decision making that
19 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 25 of 29 Page ID #:314
contributed to these constitutional intrusions;and what is being done to effectively monitor compliance with LASD policy,law,and the conditions required by the Settlement Agreement.
E. Enforcement of Section 8Compliance
The Settlement Agreement requires LASD to develop and implement a housing non-discrimination policy that reflects its commitmentto the Fair Housing Act(FHA),and which must also explain how to file a complaint of discrimination in housing.The policy is to be disseminated to all sworn LASD-AV deputies. Further,the Settlement Agreement states that LASD must add additional information to its policies regarding deputy accompaniment of Housing Authority workers when they conduct administrative investigations/inspections for compliance in the Section 8 Program and regarding LASD's own independent investigations upon referral by the Housing Authority of allegations offraud in the Section 8 program.The Housing Non-Discrimination and Enforcement ofSection 8compliance provisions have a direct relationship to the SA provisions addressing unlawful searches and seizures, use of unreasonable force,and Title VI violations.
During this six-month review period,the Monitoring Team's focus with regard to housing-related requirements of the Settlement Agreement was on the revision of LASD's policies on accompaniment of Housing Authority workers during administrative investigations/inspections. As part of a separate settlement in 2012,after the cities of Palmdale and Lancaster were sued by the NAACP and The Community Action League(TCAL)for alleged violations ofthe Fair Housing Act, LASD issued Field Office Directive 12-02, Housing Authority Non-Criminal Investigations/Inspections(FOD 12-02).The purpose of FOD 12-02 is to address the issue of deputy accompaniment of Housing Authority workers during investigations/inspections.The Monitoring Team believes reaching agreement on revisions to FOD 12-02 is integral to LASD achieving compliance on all of the Housing Non-Discrimination and Enforcement of Section 8 compliance provisions of the SA.
In April 2016,the Monitoring Team met with the LASD Compliance Unit and County Attorney Roger Granbo to discuss FOD 12-02. The LASD representatives made it clear during the meeting that there have not been any LASD accompaniments of Housing Authority workers during Section 8 investigations/inspections since FOD 12-02 was issued,and they believed that agreed-upon revisions to this directive could be implemented with relative ease. We also held meetings with the Palmdale and Lancaster LASD station captains,the attorneys who represented the NAACP and TCAL in the 2012 Fair Housing litigation,and representatives from the NAACP and LULAC,all of whom confirmed that no LASD-assisted Housing Authority investigations/inspections had been reported to them since the settlement of the 2012 litigation.
It should be noted that LASD's consistent reminder that,deputies have not been conducting accompaniment of Housing Authority workers during investigations/inspections does not lessen the importance ofthe SA's accompaniment provisions.The Housing Authority is required by its Administrative Plan to conduct certain Section 8 investigations/inspections.Therefore,the prospect of LASD accompaniment under appropriate circumstances continues to exist.
The Monitoring Team has had discussions regarding revisions to FOD 12-02 with the DOJ Housing Section attorneys who were instrumental in drafting the Housing Non-Discrimination provisions ofthe SA. It is anticipated that the Monitoring Team will present proposed revisions to FOD 12-02 to LASD for its consideration during June 2016.
20 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 26 of 29 Page ID #:315
The Settlement Agreement also requires that LASD provide certain training related to Section 8 and the Fair Housing Act. Paragraph 57 states that all AV deputies shall be provided training that "... ensures]officers understand Fourth Amendmentand related legal restrictions on searches and seizures,...and Section 8 related activity..." Also, paragraph 70,on training to promote bias-free policing, provides:"LASD will continue to conduct regular training for deputies,training deputies, supervisors,and command staff regarding discriminatory policing ...This training shall further include the requirements ofthe FHA,with specific emphasis on discrimination on the basis of race."
The search and seizure training materials related to Section 8 will have to be revised after FOD 12-02 is finalized, and at this point nothing in the Bias-Free Policing training materials provided to the Monitoring Team addresses the FHA.
F. Use of Force and Personnel Complaint Review
Regarding the use offorce,the Settlement Agreement specifically provides that:
LASD agrees to revise its force policies and practices to reflectits commitmentto upholding the rights secured or protected by the Constitution ofthe United States,protecting human life and the dignityofevery individual,and maintaining publicsafety.LASD agrees to ensure thatits accountability measures are implemented appropriately so thatAntelope Valley deputies use force only when objectively reasonable, and in a manner thatavoids unnecessary injury to deputies and civilians;and to useforce asa lastresort and de-escalate the use offorce atthe earliestpossible moment.Deputies and staffshallendeavor to use only thatlevelofforce necessary for thesituation.(SA,page24,lines4-13.)
The Settlement Agreement goes on to describe in detail how these objectives will be met through policies governing deputy conduct,supervisory responsibilities,accountability mechanisms,and data collection and analysis.
With regard to personnel complaints,the Settlement Agreement specifically requires LASD to "...ensure that all allegations of personnel misconduct are received and are fully and fairly investigated, and that all personnel who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent."(SA,page 29,lines 26-28.)
The Monitoring Team evaluated several sets of policies related to use offorce and review of complaints,as described in Section II above.The use offorce policy will be a critical focus in the upcoming six-month reporting period.
In May 2016, members of the Monitoring Team carried out site visits at the Lancaster and Palmdale stations. Management personnel from both stations were interviewed individually to determine how each station actually processes personnel and service complaints.The system components that were examined included intake,investigation,disposition,retention,and destruction.As each station also has a jail for the temporary housing of pre-arraigned arrestees,the Monitoring Team inquiry also included the manner in which the stations handle complaintsfrom prisoners.(Each station treats prisoner complaints similarly to complaints made by the general public.)The Monitoring Team also viewed the logs and forms used for recording personnel and service complaints and reviewed some examples of the different types of investigations.
21 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 27 of 29 Page ID #:316
During these interviews,the Monitoring Team found the staff at both stations to be well aware ofthe requirements ofthe Settlement Agreement and committed to its full implementation.Staff members were very helpful and informative.
The site visit raised some questions about the documentation of use offorce complaints that require further discussion and attention by the Monitoring Team to achieve a thorough understanding of how such complaints are handled. We will look at this moving forward. Also, while at the two stations, Monitoring Team members inspected the lobbies to ascertain whether complaintforms and informational material were available(SA paragraph 124). Both stations had current English-language complaintforms available at the front desk, but the Spanish-language complaintforms were out of date. Although the Spanish-language complaintform was out of date because it contained the previous sheriff's name,it did contain sufficient information on how to file a complaint.This was brought to the attention ofstation management,who stated it would be immediately corrected.
IV. FUTURE ACTIVITIES
Immediate Priorities:
Finalize work plan; Use of Force policy;and Bias-Free Policing policies and training.
Additional Priorities for the Next Reporting Period:
Data collection and audits; Community survey;and Review additional new and revised policies.
V. CONCLUSION
LASD has made a commitment to ensure that the Department will function and perform at an exceptional level,one that represents the highest standards of excellence in law enforcement(SA, page 2,line 27).Implied in that commitment is the recognition that effective,efficient,and constitutionally based law enforcement service delivery requires actively engaging the community in meaningful ways so that those who are most affected by law enforcement strategies and decision making may have a voice and a role in determining how those services are delivered.
Although the Monitors recognize the commitment LASD has made and the resources committed to this endeavor,we have noted and expressed concerns to the Department regarding adequately staffing the Compliance Unit. Due to the amount of work to be completed and the aggressive timelines involved,the Monitors feel the current staffing level offour personnel working on the Settlement Agreement needs to be increased.The Compliance Unit has worked extremely diligently on this project; however,their unit is not adequately staffed to execute all ofthe needed tasks, including policy planning and revision,training development and coordination,data collection and analysis,creating public reports,ensuring community engagement,adopting and implementing new
22 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 28 of 29 Page ID #:317
performance metrics,changing organizational systems,and other organizational issues that will likely extend beyond the Antelope Valley. The terms and conditions ofthe Settlement Agreement,coupled with LASD's commitment to those terms,have established theframework for a journey that, iffully implemented,will withstand time, embrace community-oriented and 21 st-century policing principles, restore relationship and trust where it has been compromised,and make LASD a model for law enforcement agencies across America. The Settlement Agreement has provided LASD with an opportunity to evaluate its policies and practices;enhance its training in the area ofconstitutional policing;and develop supervision and accountability systems that will ensure that policing services in the Antelope Valley are carried out in a manner that respects our Constitution and honors the terms and conditions ofthe Agreement. Over the past six months, LASD has made a purposeful effort to revise its policies and practices pertaining to constitutional policing principles,specifically those pertaining to stops,searches, seizures, bias-free policing, use offorce,and citizen engagement.These policy revisions,coupled with the other activities described throughout this report,constitute critical initial steps in establishing a culture within LASD that will ensure all employees display an understanding of,and a commitment to upholding,the constitutional principles that govern the duties and responsibilities ofeach and every member of the Department. In the next reporting period,the Monitoring Team will continue working with LASD in their efforts to build the community-oriented,21st-century law enforcement agency that is contemplated by the Settlement Agreement,expected by the community,and exemplified by the commitment ofthe men and women of LASD.In doing so, we will continue to focus on completing necessary policy revision and development,training curriculum and delivery,ensuring adequate supervision and accountability,and the implementation ofthe SA requirements related to deputy and citizen interactions that result in investigatory stops,searches,and seizures;guidelines affecting use offorce incidents and investigations;the citizen and administrative complaint processes;Section 8 compliance;data collection;and the manner in which LASD members proactively engage in and collaborate with the community they serve.
23 Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 29 of 29 Page ID #:318
Cover Photos Credits "Palmdale and Mountains" by Jamesb01 at English Wikipedia.Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Logan using CommonsHelper. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org[wiki/File:Palmdale and Mountains.jpa#/media/File:Palmdale and Mountains.igp "Sunset over Lancaster CA" by LancasterCA at English Wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunset over Lancaster CA.jpa#/media/File:Sunset over La ncaster CA.ipa
24 Final Version

 
 Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 1 of 36 Page ID #:321
Antelope Valley Monitoring Team
Third Semi-Annual Report
December 2016

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 2 of 36 Page ID #:322

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 1

II. WORK TO DATE...................................................................................................................................................2

A. Multiple Onsite Meetings and Events.........................................................................................3

B. Monitoring Work Plans .................................................................................................................... 4

C. Stops, Seizures, and Searches ........................................................................................................ 5

D. Bias-Free Policing .............................................................................................................................12

E. Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance.....................................................................................13

F. Community Engagement..............................................................................................................17

G. Use of Force........................................................................................................................................23

H. Personnel Complaint Review.......................................................................................................27

I.

Accountability ...................................................................................................................................30

III. CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................................33

Final Version

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 3 of 36 Page ID #:323

I.

INTRODUCTION

This is the third Semi-Annual Report issued by the Monitoring Team (MT). It covers the monitoring activities that have taken place during this reporting period and describes our observations as to the progress of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) in meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement (SA)1 for the Antelope Valley (AV). This report is primarily focused on work undertaken between July 2016 and December 2016.

Throughout these recent months, the MT has been engaged in ongoing discussions and meetings with LASD command and management staff concerning policy refinements and implementation matters, conducting site visits in the Antelope Valley, and participating in a wide array of meetings with the Parties and community members.

This report provides an overview of the activities the team has been engaged in and recent issues the MT has focused on, both administrative and operational. As is typical in this stage of monitoring work, considerable attention continues to be devoted to reviewing and revising policy documents, to developing work plans and specific compliance measures that relate to each of the major topics in the SA, and to addressing important community engagement efforts by both the MT and LASD. The progress achieved in those areas will be covered in more depth in this report, along with discussion as to where this work fits in the broader context of the SA and the sequence of activities that will ultimately lead to achieving full SA compliance. This includes treatment of relevant short- and longterm needs and priorities the MT has identified.

The Monitors are appreciative of the efforts undertaken by LASD and the Office of County Counsel for their continued efforts in this endeavor and the cooperative spirit they have displayed and demonstrated. The staff of the Compliance Unit is particularly talented, organized, and flexible; they set a strong example for the Department. The spirit of collaboration evident in recent meetings among the Parties makes it clear the Department has a commitment to meeting the SA requirements and improving the quality of law enforcement services in the Antelope Valley. The Monitors also want to acknowledge and express thanks to the community members in the Antelope Valley for their candid participation in meetings with the MT, their understanding of the sometimes incremental but necessary deliberative processes that have to be undertaken, and their suggestions for improving the MT’s interaction with them and with the Department. The MT continues to enjoy an open and effective working relationship with the representatives of the US Department of Justice (DOJ), to whom the Monitors also extend appreciation.

1 Settlement Agreement, No. CV 15-03174, United States v. Los Angeles County et al. (D.C. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015).

Final Version

1 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 4 of 36 Page ID #:324
The Antelope Valley Settlement Agreement - Summary
The Antelope Valley Settlement Agreement (SA) was established between the US Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division; the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD); and the County of Los Angeles and was filed with the US District Court for the Central District of California in April 2015. The purpose of the SA is to ensure that the residents of the Antelope Valley are provided with police services that are lawful and fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States and contemporary policing practices. The SA specifically identifies, as individual sections, a variety of reforms and objectives to be met by LASD in the Antelope Valley related to: Stops, Seizures, and Searches; Bias-Free Policing; Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance; Data Collection and Analysis; Community Engagement; Use of Force; Personnel Complaint Review; and Accountability. The SA also stipulates that a professional monitor be selected to track and assess LASD’s progress in implementing and achieving compliance with the SA, work with the Parties to address obstacles to achieving compliance, and report on the status of implementation to the Parties and the Court. As per paragraph 171 of the SA between the Parties, the MT submits a Semi-Annual Report (every six months); the first of these was issued in December 2015.
Monitoring Team
The membership of the MT was finalized in March 2016. The court-appointed Monitors—Dr. Angie Wolf and Joseph Brann—have assembled an experienced group of team members with credentials and skills uniquely suited to this project. The two Monitors and seven team members have extensive expertise and experience in monitoring and evaluation work in policing and corrections. Additionally, the majority of the MT members have served in law enforcement or continue to have distinguished careers in this field, several in the Los Angeles area. Several of these MT members have served in leadership positions in departments during the implementation of the compliance period of a settlement agreement or consent decree, and therefore understand the unique challenges that large organizations face in those circumstances. The MT members also have particular expertise in dealing with the diverse issues addressed in the SA, such as those related to use of force, training, the Fair Housing Act, data collection and analysis, survey methods, and the complexities of community engagement.
This constellation of team members was assembled to support the Monitors’ philosophy of collaborative reform; it will use the principles of evaluation and technical assistance to provide an actionable assessment of LASD’s progress toward implementation of the SA.
Antelope Valley Monitoring Website
This website allows AV community members to learn more about the SA, the backgrounds of the MT members, and the monitoring activities; access documents related to the monitoring work, including the Semi-Annual Reports; follow links to LASD’s homepage and other relevant websites; and—most importantly—submit questions and comments directly to the MT. The website’s URL is antelopevalleysettlementmonitoring.info
II. WORK TO DATE
This section of the report describes the work performed to date towards fulfilling the requirements of the SA, concentrating primarily on the activities undertaken over the past six months (July–December 2016). Following a summary of the many interactions with the Parties and the AV community that the MT has had in the past six months, this section describes the crucial task of developing detailed work plans and then discusses the substantive sections of the SA.

Final Version

2 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 5 of 36 Page ID #:325
Work related to one section of the SA—Data Collection and Analysis—is not addressed individually. The concepts and work for data collection and analysis have significant overlap with the other sections of the SA. The work on data collection and analysis done thus far is best understood within the context of the other sections to which it also pertains; therefore, related discussions are embedded as appropriate in those other sections.
As we have noted in previous reports, the MT understands and remains mindful of the many complexities encountered when a large organization undertakes broad policy changes, as well as the challenges that must be confronted when implementing such changes. The Monitors also appreciate the considerations that LASD management has to account for when dealing with matters of this nature, such as whether the changes will be confined to the AV stations or whether they will affect the entire organization; the possibility or likelihood that other existing policies could be affected and therefore would also have to be updated or revised; that evolving “best practices” and legal considerations also influence policies related to such things as use of force, video recordings, and so on; and the need or requirement in many instances to recognize and consult with labor groups as well as legal resources before such policy changes can be effected. Throughout the work that has been undertaken to date, the Monitors have found the Parties to be strongly committed to ensuring that the requirements of the SA will not be weakened or overlooked because of these considerations. Based on the ongoing collaboration that has been displayed by the Parties, we believe the objectives agreed to in the SA can be achieved in a timely manner.
Critical to successfully implementing and sustaining the SA reforms is a commitment and adherence to Constitutional policing principles. LASD’s ability to meet these responsibilities is dependent on adopting clear policies and providing effective training. Only by doing so can deputies clearly understand what the Department expects from them in their community interactions and have the ability to honor Constitutional standards of policing. Department capacity is also affected by the need to have sufficient accountability systems and mechanisms in place to monitor and evaluate both employee performance and management oversight practices. Policies, training, and accountability systems are required to ensure adherence to Constitutional standards and to the terms and conditions of the SA.
A. Multiple Onsite Meetings and Events
During this reporting period, the MT facilitated, participated in, or observed multiple meetings at LASD headquarters, other administrative offices, and elsewhere in the Antelope Valley. The MT periodically met with the captains of both AV stations and their staff; participated in multiple onsite meetings with LASD’s Compliance Unit, usually regarding specific issues such as policy review and data system discussions; and held meetings with particular units or leadership from other operations that are critical to this reform work, such as the Audit and Accountability Bureau (AAB) and the commander in charge of training; observed a semi-annual LASD risk management meeting; and participated in several small- and larger-group community meetings in Palmdale and Lancaster to discuss various topics such as the scope of the SA, the Second Semi-Annual Report, community perceptions about LASD and its approach to policing, and the Community Advisory Committees (CAC). Although some of these meetings and events were general in scope and pertained to many sections of the SA, most were related to specific sections or provisions of the SA and are described in greater detail in Section III, below.

Final Version

3 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 6 of 36 Page ID #:326
In addition to in-person meetings, the MT conducts a variety of conference calls each month and has nearly daily email communication with representatives of DOJ, the County of Los Angeles, and LASD. The MT also facilitates a bimonthly call with DOJ and a monthly telephone conference call with the Parties to discuss workflow, future events and meetings, and other salient topics.
B. Monitoring Work Plans
Development of work plans that address each of the nearly 200 substantive SA provisions (each represented by a numbered paragraph and laid out in eight sections of the SA) is an important and time-consuming activity that adheres to the Monitors’ collaborative-reform approach to this monitoring work. The work plan for each SA provision is only finalized after careful consideration and discussion among the Parties and the MT as to what the monitoring work entails, the scope of that work, and the details of how ultimate compliance with the SA will be reviewed and measured. Using this approach, reaching consensus on each of the work plans typically requires weeks of review and discussion, but once the plans are in place, the work that stems from them tends to proceed with greater clarity, efficiency, and speed.
To that end, in the first part of this six-month monitoring period, the MT submitted for review by the Parties various work plans that address the substantive SA paragraphs or provisions. By an agreement reached between the Parties and described in the Second Semi-Annual Report, these initial work plans included two sections for each provision. The “Targeted Outcomes” section describes the MT’s expectations surrounding the intended results that should take place as a result of LASD’s enhancements to their policies and training, as well as the responsibilities and accountability of LASD deputies, supervisors, and managers, which make clear how each part of the SA will be manifested in policing activity and how it will enhance the relationship between the Department and the AV community, once successfully implemented. The “Monitoring Activities” section describes the information the MT requires from the Department and how that information will be used to assess compliance.
The third and final section of the work plans is “Compliance Measures.” This section lays out the specifics of which criteria will be used in the assessment of SA compliance and how these criteria will be defined and measured; that is, what the threshold will be in order to establish that LASD has achieved a successful, or “compliant,” outcome. These criteria balance the requirements of the SA with on-the-ground reality and, importantly, take into consideration how Department leadership identifies and responds to situations that fall outside of strict SA compliance. The goal of the Department will be to have every deputy follow policy perfectly in each situation; however, in reality, this is a difficult, if not impossible, standard to reach in every circumstance. Therefore, the Department will be deemed in compliance with a particular provision of the SA when (1) all or the vast majority of the time the provision is followed; and (2), when a provision is not followed, the Department expeditiously recognizes that a problem occurred, reviews the circumstances to assess why it occurred, and takes all appropriate action to remedy the situation and avoid a recurrence.
Prior to the November onsite visit, the MT submitted to DOJ and LASD a set of compliance measures—the third section of each provision’s work plan—addressing provisions of the Personnel Complaint Review section of the SA. At the onsite meeting, the Parties discussed these draft compliance measures and came to agreement on their format and the bulk of their content. Following further discussion of the criteria for assessing a few elements of the SA provisions, it is expected these

Final Version

4 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 7 of 36 Page ID #:327

drafts will be approved and will then serve as the templates for developing compliance measures for the other sections of the SA. The remaining work plan compliance measures are under development now and—pending the final approval of the template—will be submitted and discussed among the Parties during the next reporting period.

C. Stops, Seizures, and Searches
The current LASD leadership has consistently voiced a commitment to safe, effective, and Constitutional policing. Reestablishing the trust of the disenfranchised members of the community will require interactions between deputies and citizens to be safe, professional, fair, respectful, and consistent with generally accepted law enforcement practices, Department policy, and the terms and conditions of the SA.
Accomplishing Constitutional policing requires the continuing commitment of Department leadership and the adoption of policing strategies that are aimed at rebuilding and sustaining public trust and confidence. The Department has agreed to provide clear and unequivocal guidance to all personnel to ensure that the goals of fair, impartial, and Constitutional policing are carried out in everything they do; to increase transparency and accountability at every level of the organization; and to provide deputies with the technical support, training, and equipment necessary to carry out their important work.
Specifically, SA paragraphs 41–63 address policies, practices, training, and principles of supervision and accountability regarding the stops, searches, and seizures of persons and property. In summary, these paragraphs state that LASD has agreed to conduct all investigatory stops, seizures, and searches in a Constitutional manner; to ensure that these processes are part of an overall crime-prevention strategy; and that investigatory procedures do not contribute to division between LASD and the community. As part of successful implementation, LASD must adequately document relevant activities for tracking and supervision processes.

1. Current LASD Policy and Practice

The LASD Manual of Policy and Procedures (MPP) contains the policies and practices that guide the work of deputies who serve the Antelope Valley and describes the duties and responsibilities of the various parts of the Department. Chapter Nine, Volume Five of the manual addresses—among other operational matters—Constitutional policing and investigative stops (5-09/520.00), including:



Stops, Searches, and Seizures (520.05)



Backseat Detentions (520.10)



Consensual Contacts (520.15)



Logging Public Contacts (520.20)



Logging Field Contacts (520.25)



Statistical Codes for Stops (520.30)

Each of these substantive LASD policies is specifically addressed within the SA (paragraphs 41–63).

Final Version

5 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 8 of 36 Page ID #:328

2. Stops, Seizures, and Searches Policies

Much has been accomplished by way of policy and training development, as well as ongoing monitoring activities, in an effort to establish Constitutionally sound practices with regard to investigatory stops, detentions, searches, and arrests in the AV. A grouping of those policies addressing the provisions of the Stops, Searches and Seizures section of the SA is sometimes referred to as the “Constitutional Policing” policies. The process leading to approval of new or revised policies is as follows: the Department writes and submits to the MT and DOJ new or revised policies; the MT conducts a thorough review and submits proposed changes and comments to DOJ; DOJ conducts its own review and replies to the MT’s review; these joint comments and proposed changes are submitted back to LASD; LASD reviews the joint comments and proposed changes and produces a new version reflecting those changes to which it agrees; the Parties then discuss as a group the pending issues and come to resolution on a final version.

Several policies related to Stops, Searches, and Seizures were approved during the previous reporting period: Supplemental Patrol Procedures, Supplemental Supervisory Responsibilities, and Community Advisory Committees. Some that were described in detail in the last report were approved during the current reporting period, including Constitutional Policing; Stops, Searches, and Seizures; Backseat Detentions; Logging Public Contacts; Logging Field Activities; and Statistical Codes for Traffic, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Stops. As a group, these policies are critical to the Department’s ability to effectively ensure that the corresponding SA provisions have been incorporated into the daily operations of a deputy’s work and consistently and effectively supervised and reviewed through the chain of command. They include a series of requirements regarding how AV deputies interact with community members, how deputies report on those encounters, and how those encounters are reviewed and assessed by supervisors. Examples include:



Training deputies to incorporate elements of procedural justice, including treating

civilians with courtesy, respect, and transparency during investigatory stops and

detentions (SA paragraph 42).



Ensuring that individualized reasonable suspicion justifies backseat detentions (SA

paragraph 47).



Responding appropriately to civilian complaints arising from backseat detentions (SA

paragraph 49).



A series of other provisions that are specific to Section 8 and parole and probation

compliance checks (SA paragraphs 53–56).



A series of data points to be collected during an investigative stop or detention (SA

paragraph 44).



The required recording when equipped with body-worn camera or audio systems of

requests for consent to search (SA paragraph 52).



The narrative reporting required incident to an investigative stop and detention (SA

paragraph 44f).

Final Version

6 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 9 of 36 Page ID #:329



Reporting the reasons for seeking consent from a subject (SA paragraph 44j)



The type of language required when completing an investigative stop and detention

report (SA paragraph 45).



The implementation of additional accountability and supervision practices regarding

stops, searches, and seizures (SA paragraph 58).



The review of reporting investigative stops and detentions (SA paragraph 60).



The remedial steps to be taken regarding violations of policy and deficiencies in stops,

searches, and seizures (SA paragraphs 61–63).

With these provisions firmly established in policy, the MT began to work with LASD and DOJ to ensure that LASD regularly scrutinizes and collects the essential data required to assess policy compliance in a way that is consistent with the SA. LASD understands that compliance will also require the Department to comprehensively and regularly review data and take timely and appropriate action when the review process reveals departure from the SA requirements and the expectations of the Parties. The requirements spelled out in the specific paragraphs of the SA that pertain to deputy and community interaction will certainly assist the Department in measuring the quality of decisionmaking processes, enhance the Department’s ability to capture relevant data points, and ultimately improve the Department’s level of transparency and accountability.

The MT stresses that a review of quantitative statistical data is crucial to identifying trends and/or revealing potential disparities. It is also crucial that statistical analysis be augmented by qualitative analysis, to ensure the Department’s ability to effectively monitor the full context of the decisions that a deputy may make that lead to an investigative detention, search, or arrest. Thus, ensuring that deputies are completing such narratives properly is extremely important. Equally important is a frequent and comprehensive review of those narratives to ensure that (1) the narratives themselves are accurate, thorough, and appropriately detailed; and (2) the decisions that deputies make are Constitutional and in full compliance with LASD policy and the requirements of the SA.

During an onsite in AV, including time in the AV stations and ride-alongs with deputies, the MT was able to observe whether and how some of these requirements are being reflected in practice. AV staff members periodically compile and examine data pertaining to stops, detentions, searches, citations, and arrests. This information is gleaned from the daily worksheets (or duty logs) and sent to the LASD Compliance Unit for review. The MT recently reviewed some of this material and offered feedback that warrants timely follow-up and corrective action.

1. Human error resulting from inconsistent interpretation or standards can result in the miscoding or improper classification of incidents.

2. Limitations in the amount of text that deputies can enter into the mobile computer data system should be addressed to ensure that adequate information is provided.

The MT members acknowledge that, in a perfect environment, the mobile data system components used to capture data in the field, the daily reviews undertaken to ensure that data are complete and accurate, and a periodic review by the Compliance Unit (or other reviewing bodies) of the

Final Version

7 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 10 of 36 Page ID #:330
spreadsheets provided by the districts may well provide a reasonable way to audit the relevant data and determine whether the enforcement activities in the field comply with the SA. However, the MT has found that the current data system often stands in the way of compliance.
First, if an investigatory stop or resulting search is not properly coded in the CAD system—and thus does not reflect the proper code on the deputy’s worksheet—the incident may not be evaluated with the same rigor that is intended in the SA and expected by the community. Moreover, it will not be captured on the spreadsheet that the Compliance Unit compiles for review. However, first-line LASD supervisors are required to review deputies’ complete logs for accuracy and sufficiency, which should help mitigate these identified shortcomings when done properly.
Second, the limited ability of the current mobile data system to accommodate an expanded narrative prevents deputies from fully describing the facts and circumstances that may have led to an investigative stop, detention, or search. Stops, detentions, and searches are obvious and often perceived as significant Constitutional intrusions on individual liberties. The facts and circumstances leading to those intrusions must be fully and unambiguously described, as laid out in paragraphs 44 and 45 of the SA, so that they may be scrutinized and rigorously reviewed by first-line supervision and command-level personnel, as laid out in SA paragraphs 58–63. A limited data field forces the deputy to be too concise; more detailed and descriptive language is often necessary to fully articulate the basis for the deputy’s actions. Similarly, the limited data field—especially when combined with possible coding errors—makes it very difficult for a supervisor to properly evaluate the information on the deputy’s worksheet.
To its credit, the Department was already aware of these potential shortcomings and is taking affirmative steps to remedy them, including the recent addition of data fields for backseat detention length, parole/probation contacts, and vehicle storages/impounds. LASD has also expressed a commitment to improving this process and developing compliance mechanisms that are consistent with Department obligations. LASD has begun the hard work of securing a new CAD system, and it is imperative that the new system provide adequate flexibility and capabilities to address these issues. Such a system must ensure that the Department captures a multitude of incident types with the specificity needed to best describe incidents and to allow for a fully unlimited narrative that describes the deputy’s actions—especially if those actions relate to stops, investigatory detentions, and searches.
Meanwhile, pursuant to the approved Supplemental Supervisory Responsibilities Unit Order, the Department must take immediate steps to ensure that first-line supervisors are auditing deputies’ worksheets to ensure that there is proper justification for stops, investigatory detentions, and searches—and that the correct incident codes are being assigned. This will allow LASD to best comply with the SA and improve the quality, accuracy, and reliability of the data they collect.
3. Stops, Seizures, and Searches Training
The training requirements regarding stops, searches, and seizures laid out in the SA are encapsulated in the Department’s Constitutional Policing training curriculum. Briefly, paragraph 57 of the SA states that LASD will train all of its deputies on stops, searches, and detentions using a qualified legal instructor who has Fourth Amendment experience. The training must teach officers about the Amendment’s legal restrictions, as well as the Department’s own restrictions, related to stops, searches, and detentions. It will distinguish the various types of police contacts (defined by scope and

Final Version

8 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 11 of 36 Page ID #:331
level of intrusions; the difference between probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and speculation; and true voluntary consent). The training will also guide officers on what they should consider when initiating, carrying out, or expanding a search—including legal and policy considerations. It will also address procedural justice considerations, alternatives to conducting the stops, and the potentially negative impact on civilians when taking such actions. “Best practice” training methods will be used, including role-playing and other techniques that have proven effective for adult learners. The goal is to ensure that all deputies exercise good judgment that is based on knowledge of the law.
The development and implementation of policies that are Constitutionally sound and consistent with the terms of the SA and best law enforcement practices requires effective, comprehensive, and consistently reinforced training. The SA makes clear the basic elements that are needed in that training (in particular, in paragraph 57), but it remains LASD’s responsibility to develop such training and ensure that it is properly delivered to LASD personnel in the Antelope Valley. Certain provisions of the SA require the MT to review the adequacy of training, training needs, and documentation of training (SA paragraphs 160–172). These particular provisions require the Department to submit the training curriculum and lesson plans for review prior to publication; the MT is required to provide feedback and set out a timeline for implementation once the Parties have agreed on the content.
To develop both this training and that required for Bias-Free Policing (see next section), LASD partnered with two independent contractors who have significant experience and expertise in constitutional law and law enforcement practices. Lesson plans were developed in accordance with the SA and, during the second monitoring period, were submitted to DOJ and the MT for review.
The MT is encouraged by the progress of the last several months and looks forward to seeing the training implemented and to monitoring that training as it proceeds. The materials submitted for evaluation provided a good overview of fundamental principles, many of which the deputies should clearly understand, as those principles already guide their work in the field. LASD clearly made strong efforts to comply with the SA when developing the lesson plans. As also described in the Second Semi-Annual Report, the MT noted some deficiencies—the most significant of which are elaborated upon below—and has brought these to the attention of LASD. LASD and its training consultants were responsive and recently submitted an expanded curriculum for review.
The SA addresses the right of persons to photograph or record the actions of deputies in public places, in which a citizen’s presence does not impede or otherwise obstruct a deputy from performing lawful duties. The MT requested, and the Department has agreed to incorporate into the training materials, information on basic citizen protections that are covered under the First Amendment. In addition, the MT provided the Department with an adult learning model that can illustrate these important principles.
The MT requested, and the Department has agreed to incorporate, information on what the law enforcement literature has labeled “Contempt of Cop.” Contempt of Cop refers to enforcement actions that a deputy might employ solely because a person has challenged the deputy’s authority or has willfully disregarded an order that was not within the deputy’s legal authority to give. The MT specifically recommended that the materials include the US Supreme Court decision that addresses this issue,2 and suggested various articles that discuss the context of a deputy’s discretionary decisionmaking.
2 City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987).

Final Version

9 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 12 of 36 Page ID #:332

The MT and DOJ made several recommendations aimed at ensuring that the various terms and concepts presented in the training will be clearly understood by personnel and easy to apply in onthe-job circumstances. These included the use of less complicated language, reduced ambiguity in describing what is expected in certain situations such as consent searches, and the inclusion of realworld examples demonstrating the various concepts and practices.
Lastly, the MT requested, and the Department has agreed to include, additional information on how the US Constitution deals with a law enforcement officer’s use of force against a citizen,3 how the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause relates to what the courts have referred to as “pretextual stops,”4 and how a decision to stop an individual is affected by that individual’s presence in a highcrime area.5
There are a few more points being discussed among the Parties regarding this training curriculum, but it is expected that it will be finalized and approved in the early weeks of the next reporting period.

4. The Monitoring Team’s Comments Regarding the Department’s Analysis of Stops and Use-ofForce Data

LASD submitted a report to the MT and DOJ that analyzed LASD data on stops, citations, searches, arrests, and use of force by race and ethnicity in Lancaster and Palmdale Stations in 2015. The MT reviewed the report, entitled Analysis of LASD Stop and Use of Force Data for Antelope Valley, during this reporting period. The report addressed parts of several paragraphs in the SA that require the Department to perform a semi-annual analysis of data to identify patterns and trends and determine whether there are disparities by race or ethnicity—or other issues related to Constitutional policing— related to stops, searches, seizures, certain citations, arrests, uses of force and related investigations, backseat detentions, consent searches, vehicle impoundments, citizen complaints, and Section 8 compliance checks involving deputies (see SA paragraphs 82–83 and 120–121).

The report concludes that there was no pattern of racial or ethnic disparity. Although LASD has made significant strides to improve data collection and analysis since DOJ’s investigation, the MT believes there are significant deficiencies in the draft report and is recommending that it not be approved.

To provide guidance to the Department, the MT presented a summary of its review along with various requests for clarification. In summary, the MT concluded the report and its analysis as it stood did not reliably show whether or not law enforcement activity in the Antelope Valley has a disparate impact on any racial or ethnic group, and thus did not meet the requirements of the SA.

The most crucial concerns were related to:



In some areas, a lack of clarity regarding which statistical analysis was used, which

variables were included, and what statistical assumptions or choices guided the

analysis.

3 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). 4 Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). 5 Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000).

Final Version

10 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 13 of 36 Page ID #:333



Questions regarding the choice of control variables in the regression models.



Questions regarding the coding and analysis of discretionary stops, searches, and

arrests, including the inclusion of misdemeanor arrests in the reported crime and

crime rate calculations.



Omission of an assessment of potential racial or ethnic disparities in stops, searches,

and arrests of people of color in reporting districts where they are not the

predominant group.



Inclusion of vehicle seizures in the hit rate analysis, which the SA states should focus

on stops that lead to the discovery of contraband.



Questions regarding potential inaccuracies in how use-of-force incidents were

categorized.



Insufficient discussion/further development of those analyses that indicated

statistically significant disparities.

The MT also noted the absence of a thorough, qualitative analysis of stop, citation, search, and arrest decision-making, including a review of the application of the legal thresholds of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Such an analysis would add context and give a more complete understanding of the quantitative findings.

In the start of the next reporting period, the MT and DOJ will be discussing the report with the researchers who performed the analysis and determining next steps for clarifying and improving the analysis and report, and for completing the analyses not addressed thus far.

5. The Monitoring Team’s Next Steps
The revised Constitutional Policing curriculum was submitted to the MT in December 2016, and the MT has begun its review. The MT is optimistic that the revised curriculum will be piloted with a selection of deputies from the AV in the next reporting period. The pilot will be observed and assessed by DOJ and the MT for content and delivery, instructor expertise, adherence to principles of adult learning, and participants’ understanding.
During the next monitoring period, the MT intends to work closely with LASD to better understand how it currently reviews and evaluates deputy decision-making, especially the discretionary decisionmaking related to investigation and enforcement of the actions addressed by the SA. If and when deficiencies are noted, the MT will work with LASD and DOJ to identify and incorporate best practices into the daily operation, as well as the regular audits and inspections, of the Lancaster and Palmdale stations. Progress in this regard will be a major topic of future reports throughout the entire monitoring process.
In addition to working closely with LASD and DOJ to ensure proper data collection and analysis, the MT will periodically accompany deputies on patrol, making observations and conducting informal interviews to determine current operational practices in the field pertaining to investigatory stops,

Final Version

11 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 14 of 36 Page ID #:334
detentions, and searches. Central to the MT’s observations and inquiries will be the consideration of the myriad factors that influence a deputy’s decision-making and resulting actions, and whether and how those actions are documented, tracked, and evaluated.
The MT will also be reviewing LASD-generated statistical data, as well as conducting qualitative reviews of report narratives that pertain to investigatory stops, detentions, searches, and arrests. This work will include a review of any supervisor-initiated or citizen-based complaints that involve possible or alleged Constitutional intrusions.
D. Bias-Free Policing
As described in the SA, LASD has agreed to “deliver police services that are equitable, respectful, and bias-free, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in the department.” The SA requires the Department to prohibit the undue consideration of certain traits and characteristics, such as race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or immigration status, in making decisions about law enforcement actions. The SA requires that deputies receive clear guidance— through policy, training, and supervision—as to prohibited conduct, which includes making enforcement and tactical decisions based on stereotypes or bias. The SA stipulates that the Department seek consultation as necessary from such organizations as the Museum of Tolerance (with whom the Department already works) to ensure that the guidance—and the manner in which the guidance is given—takes implicit bias and stereotyping into consideration.
Other provisions establish that bias-free policing must be included in the criteria used to assess deputy performance and that the Department must perform a review of all of its policies and practices, as well as its organizational climate, to determine if there are any discriminatory practices or practices that have disparate impact (summary of SA paragraphs 64–72). Quickly after the SA was signed, the Department incorporated a prohibition against bias-based policing into its policies, based on paragraphs 43 and 64 of the SA. The prohibition states:
LASD-AV deputies shall not use race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation as a factor, to any extent or degree, in establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause, except as part of actual and credible description(s) of a specific suspect or suspects in any criminal investigations. Deputies shall not initiate stops or other field contacts because of an individual’s actual or perceived immigration status.
The Department also developed a policy addressing Limited English Proficiency, the details of which are currently being finalized. The bulk of the remaining activity regarding bias-free policing has been related to development of the Bias-Free Policing training curriculum.
1. Bias-Free Policing Training
In conjunction with the development of the Constitutional Policing training curriculum described in the previous section, the Department has developed and submitted for review a Bias-Free Policing training curriculum. This lesson plan and its supplemental materials provide a good overview of the important principles of bias-free policing and procedural justice, which have a prominent place in the

Final Version

12 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 15 of 36 Page ID #:335
President’s Twenty-First Century Policing Task Force Report6 and which will serve as a training priority for law enforcement agencies across the country. Bias-free policing training is a burgeoning issue across the country, and the law enforcement community has only begun to identify promising practices and standards. For that reason, the development of a Bias-Free Policing training curriculum that is compliant with the SA is likely to require significant effort and time. The MT and DOJ have reviewed the curriculum and corresponding lesson plan on bias-free policing that the Department submitted and are currently reviewing another curriculum that was developed externally. The MT and DOJ will provide feedback to the Department and discuss next steps during the next reporting period.
The MT has requested that this particular training module begin with a strong message from the Sheriff to underscore the importance of this training, and it has stressed the importance of embedding the principles of bias-free policing, procedural justice, and legitimacy in the organizational culture of LASD. The MT also recommended that greater emphasis be placed on effective and engaged supervision as a critical part of the accountability systems detailed in the SA (discussed below in the Accountability section). It is anticipated that additional supplemental materials will need to be developed to address issues specifically related to the SA and to Antelope Valley. The training curriculum will also address Section 8 Housing investigations.
2. Stops, Seizures, and Searches: Next Steps
The MT will conduct a review of the final training curriculum on Constitutional Law and Bias-Free Policing, and at least one team member will attend and assess the training itself to ensure compliance with the SA. Thereafter, the MT will review critiques and feedback provided by LASD and develop a mechanism by which to share that feedback with LASD training staff and the Sheriff.
E. Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance
1. Settlement Agreement
The DOJ investigation that led to the SA found that LASD participated in investigations by the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles (HACoLA) of the homes of AV Section 8 voucher holders at disproportionate rates compared to the remaining parts of the County in which HACoLA’s and LASD’s jurisdictions overlap. The DOJ investigation concluded that some of these activities violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Following the settlement of separate litigation brought by Community Action League and other plaintiffs in 2012, LASD has not accompanied HACoLA workers during investigations or inspections of the homes of AV Section 8 voucher holders.
Pursuant to the SA, LASD has developed a housing non-discrimination policy that reflects its commitment to the Fair Housing Act. The MT is working with LASD on a revision that provides examples of FHA violations and better explains how a complaint of housing discrimination is filed. The policy is to be disseminated to all sworn LASD-AV deputies (SA paragraphs 73–75).
The SA also requires that Field Operations Directive 12-02 (FOD 12-02) be revised to address the following provisions on Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance. LASD must:
6 President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final report of the President’s task force on 21st century policing. Washington, DC: Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services. Available at https://cops.usdoj.gov/policingtaskforce

Final Version

13 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 16 of 36 Page ID #:336



Revise its policies contained in FOD 12-02 regarding when and how deputies

accompany Housing Authority workers during administrative investigations or

inspections for Section 8 compliance. Policies should specifically outline factors to be

considered when assessing the need for deputy accompaniment and the number of

deputies necessary (SA paragraph 76).



Institute policies that deal with investigations upon referral by HACoLA of allegations

of fraud in the Section 8 Program (SA paragraph 77).



Institute policies regarding its own independent investigations of alleged fraud in the

Section 8 Program (SA paragraph 77).



Revise its policies to include guidance on referral of cases for criminal fraud

prosecution based solely on compliance with the Section 8 contract (SA paragraph

77).



Revise its policies to include guidance on the proper procedures for sharing

information with a Housing Authority worker (SA paragraph 77).



Have deputies document all voucher holder compliance checks; each independent

investigation for criminal fraud based on the voucher holder’s compliance with the

voucher contract; and all calls, observations, or incidents involving voucher holders,

using stat code 787 (SA paragraphs 78–80).

SA paragraphs 53–55 also address how LASD-AV should conduct searches related to Section 8 compliance checks.

2. Monitoring Team Activities
During this six-month reporting period, the MT worked with representatives from the DOJ Housing Section to review and revise LASD’s drafts of its Housing Non-Discrimination Policy and FOD 12-02; the resulting revisions were submitted to LASD. A series of discussions were held with LASD representatives in an effort to arrive at final approved Housing Non-Discrimination and Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance policies. MT members also accompanied LASD deputies assigned to Palmdale’s Partners Against Crime Program on ride-alongs to gain an understanding of the deputies’ role in the PAC program.

3. Housing Non-Discrimination Policy
In March 2016, LASD submitted for the MT’s review a draft Housing Non-Discrimination Policy, which stated its commitment not to violate the specific provisions of the FHA that are referenced in the SA. The SA requires, however, that LASD “implement a Housing Non-Discrimination Policy which reflects LASD’s commitment to the requirements of the FHA . . .”7 The FHA is not a statute that law enforcement agencies typically have to interpret or apply. However, the particular outcomes of the

7 Settlement Agreement, paragraph 73.

Final Version

14 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 17 of 36 Page ID #:337
DOJ investigation that resulted in the specific SA provisions on Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance required more than a commitment not to violate the language of the statute. To accomplish this goal, the commitment has to be part of a policy statement that ensures deputies fully understand how and when their actions have FHA implications, so that they can avoid violations. To provide context and understanding of FHA implications for deputies within the policy, the MT—in consultation with DOJ Housing Section attorneys—revised the LASD March 2016 draft policy. They added concrete examples of deputy actions that can result in FHA violations and provided it to LASD on September 5, 2016.
There was a brief discussion of the revised Housing Non-Discrimination Policy during the MT’s September 2016 site visit. During two follow-up calls in November 2016, the MT and the Parties thoroughly discussed the language and format of the policy. These calls resulted in substantial progress on the policy’s language. A decision was also made to consider placing the policy in a Field Operations Directive format so that the Parties can consider both options, which LASD has now done. LASD submitted the revised Housing Non-Discrimination Policy to the Monitor in November 2016, and it is currently under review. The LASD Housing Non-Discrimination Policy will likely be finalized during the next reporting period.
Aside from the Housing Non-Discrimination Policy, all of LASD’s Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance policies are contained in FOD 12-02. During this six-month review period, the MT followed up on its April 2016 discussion with LASD regarding revisions to FOD 12-02. The MT—with input from DOJ Housing Section attorneys—revised the language in FOD 12-02 to address the policies on Accompaniment of Section 8 Compliance Checks, Independent Investigations of Compliance with Section 8, and Fair Housing Reporting and Analysis that were submitted by LASD in July 2016.
During its September site visit, the MT—with DOJ Housing Section representatives participating via conference call—met with members of the LASD Compliance Unit to review the proposed revisions. The participants reached agreement on all of the proposed revisions to FOD 12-02, with two exceptions. One exception concerned changes related to independent investigations of compliance with Section 8—more specifically, investigations of fraud on the voucher program. Newly revised language addressing investigations of fraud on the voucher program was presented to LASD, and the Parties reached an agreement on this language during a November 2016 conference call. The second exception was related to the MT’s proposal to delete language stating that the policy would not apply to LASD personnel working under a Memorandum of Understanding or Interdepartmental Agreement with HACoLA; the only remaining issue is whether this language will be removed from FOD 12-02, which the Department is considering.
Based on the attention and level of collaboration LASD has shown in addressing the Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance provisions, the MT expects to accomplish revisions to FOD 12-02 that meet the requirements of the SA early in the next reporting period.
4. Section 8 and FHA Training
The Stops, Seizures, and Searches section of the SA (SA III) requires LASD to provide training that includes “… guidance on the facts and circumstances[,] in addition to legal and policy limitations, that should be considered in initiating [or] conducting . . . Section 8-related activities.”8 This training must be based on the final, relevant Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance policies in FOD 12-02.
8 Settlement Agreement, paragraph 57c.

Final Version

15 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 18 of 36 Page ID #:338

Appropriate training material has to await finalization of FOD 12-02, to ensure that the training reflects the finalized policy.
The Bias-Free Policing section of the SA (SA IV) requires LASD to provide training that addresses “the requirements of the FHA, with specific emphasis on discrimination on the basis of race.”9 Appropriate training material has to await finalization of the Housing Non-Discrimination Policy.

5. Palmdale Partners Against Crime Program and Lancaster Community Appreciation Program

Special operation units of LASD deputies team with both Palmdale and Lancaster in their respective programs addressing illegal activity and quality-of-life issues at multi-family property sites: Palmdale’s Partners Against Crime (PAC) program and Lancaster’s Community Appreciation Program (LAN-CAP). The deputies work with rental property owners, managers, and residents to address their particular law enforcement– and safety-related issues. These programs are of interest to the MT due to both the Section 8 housing and the community engagement provisions of the SA.

The following is a list of program requirements that a property manager or owner must complete to receive a PAC certification. These are listed on the City of Palmdale’s PAC website:10



A landlord training program that provides “an in-depth look at managing rental

properties, keeping illegal activities off properties and the current laws and practices

involved with landlords and their tenants.”



Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) inspections that provide

instruction to property owners on CPTED modifications that “address physical design

of a property … to deter criminal activity.”



The Partners Against Crime Apartment Watch training, in which “residents [of houses,

apartments, or mobile homes] receive crime prevention training.”

LAN-CAP, which also teams with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office, requires owners of larger apartment complexes to obtain a certification that they have completed training consisting of a “landlord training class, implementation of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) strategies, and a rental community crime prevention training session for the residents of the property.”11 LAN-CAP’s website also states that classes focus on, among other things, “such areas as screening of tenancy applicants and crime prevention.” Property managers and staff can also attend the landlord classes.

Both of these special operation units within LASD-AV provide services to private apartment complexes and take on special assignments, but do not usually respond to radio calls. The MT was specifically interested in conducting ride-alongs with these specialized units to observe the public’s interaction

9 Id., paragraph 70e.
10 http://www.cityofpalmdale.org/Residents/Neighborhood-Services/Partners-Against-Crime
11 http://www.cityoflancasterca.org/about-us/departments-services/public-safety/contract-services-emergency-response/l-acounty-sheriff-s-department/special-teams/lancaster-community-app

Final Version

16 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 19 of 36 Page ID #:339
with the teams that are the most likely to make arrests and have direct interaction with residents of apartment complexes.
During the September 2016 site visit, MT members accompanied LASD Palmdale PAC team members on ride-alongs and learned that the unit is composed of ten deputies and three supervisors. The deputies’ primary responsibility is crime prevention at their assigned PAC-certified properties. It is important to note that, although it was principally the activities of LASD related to the Section 8 voucher program that resulted in the FHA violations addressed in the SA, the broad commitment not to violate the FHA and to implement a Housing Non-Discrimination Policy requires LASD to recognize the implications of the FHA in all of LASD’s work related to housing, including the work and activities undertaken by the Palmdale and Lancaster special operation units.
The MT anticipates further engagement with the PAC and LAN-CAP teams related to enforcement of the Section 8 and FHA compliance provisions of the SA, as well as the community engagement provisions.
6. Enforcement of Section 8: Next Steps
It is expected that in the first months of the next reporting period, the Parties will approve final versions of the two Section 8–related policies.
During the next reporting period, the MT will review and assess LASD’s capacity to effectively track and respond to housing-related complaints.
The MT will review the training curricula that are currently being developed by LASD (with DOJ and MT consultation) to address the Section 8–related provisions of the SA.
The MT will further engage the PAC and LAN-CAP teams in their activities, the community response to their activities, and the resulting outcomes.
F. Community Engagement
The prologue to the Community Engagement section of the SA states that “LASD agrees to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community, to engage constructively with the community to ensure collaborative problem-solving and bias-free policing, and to increase community confidence in the Department.”12
As described in the last six-month report, the term “community engagement” primarily refers to the Department’s efforts to engage the community and thus build and maintain trust and confidence in the Department among all of the community members, as per the goals of the SA. The MT’s role in the community-engagement process is to observe and assess LASD’s efforts to interact with and improve its relations with the AV community. To complete its role, the MT also has its own process of engagement with AV community members, which it must undertake in order to understand and assess the nature of LASD’s relationship to the community and, in particular, the community’s
12 Settlement Agreement, prologue to Section VII (page 20, lines 2–4).

Final Version

17 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 20 of 36 Page ID #:340

attitudes and perceptions regarding LASD. As with other sections of the SA, the MT may also provide advice and technical assistance as appropriate and necessary.

1. Monitoring Team Activities

The MT made three site visits during this monitoring period (September 7–9, November 16–17, and December 1) to further engage with the community, to learn about their current experiences with and observations of LASD, and to be able to directly observe engagement and interactions between LASD and the community. Members of the MT continue to be involved in activities such as:



Individual and group meetings/discussion with community members



Hosting community meetings



Interviewing community leaders



Meeting with LASD Community Advisory Committees (CACs)



Participating in ride-alongs with sheriff’s deputies



Reviewing LASD community engagement reports



Reviewing drafts of LASD community relations material



Receiving and following up on community members’ calls, emails, and other inquiries

informing the MT of complaints they have lodged with the AV stations or providing

feedback to the team.

2. Site Visits
The MT conducted three consecutive days of onsite monitoring in the Antelope Valley in September 2016. The purpose of this visit was to monitor certain aspects of the SA, to meet with LASD officials and community members, and (for newer team members) to become better acquainted with the Antelope Valley).
On September 7, MT members met with the Lancaster Community Advisory Committee (Lancaster CAC), along with the captain of the Lancaster Station and other LASD personnel. The team discussed the previous six-month monitoring report, how they perceive their roles and responsibilities, and the Palmdale and Lancaster Stations’ draft brochure, What to Do If You Are Stopped by a Deputy Sheriff in the Antelope Valley, which the MT has reviewed. (There is a Department-wide version of this brochure that has been in public circulation for a number of years. The AV stations intend to have a different brochure that is AV-specific; this draft has been submitted to the MT, DOJ, and the CACs for comment, but not yet distributed to the public.) The MT also responded to questions and concerns raised by the Lancaster CAC and LASD personnel regarding the monitoring process.

Final Version

18 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 21 of 36 Page ID #:341

In conversations with the MT, AV community members had raised concerns regarding the independence of the CACs and whether they properly represented the full AV community. There was also concern regarding LASD’s Department-wide brochure What to Do When Stopped by a Deputy Sheriff in that it was perceived as not so much an explanation of individual rights during a police stop, but instructions on how to comply with a deputy’s commands. At the CAC meeting, the CAC members discussed their role and what will be required to serve as an effective liaison between the community and LASD. The CAC also explained to and assured the MT that they would express to the broader community that this Department-wide brochure has been in development for well over a year and is not meant as a response to the SA mandate that LASD develop “Know Your Rights” material for the community.

The MT also conducted three ride-alongs with the Palmdale and Lancaster special units. The MT accompanied deputies as they patrolled Lancaster and Palmdale, observing their interactions with the public during calls for service and whether they were conducting stops in accordance with the SA. These ride-alongs also involved deputies assigned to the cities’ special operations units focusing on residential complexes, which were described above in the Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance section of this report.

On September 8, the MT hosted a community meeting at Living Stone Cathedral in Littlerock, an unincorporated city adjacent to Palmdale that is within LASD’s purview in the Antelope Valley.

The following comments and concerns were raised by community members during this meeting. The MT is working to incorporate the community’s comments into its own efforts and has forwarded them to the Department.



At a meeting held by an alliance of pastors (Black Churches Together), Lancaster

deputies had presented the Department-wide brochure What to Do When Stopped by a

Deputy Sheriff and a related “training video.” These community members found the

brochure to be too detailed and technical, and generally unhelpful. They felt the video

was inappropriate—and, in fact, counterproductive—in that it showed “what not to

do” at a traffic stop, and the scene depicted as an example was of a Black person who

walks up to a police car and shoots the deputy.



There needs to be better information provided to the community on how to contact

the MT and the CACs. Information should be made available on local TV and radio.



The community needs to be given advance notice of upcoming meetings and events,

including those held by the MT.



It would be helpful if forms for community members to make complaints were

available at more locations, such as churches, civic organizations, schools, social

service offices, and the DMV. Spanish-language forms and signs should be more

plentiful, more prominent, and readily available. (The Department currently makes

forms available online, in County buildings, and upon request via email, fax, in person,

and telephone.)

Final Version

19 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 22 of 36 Page ID #:342



Community members find the staff at the front desk of the AV Stations rude,

unhelpful, and unprofessional, and have the perception that these personnel want to

deter public access to the Department.



School police need to introduce themselves to students and parents, build

relationships, and be a true “resource.”



Meeting participants said that they need “neighborhood cops”—deputies who walk

beats and don’t just stay in their cars.



There needs to be more diversity among the ranks of the deputies in the AV; more

black and Latino deputies are especially needed.

3. LASD Community Engagement Activity
The LASD AV stations maintain a monthly Community Engagement Tracking Report, which lists the various meetings and events that LASD personnel have attended. It is clear that LASD is participating in numerous community events and has been making a concerted effort to reach out to the various AV communities, and to track these outreach efforts. With regard to tracking, on September 25, the MT submitted a memo to LASD that provided detailed feedback and recommended edits to LASD’s Community Engagement Tracking Report. The MT recommended that more information be added about what happened at each event, as well as a complete list of the deputies who attended each event and whether any follow-up is needed. This information is important for the MT and LASD in assessing SA compliance, and will assist the Department in allocating internal resources.
On December 1, the MT met with staff from the AV Stations and the LASD Compliance Unit to review a new Community Tracker report that was developed by the Palmdale Station. This new report is much more detailed than the previous version and includes a tab that tracks all the deputies at the station who have attended community events. The report also features links within the description of each event to photos and other related documents. The new report and its corresponding documents satisfy the MT’s requested modifications to the Community Engagement Tracking Report. The Lancaster Station will also begin using the new Community Tracker report; beginning in January 2017, LASD will provide monthly updates to the MT on its implementation and reception.
On November 16, the Palmdale CAC held its quarterly community town hall meeting at Guidance Charter School in East Palmdale. After CAC members summarized the MT’s Second Semi-Annual Report, the participants broke into small groups for discussion. Members of the community— including several youth who are students at Guidance Charter School—sat with deputies from the Palmdale Station and had a detailed discussion about police–community relations. This direct dialogue between community members and a number of deputies (not just leadership or spokespersons) is the type of engagement that the MT is encouraged to see.
On December 15, 2016, the Lancaster CAC held its quarterly community public meeting at the Growing Valley Baptist Church in Lancaster. Each member of the CAC addressed a section of the MT’s Second Semi-Annual Report, and members of the audience were encouraged to ask questions. LASD reported that throughout the meeting, there was a good amount of audience participation.

Final Version

20 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 23 of 36 Page ID #:343

Information regarding the Settlement Agreement, updated policies, and upcoming training for sheriff’s personnel appeared to be well-received.

4. Monitoring Team Recommendations

LASD recognizes the value of community engagement as a means of working to establish long-term relationships with communities and community members, especially in communities of color and with youth (as specified by the SA). The MT has discussed with LASD personnel that they can achieve these objectives by embracing the importance of the community’s role as direct participant in and coproducer of community safety. Strategies for achieving this include sincere community dialogues, participating in community meetings and events, receiving and responding to community input, and recognizing the community’s role in problem-oriented policing strategies. The MT continues to emphasize the following specific suggestions on how LASD-AV can improve community engagement:



Participate in meetings held in the community, where deputies attend and engage in

the meetings and don’t merely stand up in the back and stay silent. Attend open

NAACP meetings (as the Lancaster station often does), League of United Latin

American Citizens (LULAC) meetings, church meetings, neighborhood meetings, etc.



Beyond the CAC meetings, LASD could host quarterly town hall meetings for the

purpose of hearing from the community, not just “talking at” the community or giving

reports. At these meetings, LASD should be represented by more than just the

captains of each station and a few others in leadership. Deputies should attend these

meetings and sit with and engage community members.



Each station should hold a community event (or a series of town hall–style meetings)

in Spanish—not a meeting held in English and translated into Spanish, but a meeting

held in Spanish that is translated into English for those who need it. It was also

suggested that LASD make it clear that undocumented members of the community

are invited to the meeting, and guarantee that it will be safe for them to attend.

As mentioned above, the MT has reviewed the Lancaster and Palmdale Stations’ traffic stop brochure What to Do If You Are Stopped By a Deputy Sheriff in the Antelope Valley to determine whether it meets the requirements of SA paragraph 52, which requires the Department to produce a one-page explanation of a citizen’s right to refuse or revoke consent to a law enforcement search at any time. The MT reported certain concerns to the Department regarding the brochure’s content, clarity, and tone. The MT will work with the Department and the CACs in the next reporting period to produce a document that most effectively meets the SA mandate.

5. Recommendations for the Lancaster and Palmdale Community Advisory Committees
Paragraph 93 of the SA provides the following description of the responsibilities of the CACs.
LASD will continue to support Lancaster and Palmdale’s CACs to advise and provide feedback to the LASD's Antelope Valley stations. [The CACs] will leverage the insights and expertise of the community to address policing concerns, including, but not

Final Version

21 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 24 of 36 Page ID #:344

limited to, racial or ethnic profiling and access to law enforcement services, and promote greater transparency and public understanding of LASD.13

The CACs’ authorized duties include:



Advising the Sheriff and the station commanders on strategies and training to

improve community relations, bias-free policing, and access to the civilian complaint

system.



Working with the Sheriff and station commanders to establish and carry out

community public safety priorities.



Informing the community about the SA and its implementation.



Receive and convey to LASD public comments and concerns.14

After engaging in a series of meetings with the CACs, hearing from community members about the CACs, and observing CAC town hall meetings, the MT makes the following recommendations:



At every meeting with LASD, the CACs should have a standing agenda item consisting

of sharing with LASD the concerns and complaints that community members have

raised. This will also mean that CAC members must make themselves available to hear

from community members regarding their concerns about LASD.



The CACs should keep minutes of their meetings, or at least document the specific

concerns or issues brought to LASD and how they were resolved.



Although the CACs are currently made up of a diverse group of respected community

leaders, each CAC should consider adding to its ranks additional members of the

community who are particularly critical of LASD. The MT has also recommended that

each CAC add a formerly incarcerated person; this proposal was discussed among the

Parties and it was agreed that it would not be mandatory for the CACs to include a

formerly incarcerated person, but that former incarceration would not be an excluding

factor.



The Palmdale CAC should add a youth member.

6. Community Engagement: Next Steps
In the first part of the next reporting period, the MT will submit to the Parties, for review and approval, compliance measures for the Community Engagement section of the SA. These will operationalize the SA in regard to what constitutes effective community engagement, how often and in what ways deputies will be required to participate in community engagement activities, how the Department will
13 Settlement Agreement, paragraph 93.
14 Id.

Final Version

22 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 25 of 36 Page ID #:345

ensure that all members of the AV community have the opportunity to become engaged, and how Departmental and community efforts will be tracked and assessed.
The Community Survey (SA paragraphs 98–101) will be a prime focus for the MT’s community engagement work in the next six months. The survey will use qualitative and qualitative methodologies, and will place a special emphasis on obtaining responses from hard-to-reach populations. From a broader search, the MT has identified two independent contractors with the capacity to do the multi-approach survey the MT feels is necessary to ensure all voices within the AV community are included. At this point the MT is comparing proposals and will make a final recommendation to the Parties.
The MT will continue to support the CACs in defining their roles, hearing and conveying to the Department diverse voices from their communities, and tracking their efforts.

G. Use of Force

Section VIII of the SA governs LASD policies, procedures, and culture associated with use of force (UOF) by department members. It states that LASD “agrees to revise its force policies and practices to reflect its commitment to upholding the rights secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States, protecting human life and the dignity of every individual, and maintaining public safety.”15 In particular, LASD has agreed “to ensure that its accountability measures are implemented appropriately”16 so that AV deputies:



Use force only when objectively reasonable, and in a manner that avoids unnecessary

injury to deputies and civilians;



Use force as a last resort and de-escalate the use of force at the earliest possible

moment; and



Endeavor to use only that level of force necessary for the situation.17

To achieve these outcomes, LASD agreed to revise its policies and associated training materials to abide by paragraphs 102–123 of the SA, which govern the following:



The use of force and the use of advisements, warnings, threat assessments, de-

escalation, and proportionality; and the prohibition of retaliatory force (SA paragraphs

102–105).



The prohibition or discouragement of a member of the public who lawfully takes

photographs or video of police activities (SA paragraph 106).

15 Settlement Agreement, prologue to Section VIII (page 24, lines 4–7). 16 Id., lines 7–8. 17 Id., lines 8–12.

Final Version

23 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 26 of 36 Page ID #:346



Training and reporting requirements associated with impact weapon head strikes (SA

paragraph 107).



Use of force reporting requirements, including the use of unreasonable force or

canned or boilerplate language by AV deputies (SA paragraphs 108–110).



Expectations and requirements of supervisors to respond to the scene of any use of

force incident involving an AV deputy, to conduct a thorough and complete

investigation, and to submit the investigation through the chain of command (SA

paragraphs 111–113, 116).



The management review of use of force investigations for completeness; trends

including issuing or revising policies, directives, and training bulletins, or providing

additional mentoring and supervision to individual deputies; the identification of

policy deviations and training or tactical concerns, along with the expectations

associated with the Executive Force Review Committee’s review of use of force

incidents and the response by the IAB Force/Shooting Response Team (SA paragraphs

113–115, 117).



AV unit commanders’ reviewing and tracking of “training and tactical review”–related

findings, recommendations, and comments, to ensure that informal supervisory

feedback is not used in place of formal discipline, in the event that formal discipline is

more appropriate. LASD will ensure that the supervisory feedback, including feedback

documented in the “training and tactical review” portion of a Supervisor’s Report on

use of force, is documented in the Personnel Performance Index (SA paragraph 118).



The requirements and contents of annual or biennial training for AV deputies in the

use of force (SA paragraph 119).



The requirement that, within one year of the effective date of the SA18 and at least

annually thereafter, LASD will analyze the AV stations’ force data—including force-

related outcome data—to identify significant trends, identify and correct deficiencies,

and include an assessment of the frequency and nature of uses of force that:

»

Are referred to IAB for investigation;

»

Are the subject of misconduct complaints;

»

Are the subject of civil suits;

»

Relate to criminal-obstruction or resisting-arrest types of charges that are

dismissed or declined by the prosecutor; or

»

Involve repeat deputies or units.

18 The effective date of the Settlement Agreement was April 28, 2015.

Final Version

24 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 27 of 36 Page ID #:347



As a result of its analysis, LASD will determine whether policy or training curricula must

change and will document the results of the analysis in a public report (SA paragraphs

120–123).

1. Monitoring Team Activities

During this six-month period, the MT conducted a comprehensive assessment of the policies, procedures, and culture associated with the use of force by Department staff. Additionally, extensive research was conducted into national best practices associated with de-escalation policies, and an outline was submitted to assist LASD in its development of such a policy.

To assess LASD’s current procedures and requirements for force-related incidents, the MT interviewed AV command and supervisory staff and attended a presentation at the Compliance Unit. These activities dealt with LASD’s Personnel Performance Index (see the Personnel Complaint Review and Accountability sections below), an electronic database tracking UOF information, and, in particular, LASD’s ability to produce data that will support monitoring efforts associated with the use, investigation, and adjudication of force.

Two policies related to the public’s right to record police activities are near approval: “Photography, Audio, and Videotaping by the Public and Members of the Press” and “Seizure of Photographic Video or Audio Evidence From a Private Citizen or Member of the Press.” Both policies have been reviewed by the MT and DOJ, and proposed changes have been submitted to LASD; several discussions have been held since then, and the MT is confident that one outstanding issue will be resolved in the beginning of the next reporting period. Photography and digital recording is a particularly salient issue affecting policing across the county; given the hard work of LASD’s Compliance Unit, the MT is confident that the final policy will be exemplary.

The MT completed additional activities related to its assessment of LASD’s progress on its SA commitments associated with use of force investigations and adjudications, including:



Work plans for the SA’s force-related requirements (SA paragraphs 102–123); and



Site visits to ascertain the way in which AV use-of-force incidents, including off-duty

incidents, are reported, investigated, documented, and adjudicated.

The MT’s review of LASD’s use of force policies has found they are deficient in several areas, including the following:



While the LASD policy does contain language addressing de-escalation, it is not

sufficiently emphasized and reinforced. This is absolutely necessary to convey

executive management’s expectations on minimizing the need for Department

members to resort to the use of force, and it is key to establishing the Department’s

use-of-force culture.



The requirement on when a use-of-force incident must be reported can be interpreted

differently by individual deputies and supervisors. Although senior LASD executives

Final Version

25 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 28 of 36 Page ID #:348

have discretion associated with use-of-force investigations and outcomes, there should be no ambiguity or uncertainty at the line and supervisory levels as to what constitutes a reportable use-of-force event.



There is no provision that explicitly states a requirement for off-duty deputies to report

a UOF incident. This poses an unnecessary risk-management exposure, and LASD has a

right and a duty to thoroughly investigate and review any off-duty UOF incident.

LASD’s policy states that its “members” are required to report force, but does not

specifically provide that this also applies to off-duty personnel.



The policy does not include a specific list of the factors that command staff should

consider when determining whether the force used by a Department employee was

reasonable (although the MT understands that command staff do consider a number

of different factors that are not listed in policy). A clear identification of the factors that

will be considered by management in its evaluation of UOF incidents will establish the

guidelines for consistency.



The policy contains several non-UOF provisions, such as tactical incident

management, specific tactical considerations, the Department psychologist’s response

to critical incidents, rumor control, and statistical compilation. Cumulatively, those

extraneous sections make the policy excessively long and burdensome; they should

be removed from the UOF-policy section of LASD’s manual of policy and procedures.

As a result of its review of the UOF policy, the MT prepared an outline of what an improved and comprehensive UOF policy would contain and how it might be structured. That document was the subject of discussion among the MT, LASD, and DOJ at the November 14–16 onsite visit. A very productive series of discussions about the outline and the original UOF policy took place. Those discussions resolved several significant issues, including the definitions of key elements such as reportable UOF incidents and the specific language to be used regarding the de-escalation of incidents to avoid the use of force. The Department will now work to develop a revised UOF policy that incorporates the new language and organizational elements.

2. Auditing and Accountability
The Institute of Internal Auditing (IIA) defines internal auditing as “an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity designed to add value and improve an organization's operations. It helps an organization accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of risk management, control, and governance processes.”19 Internal audits of high-risk activities—like the use of force—are critically important. They provide an independent assessment of the Department’s expectations and the statutory mandates associated with the use, investigation, and adjudication of UOF incidents by Department members. If LASD management’s oversight of the use, investigation, and adjudication of force cannot be trusted, then LASD management will not be trusted. Effective audit programs hold management accountable. LASD should clearly invest sufficient resources into an ongoing, Department-wide audit program to allow this program to produce regular and periodic, professional, transparent, and independent audits of high-risk activities—well after the termination of the SA.
19 http://www.theiia.org/guidance/standards-and-guidance/ippf/definition-of-internal-auditing/?search%C2%BCdefinition

Final Version

26 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 29 of 36 Page ID #:349

The MT met with LASD’s Audit and Accountability command staff to assess their operational independence, leadership, direction, and procedural guidelines and to open a dialogue regarding LASD’s auditing efforts. The initial assessment was very positive regarding LASD leadership’s commitment to the ongoing development of an independent, objective, risk-based auditing program.

3. Use of Force: Next Steps
The MT is in communication with LASD and is coordinating dates to interview LASD use-of-force training subject-matter experts and to attend UOF training—including academy training, Continuing Proficiency Training (CPT), training in firearms and defensive tactics, UOF and supervisory investigative training, and specific training required by the SA that is being developed for the AV. LASD has been extremely cooperative in coordinating MT members’ attendance at all related UOF trainings, including those that are not specifically required by the SA.
In 2017, the MT will develop and provide specific recommendations related to an auditing work plan that will support the evaluation of LASD’s use-of-force, reporting, investigation, and adjudication processes, and refinements to those processes that are consistent with contemporary and promising practices now evolving in this field.

H. Personnel Complaint Review

1. Settlement Agreement

Section IX of the Settlement Agreement, which governs personnel complaints, states that LASD agrees to ensure that all allegations of personnel misconduct are received; that they are fully and fairly investigated; and that personnel who commit misconduct are held accountable (SA paragraphs 124– 140). A law enforcement agency’s policy on the intake and classification of community complaints is a threshold to its entire disciplinary process. Complaints that are classified or categorized at a lower level than they merit may not receive the level of scrutiny they deserve, thus causing the Department to miss an opportunity to identify and fix serious problems. Those classified at an inappropriately high level may unnecessarily overextend Department resources. The SA specifically addresses the way personnel complaints are to be classified and requires the Department to distinguish them from nondisciplinary service complaints. Specifically, LASD has agreed to do the following:



Revise its complaint investigation policies to ensure that all personnel allegations are

classified accurately so that each allegation receives the appropriate level of review

(SA paragraph 127);



Ensure that personnel complaints are not misclassified as service complaints (SA

paragraph 128); and



Revise its policies regarding allegations that may require discipline and need to be

investigated as administrative investigations, rather than as service complaints (SA

paragraph 129).

Final Version

27 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 30 of 36 Page ID #:350

2. Monitoring Team Activities

During this reporting period, the MT focused its efforts on the way community complaints are classified (1) at intake; (2) during investigation; and (3) during adjudication by management.

The MT also continued its review of the policies, practices, and procedures that govern the way AV units handle community complaints. The team has completed drafts of the work plans for the SA paragraphs governing personnel complaints (paragraphs 124–140).

Additionally, the MT:



Completed its meetings with personnel from the Lancaster and Palmdale Stations and

LASD’s Compliance Unit to determine the precise manner in which community

complaints are handled in the AV.



Prepared a detailed report describing the process used to initiate, investigate, and

adjudicate community complaints. The MT has submitted that document to LASD and

DOJ for their review and comment.



Identified the categories into which LASD classifies allegations that may arise from

community complaints.

In preparation for an audit, the MT has been working with LASD staff to obtain data on the way the AV units classified community complaints during the first two quarters of 2015. Each response was slightly different than the preceding response, raising serious questions regarding the reliability and accuracy of the Department’s databases. (This issue is discussed further in the PPI section of this report, below.) Once reliable data are obtained, the MT will use these to develop an audit plan and matrix to evaluate the way the Department classifies community complaints.

3. Personnel Performance Index (see box below)
The primary data and information system that LASD uses to record and assess personnel complaints (as well as other Department functions) is their Personnel Performance Index (PPI). Complaints are one important way the Department identifies problems that need to be addressed; thus, complaints are one element of the Department’s accountability systems, along with audits, service reviews, UOF investigations, and several others. (The PPI is used for complaints and several other accountability mechanisms, and is therefore discussed not only in the Accountability section, but in several other sections of the MT’s Semi-Annual Reports.)
During this reporting period, several MT members attended a presentation by the LASD Compliance Unit on LASD’s PPI system and, in particular, on the PPI system’s ability to produce data to support the monitoring effort. Although the PPI system itself appears able to produce the data the MT will require, there seems to be some concern regarding the reliability of PPI data. For example, the data collection template for a UOF investigation is six to eight pages long, depending on the complexity of the incident. That voluminous amount of data must then be hand-entered into the PPI, a process that is susceptible to human error. In the future, LASD should consider the use of automated and drop-down menu options whenever appropriate. Furthermore, data entry at the Discovery Unit is backlogged at

Final Version

28 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 31 of 36 Page ID #:351
least three months, although preliminary data is entered within days of an UOF incident or public complaint. This means that after a PPI incident is investigated, reviewed at the unit level, reviewed at the division level, and finally forwarded to Discovery, several months may pass until the incident is fully recorded in PPI. The MT will examine the actual time the process takes, from occurrence to data entry, in upcoming audits.
It is also significant that vehicular pursuits are not included in PPI. Vehicular pursuits present a high risk of injury or death to the involved deputies and bystanders, so most agencies track their employees’ compliance with their vehicular pursuit policy. Additionally, PPI does not capture community complaints of unnecessary or excessive force unless the complaint results in an Administrative Investigation, which seldom occurs. Consequently, the Department cannot identify employees who are the subject of frequent community complaints of unnecessary or excessive force. The Department may be able to find a way to begin capturing force-related complaints, but populating PPI with historical data will likely be impossible.
Personnel Performance Index (PPI)
The PPI data system was designed to help LASD managers and executives manage their personnel effectively; to document, review, and respond to any individual or systemic issues that arise; and to facilitate the identification of and intervention in issues of law enforcement civil liability. Specifically, PPI can be used to identify employees and work units whose involvement in risk activities—e.g., use of force, community complaints, or lawsuits— exceed in number, type, or degree the activities of their peers. Supervisors and managers are then expected to investigate those patterns, identify any causal factors, and take whatever corrective action is deemed appropriate. These responses to issues are also recorded in PPI so that they, too, can be tracked and analyzed.
When initially launched in the 1990s, PPI consisted of three application modules that automated the business processes of the Internal Affairs Bureau, Civil Litigation, and Pitchess Motions.20 Over the following few years, the system was expanded to include the automation of the business processes for Service Comment Reports, Use of Force, and Officer-Involved Shootings. In December 1999, the PPI’s capabilities were expanded again to provide systematic recording of data relevant to incidents involving use of force, shootings, and commendations or complaints regarding Sheriff's Department personnel. In addition, the PPI tracks the progress of administrative investigations, civil claims and lawsuits, as well as discovery motions that are handled by the Department. The PPI efficiently consolidated each of these previously independent systems into an integrated database that serves as a Department-wide decision-support system. The system has several ways to query the data and produce reports, including Select By Example (SBE) modules, a Custom Report Module and an Ad Hoc Queries Module. It also includes a system to flag patterns that meet predefined criteria and thresholds. The original reports and associated files such as audio and video recordings are easily retrievable through PPI.
4. Auditing and Accountability
During this reporting period, MT members met with LASD’s Audit and Accountability Bureau (AAB) command staff to discuss LASD’s auditing efforts and better understand that operation and their role. The MT’s initial assessment was very positive regarding the Bureau’s audit expertise and commitment to an objective review of critical systems. It is noteworthy that Audit and Accountability staff report directly to Sheriff McDonnell. That degree of unfettered access will assist the Department greatly in identifying and correcting deficiencies.
20 A Pitchess motion is a request made by a criminal defendant for access to the arresting officer’s personnel file, including any prior personnel complaints.

Final Version

29 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 32 of 36 Page ID #:352

On August 30, 2016, AAB published a Public Comments audit, which was actually an audit of Service Comment Reports (SCR) completed by AV personnel during the first quarter of 2015. The SCR process is the Department’s primary method of reporting, investigating, and adjudicating community complaints. This means that the AAB analysis of that process, in conjunction with the MT’s own audit of SCRs, is an important component in the MT’s evaluation of Departmental compliance with the SA provisions. The MT is reviewing this audit and will submit a written report of its findings.

5. Complaints: Next Steps

In the next reporting period, the MT will:



Finalize the work plans and compliance measures for the Complaint paragraphs in the

SA.



Complete its review of the Department’s Public Comments audit.



Complete its review of the Department’s Obstruction Arrest audit.



Complete its own audit of the SCR process.



Work with the Department to ensure that the policies outlined in MPP Volume 3,

Chapter 4, entitled “Service Reviews, Public Complaint Process, and Personnel

Investigations,” are consistent with the SA.

I.

Accountability

The prologue to Section X of the SA, which deals with Accountability, states that “LASD will strengthen its accountability mechanisms to provide personnel with the support, mentoring, and direction necessary to consistently police constitutionally.”21 The provisions of this section of the SA focus on two elements of the policies, procedures, practices, and tools the Department uses to hold its personnel accountable: specifically, the Personnel Performance Index (PPI) and the Performance Mentoring Program (PMP). This section will broadly discuss the role of accountability across the Department and then briefly highlight work in these two particular areas.

It is important to recognize that a variety of issues related to improving accountability are addressed under other sections of the SA, not only under the Accountability section. Because effective accountability systems and practices are embedded throughout various organizational policies and are addressed through training endeavors, the majority of LASD’s and the MT’s work on accountability to date has involved, and will continue to be reflected in, activities that are undertaken and discussed in other categories or sections of the SA.

21 Settlement Agreement, prologue to Section X (page 34, lines 4–5).

Final Version

30 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 33 of 36 Page ID #:353
1. The Role of Accountability in LASD
Accountability is an integral part of full implementation of the SA, and a critical part of ensuring Constitutional policing is taking place and that effective and lasting change is achieved. Accountability must be built into the fabric of line operations, supervisory oversight, and management culture, and it must transcend all ranks, levels, and operations within a law enforcement organization.
Adequate accountability systems must be established to monitor and evaluate employee performance and ensure that effective supervisory and management oversight of day-to-day operations is being carried out. These accountability systems must perform two important functions.
1. Enable the agency’s command structure (which, by extension, will include the members of the Monitoring Team in the course of carrying out their SA responsibilities) to verify that all operations are being carried out in a manner that is fully consistent with all policy guidelines, including those agreed to by the Parties in the SA.
2. Provide management with the tools and mechanisms to routinely review and evaluate operations and performance in real time to ensure and verify that the agreed-upon behaviors and expectations are being met.
For effective Departmental oversight, it is essential that the organization has the ability to capture, track, and evaluate information and data that provides an accurate and thorough picture of what occurs in the course of interactions in the field. Data collection therefore becomes a critical piece of this responsibility. However, it is not enough to merely capture and provide data. LASD must continue to improve its procedures for reviewing and using the data and information available, to ensure that performance expectations are met at the level of the individual as well as within each work unit.
It is not necessary here to reiterate each of the ways accountability is being addressed in the other sections of the SA, but an example will help illuminate the work. As has been described in the Use of Force section above, the MT has met with command staff to review and discuss the Department’s processes for conducting UOF reviews. There are some parts of this process that are already in place and well-functioning; and there are others—such as recording, tracking, and responding to certain types of allegations that arise during investigations—that will be revised and improved. Unless management has a standardized process for reviewing these investigations to ensure that each element of the investigation is conducted properly, it is unlikely that deviations will be identified, accounted for, and remedied, and accountability will not be achieved. In preliminary discussions, the MT has expressed the importance of incorporating a review process that ensures standardization and consistency, such as the recently developed process that the LASD Custody Division uses for reviewing force investigations. The MT will work with the Department as it standardizes its UOF review process.
2. Revisions to the Personnel Performance Index
LASD has been involved in revising its automated system, the Personnel Performance Index (PPI), which is used to record and assess deputy performance and other Department processes. As described earlier in this report (see the box titled “Personnel Performance Index”), PPI is already used

Final Version

31 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 34 of 36 Page ID #:354
as a tool to strengthen accountability, and it will continue to serve as an LASD-wide decision-support system for risk management and service reviews.
As part of compliance with the SA, LASD will modify the PPI in various ways, which will include: enabling peer comparisons among deputies and across work units so that AV supervisors and commanders can conduct periodic reviews of all deputies and units under their command; changing the procedure for Performance Log Entries so that all entries are maintained in an electronic format and noted in PPI; taking steps to ensure that PPI data are accurate and holding AV personnel accountable for inaccuracies in any data entered; and enabling access to and reporting on additional data relevant to determining compliance with the SA.
The completion of these and other modifications to the PPI is estimated to take three years. This longterm work is underway. As part of the SA, LASD has also committed to identifying and developing an alternative process for making some of these capacities available in the meantime. The MT will be consulting with the Department as appropriate on these changes. Timelines for their completion will also be established as compliance measures associated with the MT work plans are finalized in the coming reporting period.
Additionally, LASD has committed to developing a plan to periodically review how each AV station customizes the PPI to respond to concerns unique to itself, such as trends identified through civilian complaints, the CACs, the Community Survey, or through other means. Members of the Compliance Unit and the MT have had preliminary discussions stressing that this plan will be critical to establishing management accountability for proactively responding to identified trends, and that the plan should include reviews conducted in a manner that documents trends, identifies possible issues, and tracks and records steps taken to investigate the issues and address any identified deficiencies. To establish transparency and independence, the Department has recently reported to the MT that the AAB will be conducting these audits, which the MT believes is appropriate. The MT will review these audits when they are released.
3. Performance Mentoring Program
As described in the SA (paragraphs 144–145), LASD will continue to mentor deputies in the North Patrol Division’s locally-based Performance Mentoring Program (PMP), as well as through LASD’s department-wide PMP, based upon an appropriate determination of eligibility. To increase the effectiveness of the remedies and corrective action used to address a deputy’s behavior, LASD will support and implement a plan to ensure that the LASD-wide PMP program provides mentoring of AV personnel within 30 days after the need for mentoring is identified, and that appropriate procedures are in place for the supervision of deputies whose performance fails to improve subsequent to mentoring. LASD will also ensure, as part of the SA, that the Department-wide PMP and the North Patrol Division’s PMP are coordinating with each other as appropriate to share information about deputies and their individual mentoring programs.
As this work moves forward, the MT will emphasize that specific processes for command personnel to monitor and manage the PMP should be identified and developed. Such processes should require criteria for placement into the PMP, with goals or desired outcomes specifically identified for the involved personnel. A standardized process will also be necessary for supervisors to document the impacts of the PMP program on individual performance. The MT will consult with the Department in the development of a standardized approach for managing and documenting the PMP.

Final Version

32 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 35 of 36 Page ID #:355
4. Accountability: Next Steps
In the first part of the next reporting period, the MT will submit to the Parties, for review and approval, compliance measures for the Accountability section of the SA. This will be a key step to operationalizing the SA in terms of what constitutes personnel oversight and accountability, in this and all other areas of the SA. As mentioned above, much of the MT’s accountability-related work also relates to other sections of the SA and will be reported there. Also, many of the accountability-related provisions in the SA, including those in the Accountability section itself, involve long-term data projects. The MT’s work with LASD on those projects in the next six months will focus on establishing timelines for the various PPI and PMP revisions and undertaking the interim modification of data entry and review procedures.
III. CONCLUSION
Over the past six months, LASD has made a purposeful effort to revise its policies and practices pertaining to Constitutional policing principles, specifically those pertaining to stops, searches, seizures, bias-free policing, use of force, Section 8 housing, personnel complaint review, and citizen engagement. These policy revisions, coupled with the other activities described throughout this report, constitute the initial steps toward establishing a culture within LASD that will ensure that deputy–community interactions of all types reflect the Constitutional principles that govern the duties and responsibilities of each and every member of the Department. For some areas, especially bias-free policing and stops, searches, and seizures, the work is shifting focus to the next crucial step—training. At the same time, the MT has gained a solid understanding of the intricacies surrounding LASD’s data collection systems and is now examining the means and processes by which supervisors and managers use that data and other information to hold deputies and all Department personnel accountable. This includes assessing the Department’s internal auditing process and setting the groundwork for the MT’s own independent audits of Department systems and practices.
The personnel in the Compliance Unit are talented, diligent, and conscientious in each of their roles, and thanks to them, progress continues. However, the staffing level and breadth of responsibilities remain an issue, as the Monitors have noted in each report. The aggressive timelines involved; the increasing amount of coordination necessary with other Department units; changes in leadership positions among personnel managing the SA work; and the increasing number of simultaneous documents being reviewed and activities occurring as the monitoring work moves from a focus on policy revision to training, implementation, and audits, will create still more pressure on the small Compliance Unit staff.
The spirit of collaboration and compromise among the Parties that the Monitors have acknowledged since the beginning of the monitoring work has grown still stronger and more encouraging. The Department, DOJ, and the MT—with the Compliance Unit playing a central and crucial coordinating role—have worked particularly well together in the past six months, as evidenced in a number of ways, perhaps most strikingly by the progress on the complex but critical Use of Force policy.
As stated previously, the terms and conditions of the SA, coupled with LASD’s commitment to those terms, have established the framework for the Department to embrace community-oriented and 21stcentury policing principles, restore trust where it has been compromised, and improve relationships so that LASD’s example might serve as a model for law enforcement agencies across the United States.

Final Version

33 of 34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 22-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 36 of 36 Page ID #:356
Cover Photo Credits
“Palmdale and Mountains” by Jamesb01 at English Wikipedia. Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Logan using CommonsHelper. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palmdale_and_Mountains.jpg#/media/File:Palmdale_and_ Mountains.jpg
“Sunset over Lancaster CA” by LancasterCA at English Wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunset_over_Lancaster_CA.jpg#/media/File:Sunset_over_La ncaster_CA.jpg

Final Version

34 of 34

 
 Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 40 Page ID #:382

1 MARY C. WICKI-IAM,County Counsel ROGER H. GRANBO Senior Assistant County Counsel
~2 SBN 108372•rgran~io~counsel.lacounty.gov 48 Kenneth ahn Hallo Administration 3 500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, California 90012-2713 4 Telephone:(213)974-1609 •Fax:(213)626-2105

5 Attorneys for
6 The County ofLos Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department
7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,WESTERN DIVISION

11 12 ~ iJNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

13

Plaintiff,

14

15 THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
16 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

17

Defendants.

CASE NO.2:15-CV-03174-JFW-FFM
SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' FOURTH SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT

18

19

On May 1,2015,the Court approved and entered the parties' Settlement

20 Agreement("Agreement")to resolve the United States' claims against the County of

21 Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department pursuant to

22 42 U.S.C. 14141 and the Fair Housing Act,42 U.S.C. 3601 etseq.

23

Paragraph 171 ofthe Agreement requires the Monitors to publically issue a

24 report every six months that details the Parties' progress in implementing the

25 Agreement and achieving compliance with the Agreement. The parties hereby

26 submit the Monitors'fourth semi-annual report.

27

28
HOA.101682491.1

MONITORS' [~1NUAL REPORT

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 2 of 40 Page ID #:383

1 DATED:
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. 18' 19 1 20 21. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
~ HOA.101682491.1
SUBMIS~ FOURTH

ZZ ~(7

MARY C. WICKHAM County Co~a~,sel

/

_i

: I GRANBO ~tant Counsel Counsel

Attorneys for the County ofLos Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department

-2T

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 3 of 40 Page ID #:384
ac men

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 4 of 40 Page ID #:385
Antelope Valley Monitoring Team
Fourth Semi-Ana~ual Report

. .

. ~.

a

~~

~~

~~

~r~„

~ _

~ t

~~

i~

~

~

June 2017

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 5 of 40 Page ID #:386

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I NTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................1

WORK TO DATE ...............................................................................................................................5

A. How the Parties and Monitoring Team Work .......................................................5

B. Stops,Seizures, and Searches and Bias-Free Policing ...........................................6

C. Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance ................................................................13

D. Community Engagement.....................................:...............................................17

E.

Use of Force ........................................................................................................23

F.

Personnel Complaint Review...............................................................................28

G. Accountability......................................................................................................31

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................35

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 6 of 40 Page ID #:387
INTRODUCTION
This is the fourth semi-annual report issued by the Monitoring Team (MT). It covers the monitoring activities that have taken place during this reporting period and describes the MT's observations as to the progress of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department(LASD)in meeting the requirements ofthe Settlement Agreement(SA)for the Antelope Valley(AV).This report is primarily focused on work undertaken between January 2017 and June 2017.
This report provides an overview of both administrative and operetional issues. The MT has continued to participate in a wide array of telephone and in-person meetings with the LASD,the US Department of J ustice(DOJ),and community members and has extensively exchanged and reviewed various documents.The MT interacts on a regular basis with several units within LASD,consisting of line staff up to top management. Most of this interaction is with or facilitated by the Compliance Unit, an office LASD has designated for SA work.
The MT continues to devote considerable attention to reviewing and revising policy documents,to developing specific compliance measures that relate to each ofthe major topics in the SA,and to addressing important community engagement efforts by LASD.The development and implementation of new training curricula,the review of LASD data processes,the planning for an AV-wide community survey,and initiating MT audits were key activities ofthis reporting period.This report covers progress in those areas,along with a discussion as to how this work fits into the broader context of achieving the objectives established in the SA.As in previous reports,this report addresses the SA provisions where the Department has reached compliance or made substantial progress. Those provisions where compliance has not yet been met are also discussed, with comments about what areas will likely require substantial time and resources for the Department to come into compliance or for the MT to effectively assess levels of compliance. When possible, this report also summarizes the sequence of activities and steps that need to be undertaken for the Department to ultimately achieve full compliance.
The MT recognizes the efforts by LASD and the Office of County Counsel and their commitment to achieving the goals ofthe SA and making real improvements to law enforcement services in the AV,as well as the continuing efforts by USDOJ staffto support meaningful outcomes.The working relationships and processes followed by LASD, DOI,and the MT have consistently reflected a spirit of cooperation and collaboration even through the significant staffing changes and transitions that took place in LASD's Compliance Unit,in the AV stations, and at the executive level of LASD during this reporting period.The MT also once again wants to acknowledge and express their appreciation to the community members in the AV for their candid participation in meetings and engagement in the various activities that are u nderway.
AV Semi-Annual Report IV —June 22,2017

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 7 of 40 Page ID #:388
The Antelope Valley Settlement Agreement:Summary The Antelope Valley Settlement Agreement(SA)was established between the US Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division;the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department(LASD); and the County of Los Angeles and was filed with the US District Court for the Central District of California in April 2015.(DOJ, LASD,and the County together are referred to as the Parties.)The purpose of the SA is to ensure that the residents of the AV have police services that are lawful and fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States and contemporary policing practices. The SA specifically identifies, as individual sections, a variety of reforms and objectives to be met by LASD in the AV related to: Stops, Seizures, and Searches; Bias-Free Policing; Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance; Data Collection and Analysis; Community Engagement; Use of Force; Personnel Complaint Review; and Accountability.The SA also stipulates that a professional monitor be selected to track and assess LASD's progress in implementing and achieving compliance with the SA,work with the Parties to address obstacles to achieving compliance, and report on the status of implementation to the Parties and the Court. As per Paragraph 171 of the SA between the Parties,the Monitor submits asemi-annual report(every six months);the first of these was issued in December 2015. The AV lies in the northeast corner of the County of Los Angeles and includes two cities—Lancaster and Palmdale—and severe) unincorporated communities spread across hundreds ofsquare miles. LASD provides law enforcement services in the unincorporated areas of the AV as well as via contracts with Palmdale and Lancaster. An LASD station serves each city, with law enforcement activities for the surrounding areas roughly split between the two.
AV Semi-Annual Report IV: June 22,2017

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 8 of 40 Page ID #:389
Monitoring Team The court-appointed Monitors—Dr.Angie Wolf and Joseph Brann—have assembled an experienced group of team members with credentials and skills uniquely suited to this project.The membership of the MT was finalized in March 2016. The two Monitors and seven team members have extensive expertise and experience in monitoring and evaluation work in policing and corrections. Additionally, most of the MT members have served in law enforcement or continue to have distinguished careers in this field,several in the Los Angeles area.Severel have served in leadership positions in law enforcement or corrections agencies during the implementation of the compliance period of a settlement agreement or consent decree and therefore understand the unique challenges that large organizations face in those circumstances.The MT members also have particular expertise in dealing with the diverse issues addressed in the SA,such as those related to use offorce,training,the Fair Housing Act(FHA),data collection and analysis,survey methods,and the complexities of community engagement. This constellation of team members was assembled to support the Monitors' philosophy of collaborative reform; it is using the principles of evaluation and technical assistance to provide an actionable assessment of LASD's progress toward implementation of the SA. Antelope Valley Monitorin¢ Website This website allows AV community members to learn more about the SA,the backgrounds ofthe MT members,and the monitoring activities; access documents related to the monitoring work,including the semi-annual reports;follow links to LASD's homepage and other relevant websites; and —most importantly—submit questions and comments directly to the MT.The website's URL is a ntelopeva Ileysettlementmonitoring.info
AV Semi-Annual Report IV:1une 22,2017

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 9 of 40 Page ID #:390
The Settlement Agreement, Constitutional Policing and Organizational Change
As we have noted in previous reports,the MT understands and remains mindful of the many complexities encountered when a large organization undertakes broad policy changes, as well as the challenges of implementing such changes.The Monitors also appreciate the considerations of LASD management in dealing with matters of this nature,such as whether the changes will be confined to the AV stations or affect the entire organization;the likelihood that other existing policies could be affected and therefore need to be revised;that evolving "best practices" and legal considerations also influence policies related to use offorce, video recordings, and so on; and the need in many instances to consult with labor groups or legal resources before such policy changes can occur. Throughout the work to date, the Monitors have found the Parties to be strongly committed to ensuring that the requirements of the SA will not be weakened or overlooked because of these considerations. Based on the ongoing collaboration among the Parties, the MT believes the SA objectives can be achieved in a timely manner.
Critical to successfully implementing and sustaining the SA reforms is a commitment to constitutional policing principles. LASD's ability to meet these responsibilities is dependent on clear policies and effective training. Only when prepared with sufficient training and clarity about the purpose of the SA can deputies clearly understand what the Department expects from them in their community interactions. Only then can deputies honor constitutional standards of policing. Department capacity is also affected by the need to have sufficient accountability systems in place to monitor and evaluate employee performance and management oversight practices.

AV Semi-Annual Report IV: June 22,2017

4

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 10 of 40 Page ID #:391

WORK TO DATE
This section of the report describes the work performed to date by the Parties and the MT to fulfill the requirements of the SA,concentrating primarily on the activities ofthe past six months(January through June 2017).This section details the work of the past six months and LASD's progress toward compliance with each of the core sections of the SA. Major steps toward compliance that are still left to be addressed are also summarized.
As in past semi-annual reports, work related to two sections of the SA—Stops,Seizures,and Searches and Bias-Free Policing—are addressed together in one section.They are closely related in their purpose and goals, and the work performed to address those sections is often done in concert. Additionally, one core section ofthe SA—Data Collection and Analysis—is not addressed individually.The concepts and activities for data collection and analysis have significant overlap with the other sections of the SA.The work on data collection and analysis done thus far is best understood within the context of the other sections to which it also pertains; therefore, related discussions are embedded as appropriate in those other sections. Finally,some SA paragraphs will be discussed in more than one section of this report because some SA paragraphs address more than one area of AV policing. For example, Paragraph 51 concerns constitutional stops and searches,Section 8 housing compliance,and bias-free policing. Similarly,"accountability' is addressed throughoutthe SA,not only in the Accountability section.
A. How the Parties and Monitoring Team Work
To complete the work ofthe SA,the Parties and the MT are in daily communication through a variety of means. In this six-month period,the Parties and MT held multiple meetings at LASD headquarters,the offices of the Compliance Unit, other administrative offices, and in the AV.The MT periodically met in person with the captains of both AV stations and their staff and participated in multiple onsite meetings with LASD's Compliance Unit, usually regarding specific issues such as policy review and data system discussions.The MT also held meetings with particular units or leadership from other operations that are critical to this reform work,such as the Audit and Accountability Bureau(AAB)and the Commander in charge of training, and observed asemi-annual LASD risk management meeting. Although some of these meetings and events were general in scope and pertained to many sections ofthe SA, most were related to specific sections or provisions of the SA and are described in greater detail below. The Parties and MT also participated in several small- and larger-group community meetings in Palmdale and Lancaster where various topics were discussed such as the Third Semi-Annual Report, community perceptions about LASD and its approach to policing, and the Community Advisory Committees(CAC).
In addition to in-person meetings,there are a variety of conference calls each month along with daily email or telephone communication between representatives of the DOJ,the County of Los Angeles, LASD,and the MT.The MT and DOJ participate in a bimonthly call to address substantive issues and planning; another similar bimonthly call is held that involves the MT,the DOJ,and the Compliance Unit; and the MT and Parties,including the Office of County Counsel and extended LASD command staff, participate in a monthly telephone conference call to discuss workflow,future events and meetings,and other salient topics.
When all are not able to be physically present in these meetings,videoconferencing is used whenever possible. Documents are shared extensively via email for the purposes of review and collaborative development ofthe various policies and procedures,training curriculum,community engagement

AVSemi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

5

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 11 of 40 Page ID #:392
materials, audits, and other written elements of the SA. LASD shares departmental data in various formats with the MT via secure email and digital media.
B. Stops,Seizures,and Searches and Bias-Free Policing
Two sections ofthe SA—Stops,Seizures,and Searches and Bias-Free Policing—are discussed together in this section of the semi-annual report, because their tenets and goals are closely linked, and because their provisions are often addressed by the same LASD and MT activities.These two sections ofthe SA provide the framework for ensuring that LASD-AV policy and training more effectively communicate the constitutional principles and tenets of modern policing that guide encounters between law enforcement and community members.
Woven throughoutthe SA are the guiding principles aimed at strengthening the relationship between LASD-AV deputies and the diverse communities they serve. The foundation of these relationships is predicated upon trust. Once established,trust enables the open and honest communication intended in the SA and advances the collaborative efforts required to accomplish a common good. However, creating and sustaining trust can be a constant challenge and can require nuanced sensitivities and skills due to the unique nature of police work and the conflicting expectations and demands made by the public. Those are the realities that law enforcement personnel encounter and must navigate on a daily basis. Many types of interactions and opportunities to build or diminish trust between LASD personnel and community membersflow out of these interactions,some arising from law enforcement actions, others stemming from services being rendered to citizens in crises, such as during medical emergencies or otherforms of assistance. Equally significant are those opportunities to engage with the public during community meetings and other public events sponsored by the Department or by community groups. Many LASD personnel who work in the AV also live there and therefore often have off-duty interactions as citizens.
The nature of adeputy—citizen encounter—and the circumstances that lead up to it—is often the basis for any subsequent tension that might arise. Perhaps most crucial to the LASD's community relationships are encounters where LASD deputies stop(and potentially detain,search,or arrest) civilians whom they believe have committed or are about to commit a crime, or have information about illegal behavior. Although it is often the manner in which the encounter ends that catalyzes anger,fear, mistrust, and the demise of relationships,the decisions that lead to the encounter and the manner in which the deputy carries out his/her functions is of equal importance,especially when considering the m ultitude of such encounters over time that do not result in arrest.
Relationships can be particularly tested if the person stopped perceives, or may even already be inclined to believe, a discriminatory motive serves as the underlying basis for the stop. Regardless of whether these encounters begin consensually or are a result of suspicion of criminal activity, the SA details how LASD needs to improve the manner in which those encounters are to occur from the moment they begin until the momentthey end. Consideration ofthe nature and impact ofthese interactions is an aspect of procedural justice.
AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 12 of 40 Page ID #:393

A Note on Consensual and Non-Consensual Encounters
Typically, encounters between law enforcement officers and those they serve fall into two distinct categories, both of which are controlled by the terms and conditions ofthe SA:"consensual"encounters and "detentions."
Consensual encounters are those that begin freely and voluntarily and are such that persons engaged in the encounter may walk or drive away at any time without being detained against their will. The vast majority ofthis type of encounter begins and ends cordially and do not negatively impact a person's trust and confidence in law enforcement.
Investigative detentions,on the other hand,arise under circumstances where a deputy has a reasonable suspicion that the person being detained may be engaged in some form of criminal behavior. In such cases, our Constitution —and the court cases that have interpreted its meaning—permits the deputy to take reasonable steps to confirm or dispel their suspicion. Investigative detentions are brief in nature and can sometimes result in a limited search or"pat-down"ofthe person stopped but only if the deputy has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is armed with a weapon or may pose a danger to the deputy or others on the scene.'The very nature ofthese encounters requires strict adherence to policy and the legal principles that guide the deputy's actions. Moreover, it is important that these encounters be thoroughly documented and rigorously reviewed by supervisors and command personnel to ensure that the deputy's actions are free from bias and that the constitutional rights of constituents are protected and preserved.

LASD Stops Policy and the Settlement Asreement
The changes to LASD policy related to stops, searches, and seizures required by the SA address three areas:

1.

How LASD deputies interact with civilians in the field;

The information deputies are required to record about those interactions; and

3.

How supervisors and managers must monitor and evaluate the appropriateness of those

interactions.

The policies and practices that guide the work of the deputies who serve the AV are contained within the LASD Policy Manual. Chapter Nine, Volume Five of the manual addresses constitutional policing and

1"Reasonable suspicion is sufficient to justify briefstops and detentions, but not enough to justify a full search.When determining reasonable suspicion,courts consider the events leading up to the brief stop and decide whether these facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to reasonable suspicion. Courts look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing."(See hops://www.law.Cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion.)

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 13 of 40 Page ID #:394
investigative stops(5-09/520.00). Each ofthe substantive LASD policies is specifically addressed within the SA.2
These provisions were included in the SA to ensure that all contacts between deputies and citizens are safe; professional; respectful;fair; objective; and consistent with our Constitution,the requirements of the SA, and the guiding principles established by LASD policy.
Generally,SA paragraphs pertaining to deputy and community interaction will assist the Department in measuring the quality of decision making,enhance the Department's ability to capture relevant data points, and ultimately improve the level of transparency and accountability with regard to these important constitutional policing principles. For instance,the SA establishes a series of requirements not previously part of LASD policy regarding data to be collected during an investigative stop(Paragraph 44), the individualized reasonable suspicion that would justify aback-seat detention (Paragraph 47), and a series of other provisions that are specific to Section 8 and Parole and Probation compliance checks (Paragraphs 53-56). The completion of thorough narratives will permit LASD to more effectively monitor the decisions that a deputy may make that leads to an investigative detention,search, or arrest. Equally important is a frequent and comprehensive review ofthose narratives to ensure that the decisions deputies make are based on the Constitution and in full compliance with LASD policy and the requirements of the SA. These requirements will also be the basis for the MT's rigorous and thorough examination of the documentation that deputies prepare in the field, data that are entered into the records management systems, and the information ultimately reviewed and approved by first-line supervisors and command personnel.This will be a significant area ofthe MT's focus as it begins more regularly reviewing the captured data.
Treinin~
The development and implementation of policies that are constitutionally sound and consistent with the terms of the SA and best law enforcement practices requires effective, comprehensive, and consistently reinforced training. The SA clarifies the basic elements of that training, but it remains LASD's responsibility to develop such training and ensure that it is properly delivered to the LASD personnel in the AV. Those provisions are set out in Paragraphs 57 and 70-72. Additionally, Paragraphs 160-163 require that the Monitors review the adequacy of training, training needs, and the documentation of training. These provisions require LASD to submit training curricula and lesson plans for review prior to publication and implementation,require the MT to provide feedback,and set out a timeline for i mplementation once that feedback is provided and the Parties agree on the content.
Monitorine Activities in this Reporting Period
Over the past six months,the majority of the Parties'and MT's activities regarding this section were devoted to the development oftraining curricula and its implementation.The training in question addresses three sections ofthe SA:Stops,Seizures, and Searches; Bias-Free Policing; and Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance. The training related to Stops, Seizures, and Searches is often referred to as
2See Paragraphs 41-63. For example,the following are included within those provisions:Stops,Searches,and Seizures (520.05); Back Seat Detentions(520.10); Consensual Contacts(520.15; Logging Public Contacts(520.20); Logging Field Contacts (520.25);and Statistical Codesfor Stops(520.30).
AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 14 of 40 Page ID #:395
constitutional policing training. LASD already provided this training to its deputies; however,the SA requires that it be revised and amended.The trainings related to bias-free policing and Section 8 were not previously provided by LASD.
Work in this six-month period was a continuation of that begun after review of the materials initially submitted by the LASD in the summer of 2016 and a newly developed curriculum addressing Section 8 and the FHA. With respect to a newly developed curriculum for bias-free policing,the training materials focus on cultural competency, principles of bias-free policing, procedural justice and legitimacy, effective communication strategies, and community engagement. The training has been developed as one eight-hour training focused on constitutional policing and another eight-hour training on bias-free policing and housing. The MT is pleased with the Parties' efforts to come to agreement over the content of this training and the manner in which it will be delivered to deputies.(See below,Section II-D Enforcement ofSection 8 Compliance,for further discussion of this training.)
In addition to training, work continued on the finalization of LASD's Limited English Proficiency(LEP) policy. The policy addresses efforts by the Department to provide timely and effective services to civilians who are not proficient in the English language. Most aspects of the policy have been settled. The key remaining issue involves the circumstances in which deputies can use the services of noncertified trenslators in the field. It has required extensive collaboration and compromise to describe in policy language the proper balance between the practical considerations offield work and ensuring the Departments high standards for effective communication are met, as well as the responsibilities for ensuring the protection of every individual's constitutional rights. Several iterations have been discussed at length among the Parties. The Parties and MT specifically addressed remaining issues regarding the LEP policy during in-person meetings in mid-June, 2017 and will continue discussions in the next reporting period.
Expected Activities in the Next Six Months
The development and implementation of the training should be in place prior to beginning the process of monitoring compliance in areas pertaining to investigative stops, detentions, and searches and biasfree policing. This training was piloted in mid-June 2017. The MT and DOJ were onsite to observe and evaluate the training and, along with LASD, offered immediate feedback to the trainers. The MT and Parties also discussed feedback gathered from deputies through apost-training survey. Discussions regarding further revisions to the trainings are scheduled early in the next reporting period.
After training implementation and over subsequent reporting periods, MT members will work with LASD to assess compliance with the implementation requirements (e.g., which deputies receive the training and how often)and begin to evaluate the impact ofthe training in the field. Simultaneously,the MT will assess whether stop data are being collected and reviewed in the manner proscribed in the SA and policy. The MT will spend time in the field with deputies monitoring data input and subsequently reviewing and auditing the data to ensure its accuracy. This will require identifying a statistically valid sampling of files and reviewing them to assess compliance. Any departures from the SA and LASD policy identified by the MT will be compared with the findings offirst-line supervisors and managers to determine whether and when appropriate remedial actions are taken.
AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 15 of 40 Page ID #:396
Steps Toward Compliance
As the LASD undertakes the development and implementation of their policies, practices, and training to ensure these are consistent with the terms and conditions of the SA,compliance at all stages ofthese processes is being evaluated. The typical sequence of work or steps involved in measuring compliance involves an examination of(1)the development of new or revised policies,(2)the development and implementation of new or revised training,(3)the extent to which the stated intentions and goals of the SA are reflected infield outcomes,and (4) whether supervision and management personnel are being held accountable for results as shown by their conducting thorough and timely activity reviews of those items/issues addressed in the SA.
Full and substantial compliance will require a careful and systematic review of data as well as direct observations and other MT activities. LASD's thorough collection and review of these data has yet to be fully implemented, precluding the MT's ability to yet determine some levels of compliance. For example, although the SA sets out the manner in which stops are to be documented and evaluated, it has not yet reviewed those encounters due to limitations in the way in which deputies capture and effectively memorialize encounters in the field. A more detailed description ofthose limitations and how they affect the MT's ability to effectively monitor compliance follows.
Policies
As noted above and in prior semi-annual reports,the MT and DOJ have approved several new or revised LASD polices governing certain patrol policies, data collection and supervision pertaining to deputy and community interactions,and data collection for investigatory stops and detentions(Paragraph 42);the narrative reporting required as a result of an investigative stop and detention (Paragraph 44f);the reasons for seeking consentfrom a subject(Paragraph 44j); the language required when completing an investigative stop and detention report(Paragraph 45);the handling of complaints arising from backseat detentions(Paragraph 49); the implementation of additional accountability and supervision practices regarding stops,searches,and seizures(Paragraph 58);the review of reporting pertaining to investigative stops and detentions(Paragraph 60); and the remedial steps to betaken regarding violations of policy and deficiencies in stops, detentions,searches,and bias-free policing(Paragraphs 61-63). As described above,the LEP policy(Paragraphs 52,66,and 125)is still under review.
Training
As described above,the newly developed training curriculum represents a significant step toward compliance on training pertaining to stops,seizures, and searches; bias-free policing; and Section 8 compliance and the FHA.The MT anticipates the Department should be close to reaching compliance on several aspects of training implementation in the next reporting period, especially regarding the basic i mplementation of the training, processing offeedback regarding the training that has been provided, documentation that the training is being provided to existing and new deputies in the AV on a timely basis as defined in the SA,and documentation and M7observation of quarterly roll call treinings emphasizing the prevention of discriminatory policing(Paragraph 72).

AV Semi-Annual Report IV: June 22,2017

10

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 16 of 40 Page ID #:397

Analysis
In 2016,the LASD submitted a report to the MT entitled Analysis ofLASD Stop and Use ofForce Datafor Antelope Valley responding to SA Paragraphs 82-83 and 120-121. As discussed in the previous report, the MT reviewed the report extensively and did not recommend approval. The report was revised and recently resubmitted for MT review but not in time to allow discussion in this report. The MT is hopeful that in the next reporting period,analysis pertaining to additional provisions ofthe SA,such as Paragraphs 84 and 85, will also be addressed. These paragraphs require that stop data and use-of-force data be analyzed to track trends and examine specific elements of Department activities such as particular reporting periods and units.
Other SA Provisions
Following full implementation of the training, the MT will begin assessing compliance with the other SA provisions governing stops,seizures, and searches; bias-free policing; and housing through a variety of means,including but not limited to review of LASD audits, performing its own MT audits, review of data entry technical capacity and related procedures,analysis of outcomes data (e.g.,the Stop and Use of Force report), observations of LASD personnel at the stations and in the field, review of the Community Survey and other studies, review of community complaints,and interviews. The SA requires that the Department complies with each of these provisions and remains in compliance for a period of at least one year.
Each of the SA provisions listed in the Policy section above and other provisions related to policing practice, data collection,supervision, and management will be regularly tracked to ensure that any new policies are followed,that deputies and supervisors are held responsible when policies and procedures are not followed,and that systemic issues inhibiting compliance are addressed. Compliance with some of these is expected fairly quickly.
However,several provisions that will likely take effort and time to reach and hold compliance have not yet been fully addressed.Some ofthese are listed below,divided into three categories of SA provisions: supervision and management,constitutional and bias-free policing, and audits and outcomes analysis. They include provisions that address constitutional and bias-free practices at every level of the organization and the role of supervisors and managers in ensuring adherence to policy and procedures by LASD personnel. Among them are also some provisions that will require substantial efforts on the part of LASD to develop and implement regular tracking and analysis of policing data.
Remaining SA Provisions on Supervision and Management
Sergeants assigned as raters shall regularly audit their assigned deputies'stop,search, and seizure documentation in addition to arrest reports and citationsfor completeness,accuracy, and legalsufficiency. Sergeantsshall audit atleast one CAD logfor each deputy under their supervision each week.Sergeantsshall conductfurther review os indicated by weekly audits, PPI information,and otherindicia(Paragraph 59).3
'This report gives the full text ofsome but not all ofthe Settlement Agreement paragraphs that are discussed.Those either q uoted or paraphrased are included as particularly important paragraphs or deal with specific issues addressed in this report.

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

11

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 17 of 40 Page ID #:398
Ifa deputy'sstop,search,orseizure documentation does not provide sufficient detail or articulate sufficientlegal and policyjustificationfor the action, the supervisorshall review the action with the deputy to determine whether there was sufficient legal and LASD policy justification (Paragraph 60).
Antelope Valley supervisors and commandersshall take appropriate action to address all violations or deficiencies in stops,searches, and seizures including non-disciplinary corrective actionfor the involved deputy, and/or referring the incidentfor disciplinary action(Paragraph 61).
LASD agrees to hold accountable supervisors and Antelope Valley station commanders/or appropriately and thoroughly reviewing reports and documentation related to stops, searches, and seizures, and requiring deputies to articulate sufficient rationale under law and LASD policy (Paragraph 63).
Remaining SA Provisions on Constitutional and Bias-Free Policing
LASD-AV deputies shall not use race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, orsexual orientation as afactor, to any extent or degree,in establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause, except as part ofactual and credible description(sJ ofa specific suspect or suspects in any criminal investigation (Paragraph 43).
LASD-AV deputies shall not use race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity in exercising discretion to conduct a search,except as part ofan actual and credible description ofa specific suspect orsuspects in any criminal investigation (Paragraph 50).
In conducting its activities, LASD agrees to ensure that members ofthe public receive equal protection ofthe law, without bias based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation, and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution orlaws ofthe United States. Deputiesshall notinitiate stops or otherfield contacts because ofan individual's actual or perceived immigration status (Paragraph 64).
LASD agrees to continue to consult with the Museum of Tolerance personnel and others to ensure clear guidancefor LASD-AV deputies, through policy, training, and supervision, on prohibited conduct,including selective enforcement ornon-enforcement ofthe law and the selection or rejection ofparticular tactics orstrategies, based upon stereotypes or bias. LASD agrees to consult with experts to ensure that the manner in which guidance is provided to personnel takes into accountthe influences ofimplicit bias and stereotype threat(Paragraph 65).
LASD-AV agrees to incorporate requirements regarding biasfree policing and equalprotection into its performance assessment processes, including giving significant weight to an individual's history ofsustained bias-related violations, as well as using all available methods to assess the individual's ability to effectively practice biasfree policing(Paragraph 67).

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

12

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 18 of 40 Page ID #:399
Remaining SA Provisions on Audit, Tracking, or Outcome Analysis by LASD
LASD-AV shall collect and analyze data related to searches based on probation or parole status. LASD shall assess the efficacy of this tactic and its impact on the community and make policy changes accordingly(Paragraph 46).
Antelope Valley supervisors and commandersshall track repeated violations ofthe provisions of this agreement or deficiencies and the corrective action taken, ifany, in PPI(Paregraph 62).
LASD agrees to utilize experts and the community survey outlined below to study organizational climate and culture in the Antelope Valley stations to aid in developing the requirements ofthis section. Personnel will be allowed to confidentially provide informationfor the study. CASD will conductlongitudinal climate and culture studies during the course ofthis Agreement(Paragraph 69).
Within one year of the Effective Date, and annually thereafter, LASD will assess all programs, initiatives, and activities involving the Antelope Valley Stations to determine the extent ofany disparate impact and to ensure that no program,initiative, or activity is applied or administered in a manner that unlawfully discriminates againstindividuals on the basis ofrace, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation (Paragraph 68).
C. Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance
The 2015 lawsuit by the DOJ against the County of Los Angeles and the LASD alleged in part that actions taken by the Department deputies violated the FHA by discriminating against certain African American residents. The lawsuit followed an investigation that found that, between 2004 and 2011, LASD-AV deputies—together with the Housing Authority ofthe County of Los Angeles, residents, and city officials—engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against predominantly African American Section 8 voucher holders in Lancaster and Palmdale.
The SA requires that LASD develop and implement a Housing Non-Discrimination(HND)Policy that reflects its commitment not to violate the FHA (Paragraph 73). This is a new policy, not a revision of an existing policy.
In addition to the new FHA policy,the SA requires LASD to revise its current rules regarding housingrelated "accompaniment:' Accompaniment is the term that describes deputies joining housing authority workers on visits to the homes of Section 8 voucher holders. The current such LASD policy is contained in a document called Field Operations Directive(FODJ 12-02.(Policies and Field Operations Directives are both formal, written documents that describe LASD policies, but they are developed and issued according to somewhat different processes.) FOD 12-02 was implemented in 2012 as the result of the settlement of a litigation called Community Action League;et al. v. City ofLancaster, City ofPalmdale et al.(The SA is the product of a DOJ lawsuit, not the Community Action League lawsuit.)The SA requires that FOD 12-02 be revised to address the following Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance provisions:

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

13

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 19 of 40 Page ID #:400

Revise its policies contained in FOD 12-02 regarding deputy accompaniment ofhousing authority workers when they conduct administrative investigations/inspectionsfor compliance in the Section 8 Program to specifically outlinefactors to be considered when assessing the needfor deputy accompaniment and the number ofdeputies necessaryfor accompaniment(Paragraph 76).
Institute policies regarding investigations upon referral by the housing authority ofallegations of fraud in the Section 8Program (Paragraph 77).
Institute policies regarding its own independentinvestigations ofallegedfraud in the Section 8 Program (Paragraph 77).
Revise its policies to include guidancefor referral ofcasesfor criminal prosecutionforfraud based solely on compliance with the Section 8contract(Paragraph 77).
Revise its policies to include guidance on proper proceduresforsharing information with a housing authority(Paragraph 77).
Have deputies document all voucher holder compliance checks,each independentinvestigationfor criminalfraud based on voucher holder compliance with the voucher contract and all calls, observations, or incidents involving voucher holders using stat code 787(Paragraphs 78-80).
Monitoring Activities in this Reporting Period
During this six-month reporting period,the MT continued to work with representatives from the DOJ Civil Rights Division Housing Section and LASD to draft the HND Policy and revise FOD 12-02 and to arrive at policies with sufficient clarity,completeness,and consistency to guide LASD personnel in identifying and handling FHA and Section 8 accompaniment issues. All of the work on these policies was conducted through conference calls and exchanges of written documents among the Parties and MT.
The MT also engaged in extensive discussions with DOJ and LASD representatives regarding housingrelated SA training requirements.There are specific Section S-related housing training requirements in the Stops,Seizures, and Searches section ofthe SA(Paragraph 57a). Further,the Bias-Free Policing section of the SA requires LASD to provide all LASD-AV deputies with training that includes "the requirements of the FHA,with specific emphasis on discrimination on the basis of race"(Paragraph 70e). M ultiple discussions were held by phone and in person thatfocused on the curricula,training materials, and logistics for these trainings. Housing Non-Discrimination Policy
Regarding the HND Policy,the MT and Parties spent the majority ofthe time this reporting period on the policy's format rather than its content. Specifically,the question was whether to issue the November 2016 draft HND Policy as a policy in the LASD Manual of Policies and Procedures(MPP)or as an FOD. The MT had two key concerns:that the new policy applies to all deputies(notjust those in the AV)and that there bean appropriate review and disciplinary process in place to deal with any violations of the policy. The SA requires that LASD "implement a Housing Non-Discrimination Policy that reflects LASD's commitment to the requirements of the FHA and explains how to file a complaint of discrimination in housing"(Paragraph 73). By these terms,the HND Policy applies to all LASD personnel. Initially,the MT and DOJ took the position that,to ensure Department-wide application and an effective disciplinary

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

14

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 20 of 40 Page ID #:401
process, it must be written as a standard policy and be placed in the LASD MPP. On the other hand, LASD believed that, based on the HND Policy's proposed wording, it would be more appropriate for it to be an FOD.The format ofthe HND Policy was discussed during several telephone conferences among the MT and the Parties. Based on two points—(1)LASD's assurance that the HND Policy in FOD format would have Department-wide application and authority and(2)the independent analysis ofthe MT and DOJ regarding LASD discipline and other factors—it was decided to accept the HND Policy in FOD format.
On May 5,2017,the MT and Parties' representatives held a conference call to discuss the November 2016 draft of the HND Policy and FOD 12-02. During the call it was agreed that DOJ would redraft the Background section of the November 2016 draft HND Policy to make it more concise and revise the examples of law enforcement action that could result in violations of the FHA. DOJ submitted the revisions to the November 2016 draft policy to the MT and LASD on May 25,2017. LASD provided its response to the DOJ revisions on June 8,2017,and that is currently under review by the MT and the Parties.
AccompanimentPolicy—FOD 12-02
For nine months,the Parties and MT have been close to agreement on the revision of FOD 12-02, which contains the LASD policies regarding review of requests from a housing authority worker for deputy accompaniment on compliance checks. One significant point of disagreement was language in the current FOD 12-02 that states,"This directive does not apply to LASD personnel working under a Memorandum of Understanding or Inter-Departmental Agreement with a housing authority." The MT and DO1 requested that this sentence be removed from FOD 12-02, because it would allow the LASD to circumvent the FOD 12-02 procedures. In April 2017, representatives of the Office of County Counsel notified the MT and DOJ that LASD would agree to delete the language provided the title ofthe FOD was amended to: Housing Authority Section 8 Non-Criminallnvestigations/Inspections. LASD was informed that the amended title of FOD 12-02 was acceptable to the MT and DOJ.
LASD submitted a revised FOD 12-02 to the MT and DOJ with the agreed-upon changes for review.This new version also contained added language not previously reviewed by the MT or DOJ. The most significant change is the addition of a NOTEto the Purpose section of FOD 12-02 that states,"This does not preclude deputy personnel from taking appropriate law enforcement action when anon-Section 8 crime occurs in their presence, or a name/known suspect wanted in a criminal case happens to be at the location." This draft is being discussed among the MT and the Parties and it is anticipated that agreement can be reached on a revised FOD 12-02 that can be submitted for final review and approval by the Parties.
Training
There are two training requirements related to housing in the SA. The Section 8-related housing training requirements are in the Stops,Seizures,and Searches section of the SA(Paragraph 57a), while the FHA training requirements are in the Bias-Free Policing section (Paragraph 70e).(Both of these are also addressed in the previous section ofthis report.) Instead of separate trainings for Section 8 housingrelated issues and FHA issues, they have been combined and are part of the Bias-Free Policing training curriculum. The DOJ and MT provided substantial input to the FHA component of the combined Stops,

AV Semi-Annual Report IV: June 22,2017

15

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 21 of 40 Page ID #:402

Seizures, and Searches/Bias-Free Policing training materials. A pilot of the Bias-Free Policing/FHA training was conducted June 15, 2017.

Steps Toward Compliance

As detailed above,the Department has taken steps toward compliance on the housing-related SA provisions. The HND and accompaniment policies and their related training curriculum (Paragraphs 57a and 70)are nearing finalization, with approval expected in the next reporting period. Once the training is approved,the MT will track whether LASD is in compliance with the provisions of the SA that address how that training is to be implemented (e.g., Paragraphs 74 and 75). The Department has decades of experience successfully implementing trainings; the MT expects the Department to reach initial compliance with those provisions quickly in the next reporting period.

With policy development compliance and training compliance,the monitoring activity will shift to assessing outcomes related to these policies and training and to how LASD supervisors and managers track those outcomes. Related SA provisions address the following.

Ensure that LASD supervisors and managers monitor and evaluate compliance with these policies regularly and take appropriate corrective action if an issue arises, including investigation, complaint adjudication, and discipline.

•

Ensure that AV supervisors and managers monitor and evaluate compliance with FOD

12-02 regularly and take appropriate corrective actions if an issue arises, including

investigation, complaint adjudication,and discipline.

Final compliance will be achieved when the MT determines through onsite observations, record reviews,

audits, and outcome analysis that the Department has met and remains in compliance with these

requirements for at least one year, including evidence that the intentions of the SA as expressed in the

new policies are thoroughly and consistently being met in the field and that outcomes are reviewed by

supervisors and managers, with appropriate action taken as necessary.The MT's assessment of

compliance will also include a review of any revisions to the training or how it is conducted that become

necessary based on the audits and outcome analysis.

Remaining SA Provisions on Audits and Outcome Analysis
The following SA paragraphs describe the SA required audits and analysis that both the Department and MT will use to assess compliance with the housing-related elements ofthe SA.
LASD will conduct atleastsemi-annual analysis of, at a minimum,the AV data related to...Vouche~ Holder compliance checks involving LASD personnel(Paragraph 82g).
In addition to compliance reviews and audits, the Monitor shall conduct qualitative and quantitative outcome assessments to measure whether LASD's implementation ofthe SA has eliminated practices that resulted in DOI'sfinding a pattern and practice ofconstitutional violations. These outcome assessments shall include collection and analysis, both quantitative and qualitative, of...Section 8enforcement...(Paragraph 153).

AV Semi-Annual Report IV: June 22,2017

16

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 22 of 40 Page ID #:403

The revised Analysis ofLASD Stop and Use ofForce Datafor Antelope Valley submitted by LASD addresses some of Paragraph 153.The other required analyses are expected to begin in the next reporting period. Once implemented,final compliance will be achieved after the Department meets the requirements for at least one year. The Community Survey described in the Community Engagement section below will also address Section 8 related outcomes.

D. Community Engagement
The prologue to the Community Engagement section of the SA states that "LASD agrees to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community,to engage constructively with the community to ensure collaborative problem-solving and bias-free policing, and to increase community confidence in the Department."
As described in the last six-month report,the term "community engagement' primarily refers to the Department's efforts to participate in open dialogue with the AV community and thus build and maintain trust and confidence in the Department among all ofthe community members.This is a stated goal of the SA. The MT's role in the community engagement process is to observe and assess LASD's efforts to interact with and improve its relations with the AV community.Some ofthe MT's work includes engaging directly with the community,apartfrom LASD's own engagement efforts. As with other sections ofthe SA,the MT may also provide advice and technical assistance as appropriate and necessary.
Overall, last year saw much progress in police—community relations in the AV. AV stations engage in numerous community events every month;each station's Community Advisory Committee is active; and —although there is important work left to do,as described below —the MT often hears community members and even LASD critics acknowledge that relations have improved.

Monitoring Activities in this Reporting Period

The MT made three site visits to the AV during this monitoring period (February 22-25, March 14-16, and April 4)to further engage with the community,to learn from those in attendance and hear about their current experiences with and observations of LASD, and to directly observe engagement and interactions between LASD and the community. Members of the MT participated in the following ways:

•

Had individual and group meetings/discussions with community members

•

Hosted community meetings

•

Interviewed community leaders

•

Met with LASD Community Advisory Committees(CACs)

•

Participated in ride-a-longs with deputies

•

Reviewed LASD community engagement reports

AV Semi-Annual Report IV: June 22,2017

17

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 23 of 40 Page ID #:404

•

Reviewed drafts of LASD community relations material

•

Received and followed upon community members'calls, emails,and other inquiries

informing the MT of complaints they have lodged with the AV stations or providing

feedback to the team.

MTSite Visits
Members of the MT attended and gave a presentation at the Lancaster CAC Quarterly Town Hall meeting on February 22, 2017. After a briefing aboutthe MT's previous six-month report,the room broke into small groups fora "Days of Dialogue;'formatted discussion where community members and AV deputies satin circles and discussed police—community relations. Each small group contained a number of community members and one or two deputies.The format allowed for good interaction between the community and members ofthe LASD-AV.The community members present mostly thanked and preised LASD with a few comments of critique. in a few of the circles, deputies accepted the critiques well and responded to appropriately. In other circles, defensiveness on the part of LASD-AV personnel discouraged criticism.
On February 24,2017,the lead Community Engagement MT member rode along with a patrol deputy in Lancaster from 7 pm until midnight, observing the deputy interacting with the community. There were no major incidents on this tour,there were fewer calls for service than usual, and all ofthe observed stops were conducted lawfully.
On February 25,2017,several members ofthe MT attended a community meeting organized by The Community Action League (TCAL), one of the groups responsible for the original lawsuit that led to the SA. A variety of community members,as well as several LASD personnel,attended the meeting and the community members were given the opportunity to provide "testimony" and share their observations about personal experiences with law enforcement and the criminal justice system in the AV.The community members in attendance included a mix of known critics of LASD-AV as well as individuals who had never attended such a community meeting.There were complaints about several individual incidents involving LASD with people citing their views regarding unnecessary stops and excessive force. There were also a number of complaints about other parts ofthe criminal justice system,in particular, the courts.The MT also noted that a number of the attendees complimented LASD-AV for their improvements in policing and community outreach over the lastfew years.
Members ofthe MT attended the Palmdale CAC Quarterly Town Hall meeting on March 14,2017. Similar to the Lancaster CAC meeting, after a brief presentation about the MT's previous six-month report,the room broke into small groups where community members and deputies sat in circles and discussed police-community relations.
The new Captain of the Lancaster Station, as well as severe) Lieutenants and Sergeants from Lancaster and Palmdale and LASD's SA Compliance Unit met with the MT on April 4, 2017,to discuss the progress of community engagement in the AV, how to improve it, and how the MT will determine compliance with the SA.

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

1g

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 24 of 40 Page ID #:405

On June 13,2017,several MT and DOJ representatives rode along with different patrol deputies and sergeants in Lancaster and Palmdale from 2 until approximately 6 pm,observing the deputies interacting with the community.The MT and DOJ were able to observe a wide range of calls and stops, from vandalism reports, mental health and domestic violence calls, and several fires. The deputies were welcoming and helpful. All of the observed stops were conducted lawfully.
The MT and DOJ observed the Lancaster CAC meeting on June 14,2017.The only planned eventfor the night was a breakout into facilitated small groups composed of at least one CAC member,two to five other community members,at least two LASD deputies,in some cases other LASD personnel,and a professional "Days of Dialogue" facilitator. Each group decided which topics to discuss. Attendance by LASD personnel was substantial, particularly in comparison to the small turnout of community members not associated with the CAC or LASD. Still, a range of voices were heard,from very supportive ofthe LASD to critical. The openness and richness of the exchange varied by group. All LASD deputies participated to some extent, with some requiring direct questioning by the facilitator and others more openly conversant.
LASD Community En~a~ement Activity
There are indications that LASD is participating in numerous community events and has been making a more concerted effort to reach out to the various AV communities and to track these outreach efforts. For over a year,the LASD-AV stations have maintained a monthly Community Engagement Tracking Report, which lists the various meetings and events that.LASD personnel have attended. An enhanced Community Engagement Tracker report has been developed by LASD-AV with MT consultation. It allows the Department to track every deputy in both stations and all of their participation in community events and to capture more information about those meetings. In the last six months both stations have either hosted, attended,or have had a part in over 80 community engagement events. LASD-AV has continued its "Coffee with a Cop" meetings, including hosting several in Spanish. The MT finds these to be productive events building better relations.
The LASD has increased its outreach to the Spanish speaking community in the AV with new Spanish language social media tools. In June, LASD communications personnel introduced the MT and DOJ to several social media platforms utilized by the AV stations to reach out to both the English- and Spanishspeaking community including Nixle, Facebook, Instagram, Spanish radio, and the Department website.
The LASD submitted a comprehensive report, Bridge to Peoce, which detailed the Departments community engagement and crime reduction efforts in the AV.The report addressed SA Paragraph 91, which states: To continually improve police-community partnerships, LASD will assess and report on the impact ofcommunity engagementinitiatives. LASD will issue public reports on the Antelope Valley stations'community engagement efforts, identifying successes, obstacles, and recommendationsfor future improvement. After a few rounds of edits from the MT and DOJ,the report was finalized and a pproved.
A recent monthly Community Engagement Tracker report and the Bridge to Peace report are posted at the AV monitoring website, http://www.antelopevalleysettlementmonitoring.info.
LASD recently requested that MT observations and recommendations about the various community and Departmental meetings and events it attends be relayed to the appropriate Department personnel in a

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

19

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 25 of 40 Page ID #:406

more timely manner in order to facilitate an appropriate response. The process for this exchange of information to this point has involved a combination offormal and informal conversations and emails. In the next reporting period,the MT and Department will develop a more consistent process for delivering a nd discussing this ongoing feedback.
Monitoring Team Recommendations
For the LASD
Although the LASD-AV has made significant progress and there are many documented community engagement activities, the MT has discussed with the Department its concerns and recommendations.
The MT strongly recommends that the Department go further to genuinely embrace the goal of achieving real, lasting, and positive police—community relations in the AV, beyond "paper" compliance with the SA. In particular,the MT has become concerned —based on comments by some LASD personnel in meetings—that members ofthe AV community who have legitimate concerns are being dismissed and marginalized.
As stated in the last six-month report,the MT encourages LASD to view Community Engagement opportunities as a means of working to establish open,continuous,and productive long-term relationships with the various AV communities and community members,especially with youth and in communities of color(as specified by the SA)and those critical ofthe LASD.The LASD can achieve these objectives by increasing the type, quality, and quantity of community dialogues; actively participating in community meetings and events; consistently seeking, receiving, and responding to community input; and develop and implement training on community- and problem-oriented policing. The MT has expressed to LASD the following specific suggestions on how the AV stations can improve community engagement:
Actively engage and do not summarily dismiss complainants and critics. Seek to understand the issues underlying critical comments(such as trust and perception of bias) rather than to critique their technical merits. Consider incorporating citizen suggestions and recommendations into reforms.
Beyond the CAC meetings and some of its regular events like Coffee with a Cop, LASD could host quarterly town hall-style meetings for the purpose of hearing from the community,notjust talking atthe community or giving reports. LASD should have broader attendance than just the Captains of each station and a few others in leadership. Deputies should attend these meetings and sit with and engage community m embers.
The MT supports the community members'suggestion that each station hold a community event or series oftown hall type meetings in Spanish —not a meeting held in English that offers translation, but a meeting held in Spanish in those areas where there is a high concentration of primary Spanish speakers who would be more inclined to participate if they felt there was a willingness by deputies to listen to and engage with them. If needed and it would be appropriate to do so,those meetings might still offer

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

20

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 26 of 40 Page ID #:407
translation into English as well. The LASD should make it clear that the undocumented community is invited to all meetings and is guaranteed that it will be safe to attend.
For the Community Advisory Committees
The previous semi-annual report included a series of recommendations from the MT. Below are the recommendations and the Department's response or status:
Standing Agenda Item: The CAC meetings do not consistently have an agenda with a standing item for community feedback or concerns as the MT recommended in the latest report. However, both LASD and CAC members report that there is always an opportunity for CAC members to share feedback or complaintsfrom the community with LASD.The MT has observed this in the meetings it has attended and acknowledges that it is true.
MT Recommendation:The MT had recommended the CACs either keep minutes of their meetings or at least documentthe specific concerns or issues brought to LASD and how they are being addressed. LASD is now taking and issuing minutes of the CAC meeting, but these minutes are currently very minimal.The minutes should have more detail and follow-up to ensure a comprehensive record of the CAC discussions and to capitalize on the opportunity for strengthening the LASD-Community relationship. LASD has requested the MT's consultation on this matter which will be provided in next reporting period.
CAC Diversity: The Palmdale Station recently added a community leader and longtime critic ofthe Departmentto their CAC.There is an opening on the Lancaster CAC,and the MT is hopeful that the new member selected will likewise be a respected community member who is willing to bring a critical yet constructive perspective to the Department.The Palmdale CAC has two youth members who have so far been unable to attend the meetings. It would be appropriate to do additional outreach out and try to make it possible for the youth members to attend most meetings.
Steps Toward Compliance
LASD has reached partial compliance on several provisions of the SA. This section will describe some of those successes as well as further steps necessary,sometimes requiring substantial efforts,for full compliance.
LASD-AV consistently participates in local community meetings and has formally established and memorialized the CACs(Paragraph 94).
The LASD sought the assistance of community advocates and widely disseminated to the public, including on the website—in English and Spanish—an explanation ofthe SA requirements,thus completing the provisions of Paragraph 92.

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

21

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 27 of 40 Page ID #:408

The LASD has formally established CACs at both stations. The LASD is also in compliance with the requirement to provide the CAC with reasonable administrative support,including meeting space. In addition, LASD has facilitated the Monitor providing advice and technical assistance to the CACs (Paragraph 96).
LASD assures that the CACs will not have access to any non-public information regarding an individual deputy or allegation of misconduct or disciplinary action. The LASD is currently in compliance with this provision (Paragraph 97).
Diversion: After discussions with the LASD personnel and AV community members,the MT made the preliminary assessment that the SA requirement regarding diversion programs(Paragraph 87)had not yet been met. LASD forwarded information on existing juvenile diversion programs in the AV in April, but these programs were,for the most part, notthe types of diversion programs needed. LASD still must work "with the community"on the development of diversion programs(Paragraph 87).
Regularity ofDeputy Engagement: LASD,the MT,and DOJ will soon negotiate how often LASD deputies are expected to attend community events and meetings to comply with the SA,which mandates:"All sworn personnel at the Antelope Valley stations shall actively attend community meetings...on a regular basis"(Paragraph 88).
Reaching the Entire AV Community: LASD will work with the MT to formalize how the Department intends to comply with Paragraph 88 ofthe SA, which mandates that the AV's Community Engagement plan "take into account the need to enhance relationships with... youth and communities of color."
In-Service Training: The LASD agrees to provide structured, annual in-service training on community policing and problem-oriented policing methods and skills for all AV deputies, including station supervisors and unit commanders(Paragraph 89). This is an important and involved training material that LASD has yet to begin developing. Implementing such a comprehensive training to all LASD-AV personnel will be a large undertaking that will likely follow a similar process as the trainings developed and revised for constitutional policing and bias-free policing.
Monthly Crime ManagementForum:These meetings are occurring. They are with the Assistant Sheriff or his designee and semiannual Risk Management Forum and include discussion and analysis oftrends in misconduct complaints and community priorities to identify areas of concern,and to better develop interventions to address them. However,the discussion of trends and priorities are not yet occurring as necessary(Paragraph 90). This assessment by the MT has been expressed informally with LASD, but a formal report has not yet been provided.
Reporting:As mentioned above, LASD's Bridge to Peoce report is the first ofthe documents required to assess and report on the impact of community engagement initiatives, identifying successes, obstacles, and recommendations for future improvement.The Department is now free to make this report public (Paragraph 91).
CACfunction: Paragraph 93 states:
LASD will continue to support Lancaster and Palmdale's C.4Cs to advice and providefeedback to the LASD's Antelope Valley stations. The panel willleverage the insights and expertise ofthe community to address policing concerns, including, but not limited to, racial or ethnic profiling

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

Zz

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 28 of 40 Page ID #:409
and access to law enforcementservices, and promote greater transparency and public understanding ofLASD. The civilian panelshall be authorized to:(aJ advise the Sheriffand the station commanders on strategies and training to improve community relations, biasfree policing, and access to the civilian complaintsystem;(6J work with the Sheriffand station commanders to establish and carry outcommunity publicsafety priorities;(cJ provide the community with information on the Agreementand its implementation;and(d)receive and convey to LASD public comments and concerns.
LASD will need to facilitate the CACs to fully develop its capacities to meet the SA requirements.
CAC Reports: The CAC's reports and recommendations will be posted on LASD-AV's website. LASD will consider and respond to the civilian panel's recommendations in a timely manner. However,the CACs have yet to make formal recommendations or produce a report(Paragraph 95).Through LASD,CAC members have requested the MT's consultation on this matter which will be provided in next reporting period.
Annual Community and Deputy Survey: According to the provisions ofthe SA(Paragraphs 98-101),an annual survey is required.
The MT has been working to finalize an agreement with Los Angeles County and a consultant group to conduct an in-depth survey of residents of the AV and deputies to gauge the current perspective of police-community relations. Once the agreement is finalized,the MT,LASD, DOJ,and the consultant will collaboratively develop mutually agreed upon research methods and data collection instruments. The consultant researchers will conduct phone, in-person, and online surveys of AV residents and LASDAV deputies to assess public sentiment of police-community relations. The researchers will also conduct a series offocus groups to gain a deeper insight into certain segments ofthe AV community.Survey administration,focus groups and key informant interviews will begin in the next six-month reporting period. After the data are collected and analyzed,the consultant will produce and publish a comprehensive report of its findings.
E. Use of Force
The Findings Letter submitted by DOJ following their investigation that led to the SA states that some of LASD's "policies and practices appear to permit and even encourage deputies to use force that is out of proportion to the threat of harm presented:'(Page 6.)This finding required a major review ofthe LASD's use-of-force policies, which is now underway.
Section VIII of the SA governs LASD policies, procedures, and culture associated with use, review, and adjudication offorce by Department members. It states that the LASD "agrees to revise its force policies and practices to reflect its commitmentto upholding the rights secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States, protecting human life and the dignity of every individual, and maintaining public safety." In particular, LASD has agreed "to ensure that its accountability measures are implemented appropriately"so that AV deputies:
Use force only when objectively reasonable,and in a manner that avoids unnecessary injury to deputies and civilians;

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

23

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 29 of 40 Page ID #:410

Use force as a last resort and de-escalate the use of force at the earliest possible m oment; and

Endeavor to use only that level offorce necessary for the situation."

To achieve these outcomes, LASD agreed to revise its policies and associated training materials to abide by Paragraphs 102-123 ofthe SA, which govern:

•

The use offorce and the use of advisements, warnings,threat assessments,de-

escalation,and proportionality; and the prohibition of retaliatory force (Paragraphs

102-105).

•

The prohibition or discouragement of a member of the public who lawfully takes

photographs or video of police activities(Paragraph 106).

•

Training and reporting requirements associated with impact weapon head strikes

(Paragraph 107). Use-of-force reporting requirements, including the use of

unreasonable force or boilerplate language by AV deputies

(Paragraphs 108-110).

•

Expectations and requirements of supervisors to respond to the scene of any use-of-

force incident involving an AV deputy,to conduct a thorough and complete

investigation, and to submitthe investigation through the chain of command

(Paragraphs 111-113, 116).

•

The management review of use-of-force investigations for completeness;trends

including issuing or revising policies, directives,and training bulletins, or providing

additional mentoring and supervision to individual deputies;the identification of policy

deviations and training or tactical concerns,along with the expectations associated with

the Executive Force Review Committee's review of use-of-force incidents and the

response by the Internal Affairs Bureau Force/Shooting Response Team (Paragraphs

113-115, 117).

AV unit commanders'reviewing and tracking offindings, recommendations,and comments related to "training and tactical review"to ensure that informal supervisory feedback is not used in place offormal discipline, when the latter is more appropriate. The LASD will ensure that the supervisory feedback—including feedback documented in the "treining and tactical review" portion of a Supervisor's Report on use offorce—is documented in the Personnel Performance Index(Paragraph 118).

The requirements and contents of annual or biennial training for AV deputies in the use of force (Paragraph 119).

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

24

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 30 of 40 Page ID #:411

Review of UOF Policv Activities in Previous and Current Reporting Period
The AV Monitor's Third Semi-Annual Report included the following assessment of the review of LASD's use-of-force policies and found them to be deficient in several areas, including the following:
Although the LASD policy does contain language that addresses de-escalation, it does not sufficiently emphasize and reinforce de-escalation. This is necessary to convey executive management's expectations on reducing the use offorce, and it is key to establishing the Departments updated use-of-force culture.
The requirement on when ause-of-force incident must be reported can be interpreted differently by individual deputies and supervisors. Although senior LASD executives have discretion with use-of-force investigations and outcomes,there should be no ambiguity or uncertainty at the line and supervisory levels as to what constitutes a reportable useof-force event.
There is no provision that explicitly states a requirementfor off-duty deputies to report a use-of-force incident. LASD has a right and a duty to thoroughly investigate and review any off-duty use-of-force incident. LASD's policy states that its "members" are required to report force, but does not specifically state that this also applies to off-duty personnel.
The policy does not include a specific list of the factors that command staff should consider when determining whether the force used by a Department employee was reasonable (although the MT understands that command staff do consider a number of different factors that are not listed in policy). A clear identification of the factors that will be considered by management in its evaluation of use-of-force incidents will establish the guidelines for consistency.
The policy contains several non-use-of-force provisions, such as tactical incident management,specific tactical considerations,the Department psychologists response to critical incidents, rumor control,and statistical compilation. Cumulatively,those extraneous sections make the policy excessively long and burdensome;they should be removed from the use-of-force policy section of LASD's manual of policy and procedures.
As a result of the review of the LASD's use-of-force policy, the MT prepared an outline of what an "improved and comprehensive use-of-force policy would contain and how it might be structured." That outline was the subject of discussion among the MT,LASD,and DOl at the November 14-16,2016, onsite visit. Those discussions resolved severe)significant issues,including the definitions of key elements such as reportable use-of-force incidents, off-duty reportable use-of-force requirements, and the specific language to be used regarding the de-escalation of incidents to reduce the use offorce. The Department has agreed to develop a revised use-of-force policy that satisfies the terms and conditions of the SA. LASD is currently circulating a draft of a revised use-of-force policy and will provide it to the MT once it is reviewed internally.
The Departments development and publication of a clear, succinct, use-of-force policy is of paramount importance and is a cornerstone in achieving SA compliance in the AV.The Sheriff has previously stated

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

25

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 31 of 40 Page ID #:412

that the Departments goal is not to just achieve SA compliance but to achieve best practices and true reform (see box below).True reform in the AV will require an organizational culture change as well as system improvements. F,or example,the MT's initial interviews determined that the Department cannot track the majority of allegations associated with the use offorce that are contained in its use-of-force investigations. Although this reflects a need to tweak data-collection procedures and system capabilities, it also reflects a management failing and need for improved accountability at that level.

Use of Force Analysis and SA required Audits

SA Paragraphs 120-123 mandate that the Department conduct a specific use-of-force analysis, in compliance with the following:

•

To analyze the AV stations'force data annually,including related outcome data,to

identify trends and deficiencies and correct them.

•

To assess the frequency and nature of use-of-farce incidents that are referred for

investigation,the subject of complaints or civil suits, related criminal obstruction or

resisting arrest issues, or repeated complaints against deputies or units.

•

To determine whether policy or training curricula changes are needed.

•

To document the results of the use-of-force analysis in a public report.

The report entitled Analysis ofLASD Stop and Use ofForce Datafor Antelope Valley(described in the Stops,Seizures,and Searches section above) partially addressed some of the above analysis requirements, but has not yet been approved by the MT and DOJ.

While the Departments Audit and Accountability Bureau(AAB)has published several audits that cite various SA paragraphs, it has not performed any of the required audits for the purpose of MT evaluation of SA compliance with these or any other SA paragraphs. The Department currently remains out of compliance with these paragraphs and will remain so until it submits the specifically related audits, along with the associated audit work papers. Those audits must ultimately indicate that compliance is achieved and sustained for at least 12 months.

Monitoring Activities in this Reporting Period
On March 16,2017, LASD provided to the MT and DOJ an overview ofthe LASD Supervisor's Report on Use of Force(Form 438)force investigation and incidents' analysis process.The form and process is used to document use-of-force incidents. The process is currently used in LASD's Custody Division and has now been modified for future use in their patrol divisions. The program is being piloted at the two AV stations, beginning in June 2017. The MT and Parties also discussed and reached tentative agreement on the compliance metrics that will be used in the MT audits and assessments. These metrics will evaluate the Departments controls and approvals processes and assist with the identification of any risk exposures and establish the rationale for the MT's recommendations for improvement and for the Department to achieve SA compliance. The MT has also submitted comprehensive work plans to evaluate the Departments compliance with SA Paragraphs 102-123,and severe) related productive conversations with the Parties have taken place.

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

26

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 32 of 40 Page ID #:413
Sheriff Jim McDonnell's Statement on the Settlement Agreement From press releasefollowing the signing ofthe SA,April28,2015
am pleased that the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and the United States Department of Justice have finalized an agreement that enables the LASD to look to the future, rather than the past,as we build upon significant progress over the pastfew years and seek to strengthen the bonds oftrust with the community we serve in the Antelope Valley. This agreement will enable the LASD to bring the highest standards of constitutional policing and robust training models to our staff, while establishing clear metrics that will enable us —and others —to measure the progress in our policing practices in the Antelope Valley.
have long believed that law enforcement is only as effective as the strength of our relationships with, and the trust of,those we serve. While much more work is ahead of us,this agreement highlights the positive strides the committed men and women of this department have already made on so many fronts --including training in regard to constitutional law and racial profiling awareness, practices relating to Section 8 housing compliance checks, and policies regarding traffic stops, arrests and detentions. Indeed, I am proud to say that the LASD has already implemented a third of the approximately 150 requirements under the DOJ agreement. But let me be clear that I will not be satisfied, nor should others be satisfied, until we are in full compliance with the high bar that we have willingly taken on — and I welcome the watchful eye of our community to ensure that we meet those standards.
The challenges law enforcementfaces every day in maintaining public safety and building community trust are numerous.The collaborative process with the Department of Justice,the Board ofSupervisors and the dedicated men and women in this department who serve the public in the Antelope Valley are an important and timely reminder of how we can productively engage in responsible and respectful dialogue in regard to how law enforcement can do better. I do not view this agreement as a set of mandates, but rather as a set of opportunities that will enable the LASD to enhance our knowledge, improve our training, and raise the bar even higher in regard to our policies and practices.

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

27

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 33 of 40 Page ID #:414

Expected Activities in the Next Six Months
The MT will conduct aUse-of-Force Investigations and Adjudication Audit, which is anticipated to begin in August or September 2017.The MT will develop and submit to the Parties a comprehensive audit work plan as well as the audits objectives and methodologies.This will involve interviews of key Department personnel,an on-site observation of any use-of-force related training that the Department executives or management provide; an evaluation of the Departments ability to retrieve use-of-force data and pattern assessments; specific audit findings that include the elements of their cause,condition, and effect; and recommendations to address any risk exposures detected.The MT will submit an audit report to the Parties and an audit exit conference will subsequently take place. The Parties and MT will attempt to resolve any differences in professional opinion. In cases where the Parties cannot reach agreement,each opinion will be included in the final audit report.
Although the MT is looking forward to the Departments development and publication of a use-of-force policy that is consistent with national best practices,this is only one element ofthe multi-linked process that is required to achieve true Department culture change. True culture change will require a commitment on the part of Department executives to state-of-the-art training, effective management oversight; close accountability measures; mentoring; and a comprehensive,transparent, and effective audit process. The Department's efforts in these areas will be included in the MT's Use-of-Force Investigation and Adjudication Audit. The MT will also ask for and review any similar audits and related work papers that the Department has completed. When applicable,the MT will compare and contrast its own audit findings and recommendations with those of similar audits conducted by the Department. The MT will also evaluate the Departments implementation of the recommendations from the Departments audits and the MT's audits to assist in determining the Departments efforts to achieve SA compliance, culture change, and improving and embracing the audit process, which is the cornerstone of management accountability and long-lasting organizational transformation.

F. Personnel Complaint Review
Section IX of the SA governs personnel complaints and states that the LASD agrees to ensure that all allegations of personnel misconduct are received,that they are fully and fairly investigated, and that personnel who commit misconduct are held accountable (Paragraphs 124-140). A law enforcement agency's policy on the intake and classification of community complaints is a threshold to its entire disciplinary process. Complaints that are classified or categorized at a lower level than they merit may not receive the level of scrutiny they deserve,thus causing the Departmentto miss an opportunity to identify and fix serious problems.Those classified at an inappropriately high level may unnecessarily overextend Department resources.The SA specifically addresses the way personnel complaints are to be classified and requires the Department to distinguish them from non-disciplinary service complaints. Specifically, LASD has agreed to do the following:

•

Revise its complaint investigation policies to ensure that all personnel allegations are

classified accurately so that each allegation receives the appropriate level of review

(Paragraph 127);

•

Ensure that personnel complaints are not misclassified as service complaints(Paragraph

128); and

AV Semi-Annual Report IV: June 22,2017

zg

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 34 of 40 Page ID #:415

Revise its policies regarding allegations that may require discipline and need to be investigated as administrative investigations, rather than as service complaints (Paragraph 129j.
Monitoring Activities in this Reporting Period
During this reporting period,the MT continued its efforts to finalize the work plans for each paragraph in the Complaint section of the SA(Paragraphs 124-143j. In particular,there was extensive collaboration with DOl and LASD to determine the measures that will be used to assess compliance with each of the relevant paragraphs.
Reaching consensus with the Parties on the Departments current policies, rules, and procedures governing complaints was a threshold issue for the MT.The Department has published myriad policies and directives on its complaint process and —as the SA recognized —there is a lack of clarity and at least some inconsistency in those directives(Paragraph 127). As a first step to addressing those issues,the MT prepared a detailed report describing the current process in which community complaints in the AV are received,classified, investigated,and adjudicated. As with any process within a large organization,this includes a combination ofsome activities dictated by policy or written procedure as well as some informal practices. The Parties have reviewed that document and agreed that it accuretely reflects LASD's current policies and practices on the handling of community complaints.
With that shared understanding,the MT began its evaluation ofthe complaint process. It identified a sample of 51 complaints and will conduct a detailed audit of those cases. In addition to auditing specific cases,the MT will also review the way in which complaints—both Service Comment Reports and Administrative Investigations—are retained and how they are considered in the Departments response to various administrative and judicial requests for employee complaint histories.
Finally, the MT is continuing to work with the Department on reviewing its policies governing the classification and processing of community complaints. The MT, DOJ, and Compliance Unit has had several informal conversations and two formal meetings (in person at the April onsite and by telephone in June)to discuss the SA items that address complaints and the current complaints process. Following those discussions, LASD started its revision of the related policy.
Personnel Performance Index
During this reporting period,the Department replaced its Personal Performance Index(PPI)with the Performance Recording and Monitoring System (PRMSj. This change is transparent to the user, and q ueries and screens appear the same. However,PRMS uses aweb-based application that will make data input and retrieval much more efficient,and will allow for the system to be modified easier in the future.The system will continue to systematically record data on uses offorce,shootings, commendations,and complaints. It will also track the progress of administrative investigations,civil claims, lawsuits, and discovery motions."

Source:PRMS online Handbook.

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

29

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 35 of 40 Page ID #:416
Software upgrades notwithstanding,the MT continues to experience difficulty obtaining reliable data from PRMS(or PPI)on fundamental questions. For example,it has taken nearly four months to obtain a reliable countfrom the AV stations on the number of community complaints made against AV personnel d uring the first six months of 2016. When the data were obtained in April 2017,it appears that the final disposition of about seven of the 51 Service Comment Reports(14%)completed in the first three months of 2016 have not been entered into PRMS.The audit will identify when those complaints were completed and how long they have been waiting for input.
LASD Required Complaint Audits
The SA requires that the Department,"conduct a semiannual, randomized audit of LASD-AV's complaint intake, classification,and investigations. This audit will assess whether complaints are accepted and classified consistent with policy, investigations are complete, and complaint dispositions are consistent with a preponderance ofthe evidence." On August 30,2016, LASD's Audit and Accountability Bureau published an audit on public complaints in the AV.The audit wasforwarded to the MT and DOl for review.The audit stated that it would satisfy some ofthe SA requirements; however after a preliminary review it was determined by the MT that it did not satisfy the SA requirements.
Expected Activities in the Next Six Months
In the next reporting period,the MT will finalize a work plan including compliance measurements for the relevant paragraphs in the SA. The MT will also complete an audit of closed complaints from the first quarter of 2016 to assess how the Department receives, classifies, investigates,and adjudicates community complaints. Finally, the MT will work with the Department and the DOJ to determine the extent to which the Department's current complaint policy—as outlined in Manual of Policies and Procedures Volume 3,Chapter 4,Service Reviews,Public ComplaintProcess, and Personnel Investigations—is consistent with the provisions of the SA.

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

30

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 36 of 40 Page ID #:417

G. Accountability

The SA specifically addresses accountability requirements, which includes Paragraphs 141-143, Personnel Performance Index (PPI); and Paragraphs 144-145, Performance Mentoring Program (PMP). These paragraphs outline requirements related to data-collection capacity and procedures and LASD managers evaluating personnel performance, making peer comparisons,s analyzing trends,and providing mentoring and other interventions to personnel whose performance falls below the expected standards. However, management accountability is much broader than what is defined in Paragraphs 141-145. In fact,accountability considerations permeate every aspect of the SA.The presence or a bsence of organizational accountability becomes most evident when observing and evaluating individual behaviors as well as the collective performance of employees at every level of the organization. It is supported by establishing effective organizational systems and standards that serve to clarify and reinforce the norms,expectations,and desired outcomes sought; but it is also highly dependent upon the personal and professional commitment that managers and supervisors display and model in their daily performance.

Accountability begins and ends with LASD management and is the process of determining the individual and collective performance of personnel and identifying and remedying systemic deficiencies.The accountability process includes a consideration of each stage of detailed personnel performance evaluation and establishing and updating the policies, procedures, and training necessary to comply with the intent of each section of the SA regarding:

•

Stops,Seizures, and Searches

•

Bias-free Policing

•

Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance

•

Data Collection and Analysis

•

Community Engagement

•

Use of Force, and

•

Personnel Complaint Review

Each of these SA sections has accountability policy and procedure) requirements.

Accountability is also an integral part of implementing permanent change in policing in the AV. Accountability processes must be built into the fabric of operations and management itself. Accountability systems are required to monitor and evaluate employee performance and risk exposures,b as well as the practices of management in the oversight of policy in day-to-day operations.

Accountability processes enable management to monitor and evaluate not only systems and individual performance, but also the evaluation of the performance of management itself. Management is responsible to provide policy, train to the policy, monitor personnel performance and application of policy in operations, and take corrective or remedial action to address identified individual or systemic deficiencies. These functions are not possible if management does not ensure consistency.Such a

5 Peer comparisons allow management to evaluate personnel performance by comparing the decisions and actions of personnel in similar situations as they apply policy and training. This allows determinations as to whether sub-standard performance is a matter of individual or systemic deficiency and the identification of trends. 6 Risk exposures are those areas of operations and performance that leave the Department and the community open to risks that threaten safety and pose potential liability.

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

31

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 37 of 40 Page ID #:418

process also allows for the evaluation of managements'effectiveness in oversight and responsibility for operations.
These accountability systems provide two important functions. First, is to enable the MT to verify that in fact operations are consistent with policy as agreed upon in the SA. But,secondly—and more i mportantly—is to permanently provide the mechanisms for management to routinely review and evaluate operations and performance in real-time, assess risk exposures, and ensure and verify that standards are being appropriately met.
Monitoring Activities in this Reporting Period
On November 7,2016, MT experts met with the LASD Compliance Unit to discuss the Departments approach to developing and implementing standard processes for management accountability. The Parties and MT discussed the requirements in the SA for developing specific plans for management to review and analyze information necessary for accountability. It is not enough to have systems that capture and provide data. It is necessary to have processes in place that establish guidelines for reviewing and using the data to ensure that performance meets the established policy standards.
In August 2016,the MT experts met with command staff and discussed the Departments plans for conducting use-of-force investigations and related management oversight. The standards for conducting use-of-force investigations are clearly established in the SA and need to be reflected in policy.
The Department recognizes that, unless management has a standardized process for reviewing force investigations to ensure that each element ofthe investigation is being conducted properly, it is unlikely that deviations or omissions will be identified, accounted for, and remedied. The Department intends to adopt a similar process to what the LASD Custody Division uses for reviewing force investigations.This incorporates a review process established to ensure standardization and consistency in determining compliance with policy.To receive its input,the Department submitted the proposed force investigation process to the MT in March 2016. In a meeting on March 16,2017,the Department provided an instructional overview ofthe process and proposed a pilot for force investigations. The MT-proposed modifications to the LASD 438 Force Investigation Report process were discussed in detail at that meeting. The pilot ofthe new investigation process is pending. Steps Toward Compliance
This section summarizes the work that remains in order for the Department to comply with Paragraphs 141-143, Personnel Performance Index (PPI).
The PPI is LASD's Department-wide decision support system in matters related to risk management and service reviews.The SA requires that the PPI be modified so that it can make peer comparisons between deputies and units that will enable AV unit commanders and supervisors to conduct periodic reviews of all deputies and units under their command to identify potential trends. As described in the previous section of this report, this modification is underway. The PPI is now referred to as the Performance Recording and Monitoring System (PRMS).

'The proposed use-of-force policy has been reviewed by the MT,returned to the Department,and is pending finalization.

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

32

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 38 of 40 Page ID #:419

The SA indicated that the development of the PPI was estimated to take three years to complete. However,the SA requires an alternative process for making such comparisons during the compliance period, pending the full development ofthe PRMS automated system.This alternative process for management review and oversight pending the development ofthe PRMS automated system has not been presented to the MT as of this writing and will be necessary to evaluate and establish compliance with requirement of the SA.
LASD has committed in the SA to modifying its procedure for Performance Log Entries so that all entries are maintained in an electronicformat—noted in PPI—ensuring that PPI data are accurate,and holding responsible AV personnel accountable for any inaccuracies in data entered. The SA also requires an alternative process for collecting and reporting these data, pending the completion of PPI/PRMS modifications.To date,the MT has not received any proposed alternative process.
Holding personnel accountable for conduct and performance is the general intent of accountability,and holding personnel accountable for"inaccurecies in any data entered" as required in Paragraph 142 is appropriate and necessary, but the more important outcome is to impact future performance. Any process must include how data will be collected and by whom,who will be responsible to review the data and how personnel are being held accountable for inaccuracies,including a process to measure or evaluate how the requirements existence is impacting performance.
Even though the Department has not fully defined the required accountability processes,the MT is developing compliance measures to establish how it will determine compliance with these requirements. These compliance measures will be discussed with the Department in the next reporting period.
In the SA, LASD has committed to develop aplan—in consultation with the MT and to be approved by DOJ—to periodically analyze the AV stations' response to concerns unique to their stations,such as trends identified through civilian complaints,the CAC,community survey,or other means.This plan will be critical in establishing management accountability in proactively responding to identified trends. To date,the Department has not developed the required plan. Once the plan is ready,the MT will conduct reviews to determine whether the Department is identifying trends and taking steps to address any identified deficiencies.
This section summarizes the work that remains for the Department to comply with Paragraphs 144-145, Performance Mentoring Program (PMP).
LASD will continue to provide mentorship to deputies in the North Patrol Division's locally-based PMP,B as well as through LASD's Department-wide PMP,based upon an appropriate determination of eligibility. To increase the effectiveness of the remedies and corrective action used to address a deputy's behavior, LASD will implement a plan to ensure that the Department-wide PMP provides mentoring of AV personnel within 30 days after the need for mentoring is identified, and that appropriate procedures are in place for supervising deputies whose performance fails to improve after mentoring.The Department has not yet presented the required plan to the MT.

a The PMP is a program for establishing a specific mentoring plan for individual personnel to address and remedy deficiencies in performance. Mentoring plans are tailored to enhance the specific performance ofthe individual staff member.

AV Semi-Annual Report IV: June 22,2017

33

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 39 of 40 Page ID #:420
Processes for command personnel to monitor and manage the PMP must be identified. Any plan should establish criteria for placement into the PMP, with goals or desired outcomes specifically identified for the involved personnel. A standard process will also be necessary for supervisors to document the i mpacts ofthe PMP on individual performance.
The SA requires that the Department-wide PMP and the North Patrol Division's PMP coordinate as appropriate and share information about deputies and their individual mentoring programs.The MT will assess the Department's process for assuring this is done on a regular and effective basis.
The MT is developing compliance measures to establish how it will determine when compliance is met. It is expected that these compliance measures be finalized and approved by the Parties in the next reporting period.

AV Semi-Annual Report IV:June 22,2017

34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 29 Filed 06/22/17 Page 40 of 40 Page ID #:421
CONCLUSION
During this reporting period, LASD has engaged with the DOJ and the MT to achieve progress in several key areas.The Department is currently engaged in revising its Use of Force Policy and the Service Comment Report(SCR) Handbook and Complaint Policy. To support and evaluate the revisions to the SCR Handbook and related policies,the MT is conducting an audit ofthe complaints process.The MT anticipates this audit will provide considereble context for the revisions to the policies and the SCR Handbook,thereby ensuring greater clarity and consistency in the handling and processing of complaints made by the public.
Additionally,the Parties and MT are devoting considereble and ongoing attention to reach agreement about the content and processes for ensuring the Limited English Proficiency policy and the Housing Non-Discrimination policy are carried out in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the SA. The Parties and the MT are still negotiating the content of these policies.
The SA requires training for AV personnel on topics including community and problem oriented policing, constitutional policing, and bias-free policing. The trainings on constitutional policing and bias-free policing started in mid-June. Once the pilot training is completed and evaluated, and the final curriculum has been approved,all AV deputies will then undergo training on these two critical sections of the SA. This pilot effort has involved a significant investment oftime,staff resources, and expense in an effort to bring LASD into compliance with these provisions of the SA.
In prior MT reports,the team has highlighted a need to add additional staff to the Compliance Unit to ensure timelines are honored and the objectives of the SA are met.The MT is pleased with the Departments response in doing this and wishes to acknowledge and thank the Sheriff for allocating additional staff to the Compliance Unit. The Compliance Unit is now commanded by a captain. An additional sergeant has also been added to assist in carrying out the tasks assigned to this critical group; however,one deputy position was eliminated.
The MT has found LASD to be cooperative and committed to achieving the full implementation of the terms and conditions of the SA.The Sheriff continues to provide exemplary leadership and has stressed his expectations and the importance of LASD employees embracing community-oriented, 2lsricentury policing principles.

AV Semi-Annual Report IV: June 22,2017

35

 
 Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 1 of 48 Page ID #:424

1 MARY C. WICKIIAM,County Counsel ROGER H. GRANBO Senior Assistant County Counsel
2(SBN 108372)_• rgran~o@counsel.lacounty.gov 648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
3 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles California 90012-2713
4 Telephone:(213)974-1609 •Fax:(213)626-2105

5 Attorneys for
6 The County ofLos Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department
7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,WESTERN DIVISION

11

12 ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CASE NO.2:15-CV-03174-JFW-FFM

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' FIFTH SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT

15 THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
16~ SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

17

Defendants.

18

19

On May 1,2015,the Court approved and entered the parties' Settlement

20 Agreement("Agreement")to resolve the United States' claims against the County of

21 Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department pursuant to

22 42 U.S.C. 14141 (re-codified at 34 U.S.C.§ 12601)and the Fair Housing Act,42

23 U.S.C. 3601 etseq.

24

Paragraph 171 ofthe Agreement requires the Monitors to publically issue a

25 report every six months that details the Parties' progress in iinpleinenting the

26 Agreement and achieving compliance with the Agreement. The parties hereby

27 submit the Monitors'fifth semi-annual report.

28
HOA.102039385.1
SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' FIFTH SEMI-ANNCJAL REPORT

2:15-CV-03174

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 2 of 48 Page ID #:425

i
(DATED: ~2'"2-I"~ 7 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
HOA.102039385.1
SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' FIFTH SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT

MARY C. County

By ~

~/'./

~v—

ROG~ H.GRANBO

Seni r ssistant Counsel Counsel

Attorneys for the County ofLos Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department

7.15-CV-0 174 -2-

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 3 of 48 Page ID #:426
Attachment

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 4 of 48 Page ID #:427
Antelope Valley Monitoring Team
Fifth Semi-Annual Report
December 2017

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 5 of 48 Page ID #:428

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 1

A. A Note About Compliance ............................................................................................. 2

II.

WORK TO DATE ................................................................................................................................. 3

A. Stops, Seizures, and Searches ....................................................................................... 4

B. Bias-Free Policing............................................................................................................ 13

C. Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance.................................................................... 15

D. Community Engagement ............................................................................................. 19

E.

Use of Force ...................................................................................................................... 25

F.

Personnel Complaint Review ...................................................................................... 31

G. Accountability................................................................................................................... 34

III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 39

APPENDICES
A. The Monitoring Team B. Antelope Valley Monitoring Website C. How the Parties and Monitoring Team Work D. Monitors’ Note on the Settlement Agreement, Constitutional Policing, and
Organizational Change

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 6 of 48 Page ID #:429

I.

INTRODUCTION

This is the fifth semi-annual report issued by the Monitoring Team (MT). It covers the monitoring activities that have taken place during this reporting period and in the months prior. This report provides an overview of both administrative and operational issues. It describes the MT’s observations as to the progress of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) in meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement (SA)1 for the Antelope Valley (AV). This report focuses primarily on work undertaken between July 2017 and December 2017.

The MT continues to devote considerable attention to reviewing and revising policies, procedures, and training curricula; working with LASD and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to develop compliance measures for the various provisions in the SA; reviewing LASD systems data; and examining community engagement activities in the AV. The review of LASD accountability processes, the planning for the AV-wide community survey, the review of LASD stops data, and planning and conducting MT audits were key activities of this reporting period. This report covers progress in those areas, along with a discussion as to how this work fits into the broader context of achieving the objectives of the SA.

As in previous reports, this report addresses the SA provisions where the Department has reached compliance or made substantial progress. Those provisions where compliance has not yet been met are also discussed, with comments about what areas will likely require substantial time and resources for the Department to come into compliance or for the MT to effectively assess levels of compliance. When possible, this report also summarizes the sequence of activities and steps the Department must take to achieve full compliance.

The MT recognizes and values the efforts of the LASD and the Office of County Counsel and their commitment to achieving the goals of the SA and making real improvements to law enforcement services in the AV, as well as the continuing efforts by DOJ staff to support meaningful outcomes. The working relationships and processes followed by LASD, DOJ, and the MT have consistently reflected a spirit of cooperation and collaboration. The MT also once again wants to acknowledge and express its appreciation to the AV community members for their candid participation in meetings and engagement in the various activities that are underway.

1 Settlement Agreement, No. CV 15-03174, United States v. Los Angeles County et al. (D.C. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015).

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

1

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 7 of 48 Page ID #:430

The Antelope Valley Settlement Agreement: Summary
The Antelope Valley Settlement Agreement (SA) was established between the US Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division; the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD); and the County of Los Angeles and was filed with the US District Court for the Central District of California in April 2015. (DOJ, LASD, and the County together are referred to as the Parties.) The purpose of the SA is to ensure that the residents of the AV have police services that are lawful and fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States and contemporary policing practices. The SA specifically identifies, as individual sections, a variety of reforms and objectives to be met by LASD in the AV related to: Stops, Seizures, and Searches; Bias-Free Policing; Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance; Data Collection and Analysis; Community Engagement; Use of Force; Personnel Complaint Review; and Accountability. The SA also stipulates that a professional monitor be selected to track and assess LASD’s progress in implementing and achieving compliance with the SA, work with the Parties to address obstacles to achieving compliance, and report on the status of implementation to the Parties and the Court. As per Paragraph 171 of the SA between the Parties, the Monitor submits a semi-annual report (every six months); the first of these was issued in December 2015.
The AV lies in the northeast corner of the County of Los Angeles and includes two cities— Lancaster and Palmdale—and several unincorporated communities spread across hundreds of square miles. LASD provides law enforcement services in the unincorporated areas of the AV as well as via contracts with Palmdale and Lancaster. An LASD station serves each city, with law enforcement activities for the surrounding areas roughly split between the two.

A. A Note About Compliance
Much of the SA involves the development or revision of policies, procedures, or training, and putting into place various processes (such as a plan for ensuring new AV deputies receive training) and entities (such as the Community Advisory Committees [CACs]). This work is usually done in a collaborative fashion among the parties and MT, with documentation of the change (new policy, revised training, etc.) eventually being formally submitted to the MT and DOJ for approval. Gaining that approval would seemingly indicate that the Department is now “in compliance” with that provision. However, while it does represent a crucial step forward, the Department at that stage is considered to be in partial compliance (or “policy compliance”). This is because, in most cases, there are more steps involved before the Department reaches full implementation (SA paragraph 20) and, thus, compliance. For instance, an approved policy may need to be distributed to every deputy and incorporated into training curricula (which includes the content of the training course and the plan or method by which it will be administered or taught). An approved training curriculum will, then, require documentation that appropriate personnel receive the training. Importantly, each of the established reforms—for instance, the policies and trainings—will need to be found to perform or “work” in the real world, that is, they will need to be assessed through such MT activities as reviews, audits, interviews, observation,

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

2

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 8 of 48 Page ID #:431

and data analysis and found to be successfully reflected in law enforcement practices and in the qualitative and quantitative impact on the AV community. Additionally, in many cases the SA requires there to be ongoing improvement in delivery of services (SA paragraph 15). Finally, this performance needs to be sustained for one year to reach full and effective compliance and to satisfy the terms of the SA (paragraph 205).

This process toward compliance is laid out in the Settlement Agreement, especially through the following paragraphs:

•

Paragraph 20: Implementation is defined as “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 of that

policy or procedure in actual practice.” What is meant by “consistent and

verified performance” is laid out in the compliance measures section of

each SA sections work plan. That is, the compliance measures currently

being reviewed by the Parties will establish the qualitative and

quantitative criteria by which the MT will determine consistent and

verified performance and, thus, compliance.

•

Paragraph 205. The terms of the Settlement Agreement will have been

met when “the County has achieved full and effective compliance with the

Agreement and maintained such compliance for no less than one year.”

•

Paragraph 15. Full and effective compliance means “achieving both

sustained compliance with all material requirements of this Agreement

and sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing and

public trust, as demonstrated pursuant to the Agreement's outcome

measures.”

II. WORK TO DATE
This section of the report provides detailed descriptions of the work performed to date by LASD, DOJ, and the MT to ensure the requirements of the SA are fulfilled, concentrating primarily on those activities undertaken over the past six months (July through December 2017). The report discusses MT observations related to the goals, scope, and nature of the work; issues and obstacles that have arisen in the course of the work; MT findings; and certain critical observations made. LASD’s progress toward compliance with each of the sections of the SA is delineated along with steps toward compliance that are still left to be addressed.
As in past semi-annual reports, one section of the SA—Data Collection and Analysis—is not addressed separately. The concepts and activities for data collection and analysis have significant overlap with the other sections of the SA. The work on data collection and analysis done thus far is best understood within the context of the other sections to which it also

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

3

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 9 of 48 Page ID #:432

pertains; therefore, related discussions are embedded as appropriate in those other sections. Finally, some SA paragraphs will be discussed in more than one section of this report because some SA paragraphs address more than one area of AV policing. For example, paragraph 51 concerns constitutional stops and searches, Section 8 housing compliance, and bias-free policing. Similarly, “accountability” is addressed throughout the SA, not only in the Accountability section.

A. Stops, Seizures, and Searches
The Settlement Agreement provisions describe the way in which LASD-AV deputies must conduct and document investigative stops, detentions, and searches. These provisions also detail how Department supervisors and managers must document, track, review, and assess these practices.
The preamble to the Stops, Seizures, and Searches section states:
LASD agrees to ensure that all investigatory stops, seizures, and searches are conducted in accordance with the rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. LASD shall ensure that investigatory stops and searches are part of an effective overall crime prevention strategy, do not contribute to counter-productive divisions between LASD and the community, and are adequately documented for tracking and supervision purposes. (SA Page 7)

1.

LASD Activities

The LASD Audit and Accountability Bureau (AAB) conducted an audit of stops and detentions and the data collection surrounding those encounters (dated December 9, 2016). A stated purpose of this audit was to determine if the AV stations were conducting the supervisory review and retention of the Deputy Daily Work Sheets (DDWSs) required by SA paragraph 59. Until the compliance metrics for the Stops section of the SA are finalized, the MT cannot assess compliance with the DDWS review provisions nor determine if the AAB audit provides reliable evidence of compliance.

During and prior to this reporting period, LASD staff made some important modifications to their systems to properly capture those elements required by the SA and fulfill their obligation of overseeing the decisions and practices of their deputies. In support of these changes, in January 2017, LASD published a manual to guide employees in their understanding and application of the SA requirements regarding the documentation of investigative stops and detentions. The contents reinforced the importance of using the proper clearance codes when conducting “vehicle, pedestrian, or bicycle stops based on probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or for other investigative purposes or to follow up on leads from prior cases” (LASD-AV Stop Manual at page 1). In addition to the clearance codes pertaining to stops, the manual notes that the

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

4

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 10 of 48 Page ID #:433

Department’s computer system has been enhanced to let deputies enter certain information, such as their justification for conducting a search.

2.

Monitoring Team Activities and Observations

In this reporting period, the MT focused on ensuring critical data points are consistently identified, memorialized, and ultimately evaluated by supervisors and management. LASD’s data systems and business processes are crucial tools and processes that are relied upon to ensure the Department and the MT have the means to evaluate the successful implementation of SA provisions and monitor compliance.

The vast majority of interactions between deputies and community members require data entry into the deputy’s mobile computer. When a deputy stops and detains someone, however brief in duration, the facts and circumstances that led to that stop and detention and any subsequent action must be rigorously documented and, later, reviewed in an effort to assess the deputy’s decision making, the legality of his or her actions, and compliance with LASD policy and the terms and conditions of the SA. Data entry regarding stops requires entering one or more alpha or numerical code, for which there are codebooks for the deputies to consult. It is the codes that determine which other fields appear on the screen and that he or she must complete. Importantly, it is also the codes that supervisors, managers, and auditors typically use to retrieve information about each entry. To illustrate, a supervisor may want to review all records from the past month for pedestrian stops, which use code 841. Requesting all of the month’s activity for code 841 will retrieve pedestrian stops rather than other kinds of stops, but it will not retrieve pedestrian stops that were entered into the system with a different code. Therefore, when the appropriate codes are not used, that supervisor cannot know if he or she is actually reviewing all of the types of stops in question.

Though the majority of LASD-AV stops data are entered correctly, the MT observed instances when encounters between deputies and the public were not properly classified as investigative stops and detentions when it would have been appropriate to do so. All encounters between deputies and community members are important, but for some it is particularly critical that the circumstances are thoroughly and accurately reported. The most significant intrusion that results from a deputy–citizen encounter is a custodial arrest. Under those circumstances, the basis for the deputy’s actions are documented in a statement of probable cause that is reviewed by an LASD supervisor and ultimately a judge. However, the MT found that arrests that result from an investigative stop and detention are not always classified using the statistical codes typically associated with pedestrian, vehicle, or bicycle stops. Therefore, the Department (and the MT and other observers) cannot know with certainty whether all stops and arrest documentation in patrol logs receive the same level of scrutiny and supervisory review that is required of all investigative stops, detentions, and searches pursuant to the terms and conditions of the SA.

There are encouraging signs that LASD personnel recognize the importance of—and that steps are being taken to ensure—accurate and thorough data entry. During the most recent site visit

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

5

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 11 of 48 Page ID #:434

to the Antelope Valley, the MT rode with patrol deputies assigned to the Lancaster and Palmdale stations. During the time spent with deputies, deputies discussed how they capture information in the field during a vehicle, pedestrian, or bicycle stop. The deputies were knowledgeable of the processes. When asked how the SA may have better informed the documentation of investigative stops, detentions, and searches, one deputy underscored the importance of rigorous data collection and complete and accurate narratives. And, though he clearly recognized the space limitations on the computer data entry form, he explained how supplemental reporting can be entered into the database to ensure that the narrative is complete and thorough.
During a recent visit, the MT learned from the Compliance Unit of a particular incident where the entry of an improper clearance code had been used to close an event. In addition to ensuring that the proper code was then entered, a member of the Compliance Unit contacted the deputy and provided the instruction and reinforcement necessary to prevent similar mistakes in the future. It is precisely this level of scrutiny on the part of both the station and Compliance Unit staff that is necessary to ensure the integrity of the stop data required under the SA. The MT expects—in accordance with the terms and conditions of the SA—that such errors be promptly identified at the first-line supervisor’s level and corrected immediately to ensure that the stop database reflects the most current, timely, and accurate information. The MT will be reviewing coding errors and other discrepancies to assess such questions as: How pervasive is the problem? In what circumstances is it most likely to happen? What procedures, training, supervision, performance assessment, or other Department processes can be adjusted to help avoid the problem? Can technical data entry changes help?

3.

Steps Toward Compliance

The AV stations are continuing in their progress toward achieving compliance with the provisions of the SA related to Stops.

i.

Stops Training Provisions

The training provision related to Stops, Seizures, and Searches addresses provisions in at least two other SA sections. For further discussion, see also the Bias-Free Policing and Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance sections below. Monitoring work related each of these sections will be conducted in conjunction for purposes of efficiency and clarity.

As reported in the last semi-annual report, the Parties and the Monitors agreed that the Stops, Bias-Free and Section 8 trainings can be addressed together in two trainings—Constitutional Policing training and Bias-Free Policing training. Significant work by the Parties and the MT yielded curricula for both trainings and a schedule for the pilot of the trainings.

The training pilots were conducted June 14 and 15 of this year, and both trainings received favorable feedback from the Parties and the MT. These eight-hour pilots for each training were

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

6

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 12 of 48 Page ID #:435

conducted for a class of LASD-AV deputies at the Lancaster Station. Thorough debriefings with the trainers occurred immediately after the session and in a subsequent conference call with the Parties. The feedback included the following.

•

The training was effective and efficient, and the use of time, examples, and

devices were excellent. The trainer demonstrated an outstanding command of

the subject matter.

•

The use of the white board was excellent, as was weaving anecdotes into the

content.

•

In future trainings, spend more time on implicit bias, including a discussion of the

science on how the brain works.

•

Try to integrate into the presentation videos related to the subject of bias, in

particular, on fair housing.

•

Integrate the Fair Housing Act (FHA) discussion into the rest of the Bias-Free

curriculum at the beginning of the training session. Use housing examples during

the bias discussion of bias.

The trainers were highly responsive to feedback and incorporated the Parties’ comments into the subsequent trainings that were held in July, August and September. They worked closely with the parties to further refine the material as the training progressed. The MT and DOJ attended some of these subsequent training sessions which they found to be greatly improved over the June pilot in the following ways:

•

The implicit bias brain science materials had been supplemented in a way that

better informed and held the participants’ attention.

•

The addition of a series of short videos from the UCLA Office of Equity, Diversity,

and Inclusion, along with other videos proved to be excellent teaching tools.

•

The FHA discussion was moved from the end of the presentation—where it had

been delivered during the pilot—to earlier in the bias-free discussion, which

greatly improved the flow of the instruction.

The curricula for both trainings were then approved by the MT and DOJ, and the course was held several more times until most LASD-AV deputies had received the training.

The next step in this process is the Department providing documentation to the MT that all appropriate personnel have received the trainings and that a plan has been implemented to ensure those personnel who return to work or begin work anew in the AV also receive the

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

7

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 13 of 48 Page ID #:436

trainings. The Department has recently submitted this documentation; the MT and DOJ are reviewing it to be sure it includes all the information necessary.
The MT's assessment of Stops, Bias-Free and Section 8 training compliance will include a review of any revisions to the trainings or how they are conducted that may become necessary based on the audits and outcome analysis. The MT and DOJ will also review the bias-free roll call trainings now under development as well as the Department’s continuing consultation with the Museum of Tolerance. MT review will include continued inspection and oversight of the training programs and curricula, including supervisory review. This process will include observing sample training sessions to assess whether they are thorough and effective. It will also include a periodic review of training records to verify that existing AV deputies, supervisors and managers have received the trainings. To ensure that any new AV supervisors and managers or those returning from an extended absence receive the requisite trainings, the MT will periodically review those records.
ii. Stops Policy and Practice Provisions
Policies and procedures addressing the following provisions have been approved by the MT and DOJ; compliance will be assessed through monitoring activities including stops audit and data analysis, complaints audit, and field observations.
LASD-AV deputies shall only conduct investigatory stops or detentions where the deputy has reasonable suspicion that a person has been, is being, or is about to be engaged in the commission of a crime. (SA paragraph 41)
LASD-AV deputies shall not use race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation as a factor, to any extent or degree, in establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause, except as part of actual and credible description(s) of a specific suspect or suspects in any criminal investigation. (SA paragraph 43)
LASD-AV deputies shall document the following information about patrol activity in their MDC patrol logs: (a) the deputy’s name; (b) the date and time of the stop; (c) the location of the stop; (d) the race/ethnicity of each individual stopped, detained, or searched; (e) the disposition of the stop, including whether a citation was issued or an arrest made; (f) a concise narrative articulating specific facts and circumstances that support reasonable suspicion or probable cause for investigative stops and detentions consistent with the radio clearance code (Noting a radio clearance code, or the code for the resulting citation or other result, will not be deemed sufficient articulation of legal support for the stop or search.); (g) whether they asked an individual about his/her probation or parole status, and what the answer was; (h) where a backseat detention was conducted, a narrative articulating a reason, consistent with LASD policy and the law, as to why each backseat detention was necessary, as well as the reasonable suspicion for the investigation; (i) the

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

8

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 14 of 48 Page ID #:437

length of any backseat detention; (j) whether a consent search of an individual was conducted, and if so, the reason for seeking consent; and (k) whether a vehicle was impounded and the justification for the impoundment. (SA paragraph 44)
LASD-AV deputies shall use accurate and specific descriptive language and not rely solely on “boilerplate” or form language in any reports describing factual circumstances of investigatory stops, detentions, and searches. (SA paragraph 45)
LASD will revise its policy and training about backseat detentions to ensure that they only occur when a LASD-AV deputy has individualized reasonable suspicion that justifies the detention and when a deputy can articulate reasonable deputy safety concerns, and to ensure that supervisors understand how to assess the reasonableness of a backseat detention. (SA paragraph 47)
LASD-AV deputies may not conduct backseat detentions as a matter of course during routine traffic stops or domestic violence situations. When LASD-AV deputies do conduct backseat detentions, LASD shall continue to require deputies to explain to civilians in a professional and courteous manner why they are being detained in the backseat of patrol cars. LASD will not permit backseat detentions based on unreasonable or factually unsupported assertions of deputy safety. Backseat detentions shall not be used except where the deputy has an objectively reasonable belief that the detained person may pose a threat or be an escape risk. In instances where the backseat detention is premised on weather conditions or the detainee’s articulated desire for privacy or personal safety, the deputy will inform the individual that the detention is optional. (SA paragraph 48)
LASD policy will specify that if an individual complains about being detained in the backseat of a patrol car, the LASD-AV deputy shall call for a field sergeant to respond to the scene and take the individual’s complaint. If the individual does not want to wait for the field sergeant to respond to the scene, the deputy shall provide the individual with a complaint information brochure, currently called “Procedures for Public Comment” and the deputy’s business card. (SA paragraph 49)
LASD-AV deputies shall not use race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity in exercising discretion to conduct a search, except as part of an actual and credible description of a specific suspect or suspects in any criminal investigation. (SA paragraph 50)
LASD-AV deputies shall not conduct arbitrary searches. The request to conduct a consent search must be reasonable and a deputy must be able to articulate a valid reason under law and LASD policy for initially having stopped the individual. (SA paragraph 51)
All LASD-AV deputies equipped with body worn audio or video recorders shall record all requests for consent to search and the individual’s response. Where a subject is Limited English Proficient, the deputy shall affirmatively inform the subject in the appropriate

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

9

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 15 of 48 Page ID #:438

non-English language. LASD agrees to work with Community Advisory Committees (CACs) to conduct outreach to explain to AV residents their right to refuse or revoke consent before or during a search. This outreach will include a one-page written explanation of an individual’s right to refuse or revoke consent. This written explanation will be posted on the LASD-AV website and provided at community meetings. An LASD-AV deputy shall immediately notify a supervisor when considering a home search based on consent, and the supervisor shall approve the search before it is conducted. (SA paragraph 52)
LASD-AV deputies shall only conduct searches of individuals on probation or parole in accordance with the provisions of this section and when knowledge of a probation or parole search condition has been established. (SA paragraph 56)

iii. Stops Section 8 Provisions
Policies addressing the following Section 8-related provisions have been approved by the MT and DOJ; compliance will be assessed through monitoring activities including stops audit and data analysis, complaints audit, and field observations. This work will be conducted in conjunction with the work related to the Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance section below.
In conducting searches, particularly searches related to Section 8 compliance checks, LASD-AV will use only the number of deputies reasonably necessary for efficacy and officer safety based on the circumstances of the search. A supervisor must approve the use of more than two deputies for any consent search. If a supervisor is not available within a reasonable amount of time, a supervisor will review the documentation or recording of consent as soon after the search as possible. (SA paragraph 53).
LASD-AV deputies shall only be involved with a Section 8 compliance check where the housing authority agent has sufficiently articulated legitimate safety concerns. (SA paragraph 54)
When LASD-AV deputies conduct searches or Section 8 compliance checks and individuals other than the subject of the search are present, the individuals shall not be detained longer than reasonably necessary to conduct the search and secure the area, and the individuals shall not be subject to frisk or search without the legally requisite level of individualized suspicion or probable cause. (SA paragraph 55)

4.

Stops Accountability Provisions

Several SA provisions in this section address the accountability of deputies, supervisors, and management in ensuring the policies and training developed are consistently and accurately reflected in LASD practice. Provisions also require LASD to conduct analysis and review of the

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

10

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 16 of 48 Page ID #:439

impact of its policies and practice both internally and in the AV community; another step toward holding the Department accountable to the SA standards. These provisions are listed here.
LASD-AV shall collect and analyze data related to searches based on probation or parole status. LASD shall assess the efficacy of this tactic and its impact on the community and make policy changes accordingly. (SA paragraph 46)
LASD agrees to implement additional accountability and supervision practices outlined below in the Antelope Valley, and ensure that existing policies are followed, to ensure that unlawful stops, searches, and seizures are detected and effectively addressed. (SA paragraph 58)
Sergeants assigned as raters shall regularly audit their assigned deputies’ stop, search, and seizure documentation in addition to arrest reports and citations for completeness, accuracy, and legal sufficiency. Sergeants shall audit at least one CAD log for each deputy under their supervision each week. Sergeants shall conduct further review as indicated by weekly audits, PPI information and other indicia. (SA paragraph 59)
If a deputy’s stop, search, or seizure documentation does not provide sufficient detail or articulate sufficient legal and policy justification for the action, the supervisor shall review the action with the deputy to determine whether there was sufficient legal and LASD policy justification. (SA paragraph 60)
Antelope Valley supervisors and commanders shall take appropriate action to address all violations or deficiencies in stops, searches, and seizures including non-disciplinary corrective action for the involved deputy, and/or referring the incident for disciplinary action. (SA paragraph 61)
Antelope Valley supervisors and commanders shall track repeated violations of the provisions of this agreement or deficiencies and the corrective action taken, if any, in PPI. (SA paragraph 62)
LASD agrees to hold accountable supervisors and Antelope Valley station commanders for appropriately and thoroughly reviewing reports and documentation related to stops, searches, and seizures, and requiring deputies to articulate sufficient rationale under law and LASD policy. (SA paragraph 63)

5.

Next Steps

The MT provided the Parties with a work plan, including compliance measures, which the Compliance Unit is in the process of reviewing. This will guide the team’s efforts in reviewing stops data and assess the accuracy of data entry, completeness of narratives, and compliance with the SA.

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

11

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 17 of 48 Page ID #:440
The MT has begun to plan and to conduct a preliminary analysis of LASD’s data related to stops, detentions, seizures, and arrests; related practices; and accountability processes. A core analysis will be of statistically significant random samples of stop data recorded over the preceding 12 months to assess compliance with the SA. This review will assess a variety of SA-related factors, including the accurate collection and analysis of investigatory stop and detention data, supervisory and management oversight, internal audits, and taking appropriate corrective action as necessary. The MT will conduct a full review, with particular focus on certain topics emphasized in the SA, such as backseat detentions and stops pertaining to persons on parole or probation. Our work will include review of DDWS logs, arrest reports, and clearance narratives that outline the facts and circumstances that led to the search and of performance evaluations and records pertaining to supervisorial and management review of stops, searches, detention, and arrests, and any other reports and documents related to investigations.
In addition to reviewing internally generated documentation of investigatory stops and detentions, the MT will review community complaints; make frequent and direct observations of activities that occur in the field; conduct interviews with deputies, supervisors, and managers; and review other records such as video and audio recordings and claims for damages from citizens who allege Constitutional harms.
As mentioned above, investigative stops represent intrusions that, if overused, used without justification, or conducted without appropriate respect and professionalism, can lead to mistrust of law enforcement within the community. Therefore, as part of its review of the impact of actions in the field, the MT will assess community attitudes toward LASD with regard to investigative stops, detentions, and searches. LASD-AV efforts to build and sustain collaborative relationships with the diverse communities it serves will also be considered. In particular, the MT will review LASD community engagement activity, CAC activity (see SA paragraph 93), the organizational climate and culture assessment (see SA paragraph 69), and the community survey (SA paragraphs 98–101). For efficiency, as appropriate, data reviews and other activities will be done in concert with the monitoring activity related to other relevant sections of the SA such as Community Engagement, Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance, and Accountability.
The SA sets out clear expectations and requirements of how first-line supervisors and managers must supervise the work of LASD-AV deputies. Competent, direct, and consistent supervision provides the framework for the fair, Constitutional, and professional policing required by the SA and expected by the diverse communities of the AV. To verify that those requirements and expectations are met, the MT will continue to assess how LASD-AV supervisors ensure that investigative stops, detentions, and searches are consistent with the SA, LASD-AV, and the Constitution.

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

12

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 18 of 48 Page ID #:441

B. Bias-Free Policing
The primary goal of the Bias-Free Policing section of the SA is encapsulated in SA paragraph 64:
In conducting its activities, LASD 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, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation, and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Deputies shall not initiate stops or other field contacts because of an individual's actual or perceived immigration status.
LASD is providing the AV deputies with new policies and training meant to ensure bias-free policing is a standard reflected in every interaction between Department personnel and community members. This section of the report describes the additional LASD and MT activities underway to reach that goal.

1.

Steps Toward Compliance

To be in compliance with the Bias-Free Policing section of the SA, the LASD-AV deputies must conduct their law enforcement activities in a manner that ensures all members of the public receive equal protection of the law. LASD is now providing LASD-AV deputies with the DOJ and MT approved Bias-Free Policing training that emphasizes how bias may occur in law enforcement activity and the impact of biased policing on effective crime prevention and police legitimacy, and meets each of the other requirements of the SA (paragraph 70). As described in detail in the Stops section above, the MT is reviewing the documentation provided by the Department regarding training participation and a plan for future trainings. The next step involves LASD developing, implementing, and documenting roll call trainings to emphasize the importance of preventing discriminatory policing (paragraph 71).

LASD has also developed a Limited English Proficiency policy to ensure there is timely and meaningful access to police services for community members who are not fluent in English (paragraph 66). Having been approved by DOJ and the MT, the policy is now moving through LASD review channels.

The Department reports it also consults with the Museum of Tolerance regarding how implicit bias, stereotype threats, and other factors that can inhibit delivery of bias-free policing (paragraph 65). To reach compliance with that provision, the Department needs to provide documentation of the nature and extent of that consultation and the ways in which it informs policy, training, and practice.

Several SA provisions in this section address LASD conducting research and review of the impact of their policies and practice both internally and in the AV community and to, in effect, hold itself accountable to its own standards. These standards include an annual assessment of all

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

13

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 19 of 48 Page ID #:442

LASD programs, initiatives, and activities to determine if any disparate impact is present and to respond if so (paragraph 68). The LASD is also required to conduct longitudinal climate and culture studies and to use experts to assist with using those studies and the Community Survey to inform Department policies, training, and practice (paragraph 69 and 72).
Additionally, LASD will need to document how Department personnel are being held accountable to the Department standards through formally incorporating bias-free and equal protection requirements into its performance assessment processes (paragraph 67). LASD has reported that they have instituted a process to comply with this provision; however, the MT and DOJ have not yet evaluated that process.

The Department submitted a revision to its earlier stops report. The purpose of Analysis of LASD Stop and Use of Force Data for Antelope Valley, 6-9-2017 was to assess if there were racial disparities in LASD stops and use of force (paragraphs 82–83 and 120–121). The original report and its revision are not approved at this time. Early in the next reporting period, the MT will engage the Parties and the external researcher in a collaborative process to formulate the steps needed for revising the report to ensure that it is both responsive to the SA and useful to the Department and that it is effective in informing the Department’s policies, training and practices moving forward. The MT will also collaboratively develop an approved methodology for the next analyses.

2.

Monitoring Next Steps

For these standards to become institutionalized, each of the specific SA items must be incorporated not only into Department policy and training, but achieved in daily practice and made real throughout the organizational culture. That is, the policies should be reflected in formal training sessions, roll call training sessions, performance review and assessment processes, informal coaching sessions with subordinates, and all interactions with AV community members. The MT will be reviewing each of these in its efforts to determine full implementation compliance with the bias-free provisions. The MT will continue to use a variety of monitoring methods to conduct its review, including its own and LASD audits and studies, discussions, and interviews with LASD personnel and AV community members; direct observation in the stations and in the field; and through other means. Bias-Free Policing work plans (as well as Stops work plans), including compliance measures, will be finalized and approved by the Parties early in the next reporting period. These will outline all of the processes by which the MT will assess whether the policies and training are reflected in Department practice and are having their intended impact in the field.

The next step of the monitoring work began during the December, 2017 site visit with a review of how the new policies and training are currently incorporated into the stops data collection and reporting procedures and other AV station activities. The MT reviewed approximately 20 police reports and approximately 60 reports of stops from the AV stations. These documents

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

14

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 20 of 48 Page ID #:443

served as a critical step to gaining a more thorough understanding of the current reporting mechanisms for stops and documentation practices for the LASD AV. The MT also conducted interviews with at the LASD-AV stations staff regarding arrests, stops practices, and the recently completed Constitutional and Bias Free Policing training. The interview also addressed the stations’ current and future training plans, including roll call trainings, for compliance with the requirements of the SA.
These and other monitoring activities will provide both an understanding of the status of the Department’s efforts toward meeting the requirements of the SA, and the preliminary data and contextual information from which the MT will develop its plans for a bias-free policing audit to assess the key underlying provision of this section, SA paragraph 64. This work will be done in conjunction with the MT’s work for the Stops section (especially SA paragraphs 43 and 50), the Accountability section, and other sections, as appropriate.

C. Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance
Previous semi-annual reports provided background on the DOJ investigation and resulting lawsuit. Among other issues, the lawsuit alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act by LASD.2 The DOJ litigation resulted in the SA, which requires that LASD develop and implement a Housing Non-discrimination (HND) Policy that reflects its commitment not to violate the FHA (SA paragraph 73). The SA also requires that LASD revise its current rules regarding accompaniment of housing authority workers by LASD deputies during visits to the homes of Section 8 voucher holders. The LASD accompaniment policy is contained in Field Operations Directive (FOD) 12-02 (SA paragraph 76).
The LASD has made impressive progress on the SA requirement that all Antelope Valley deputies receive training, taught by a qualified instructor, on the Fourth Amendment and related legal restrictions on searches and seizures, including consent searches related to Section 8 activity. This training addressed limitations on search and seizure under the law and LASD policy (SA paragraph 57a). It emphasized how bias may occur in law enforcement activity and the negative impact of biased policing on effective crime prevention and police legitimacy. The training also addressed the requirements of the FHA, with specific emphasis on discrimination on the basis of race (SA paragraph 70e).

1.

Monitoring Activities in This Reporting Period

During the current reporting period, the MT continued to work with representatives from LASD and the DOJ Civil Rights Division Housing Section to arrive at a final HND Policy and a revised

2 Another lawsuit, Community Action League et al. v. City of Lancaster, City of Palmdale et al., also alleged violations of the FHA by LASD and resulted in related changes. For more information see the Fourth Semi-Annual Report from June 2017.

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

15

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 21 of 48 Page ID #:444

FOD 12-02 that is sufficiently clear, complete, and consistent to guide LASD personnel in identifying and properly responding to FHA and Section 8 accompaniment issues. All of the work on these policies was conducted through conference calls and exchanges of documents among the Parties and the MT.
As described in more detail in the Stops section above, the extensive discussions and reviews of training materials on Fourth Amendment restrictions related to Section 8 activity and the requirements of the FHA resulted in LASD first conducting a pilot of its training entitled Review of Bias-Free Policing—The Fair Housing Act and Law Enforcement for a small cadre of deputies. Eventually, almost all AV deputies received a final version of the training at various times during this review period. MT members attended the pilot training session and several sessions of the finalized training.

i.

Housing Non-Discrimination Policy

During the previous reporting period, the Parties and MT did substantial work on the HND Policy and reached the agreement that the Policy could be issued in Field Operations Directive format. The remaining task in the current reporting period was for the Parties and MT to reach agreement on the final language of the HND Policy.

The principal issues left to resolve were the language used to describe potential violations of the FHA and potential discipline of a deputy in case of a violation of the HND Policy. The Parties and MT addressed these issues through another series of document reviews and conference calls and reached a preliminary approval of the HND Policy, subject to final approvals from the DOJ and LASD. The DOJ gave approval to the HND Policy on July 27. Before final approval and implementation, changes to LASD policy need to be reviewed by upper management and other units and parties, including the affected employee bargaining groups—a process that can take several months.

ii. Accompaniment Policy – FOD 12-02

The LASD Accompaniment Policy went through the final revision process simultaneously with the drafting work described in the HND Policy section above. The principal hurdle the Parties and the MT addressed was proposed language in a NOTE to the Purpose section of FOD 12-02 regarding deputies who respond to criminal activity or suspects they encounter during a housing-related accompaniment. The Parties and the MT reached a preliminary agreement on the NOTE language, subject to final approvals by both parties. The DOJ and MT gave approval to FOD 12-02 on July 27, pending final reviews by LASD.

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

16

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 22 of 48 Page ID #:445

2.

Steps Toward Compliance

The Review of Bias-Free Policing—The Fair Housing Act and Law Enforcement training curricula have been found to comply with SA paragraph 57a regarding Stops, Seizures, and Searches related to Section 8 activity, and SA paragraph 70e related to the requirements of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), with specific emphasis on discrimination on the basis of race. As mentioned, the MT is reviewing Department documentation that all appropriate personnel have received the training and that a plan has been implemented to ensure those personnel who return to work or begin work anew in the AV also receive the training. Roll call trainings are currently under development; the MT and DOJ will review those curricula and their implementation in the next reporting period. The Department and MT have begun work to define what information that documentation needs to include.

Recently, LASD informed the MT and DOJ that further revision to the HND Policy was requested by the supervisor’s union (Professional Peace Officers Association); the text of that revision was initially rejected by the MT and DOJ. LASD has also indicated that further revision to the accompaniment policy has been requested by the deputy’s union (Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs). The MT and Parties have begun discussion regarding the requested revisions. It is expected that in the next reporting period, these policies will be finalized and approved and that the Department should achieve policy compliance with SA paragraphs 73, 76, and 77. Following final approval of the policies, to reach compliance on paragraphs 74 and 75, the Department will need to provide documentation to the MT showing that all appropriate deputies have received, understood, and agreed to abide by the new policies.

With policy development compliance and training compliance, the monitoring activity will shift to assessing outcomes related to these policies and training and to how LASD supervisors and managers track those outcomes. Related SA provisions address the following:

•

Ensure that LASD supervisors and managers monitor and evaluate compliance

with these policies regularly and take appropriate corrective action if an issue

arises, including investigation, complaint adjudication, and discipline.

•

Ensure that AV supervisors and managers monitor and evaluate compliance with

FOD 12-02 regularly and take appropriate corrective actions if an issue arises,

including investigation, complaint adjudication, and discipline.

As also described in the Stops section, final compliance will be achieved when the MT determines through onsite observations, record reviews, audits, and outcome analysis that the Department has met and remains in compliance with these requirements for at least one year, including evidence that the intentions of the SA as expressed in the new policies are thoroughly and consistently met in the field and that outcomes are reviewed by supervisors and managers, with appropriate action taken as necessary. The MT's assessment of compliance will also include a review of any revisions to the training or how it is conducted that become necessary based on the audits and outcome analysis. MT review will include continued inspection and oversight of

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

17

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 23 of 48 Page ID #:446

the training program and curricula pertaining to stop, search, and seizures, including supervisory review. This process will include observing sample training sessions to assess whether they are thorough and effective. It will also include a periodic review of training records to verify that existing AV supervisors and managers have received the training and are re-trained at least biennially. To ensure that any new AV supervisors and managers or those returning from an extended absence receive the requisite training, the MT will periodically review those records.

3.

Next Steps

The following summarizes the expected MT activities in the next reporting period with regard to Section 8 housing.

i.

HND Policy

•

The MT will sample and analyze documentation waivers of individuals subject to

SA paragraphs 74–75 to determine if all deputies have the requisite signed

acknowledgments.

•

The MT will analyze LASD complaints, administrative investigations, survey

results, Watch Commander logs, and other relevant documents and resources for

LASD-AV deputy involvement in housing-related activities, to determine whether

such activity was conducted in accordance with the FHA and the HND Policy.

•

The MT will conduct interviews of LASD personnel, community members, and

persons with information relevant to LASD-AV housing activities to determine

whether any such activity was conducted in accordance with the FHA and the

HND Policy.

ii. Accompaniment Policy

•

The MT will review and analyze all stat code 787 data, including (1) deputy

accompaniment of housing authority workers during voucher holder compliance

checks, (2) LASD’s independent investigations for criminal fraud based on

voucher holder compliance with the voucher contract, and (3) deputy calls,

observations, or incidents involving voucher holders.

•

MT will analyze LASD complaints, administrative investigations, survey results,

Watch Commander logs, and semiannual analysis of data containing stat code

787 on a countywide basis and other relevant documents and resources for

LASD-AV deputy involvement in housing related activities to determine whether

such activity was conducted in accordance with FOD 12-02.

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

18

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 24 of 48 Page ID #:447

•

MT will conduct interviews of relevant LASD personnel, community members, and

persons with information relevant to LASD-AV housing activities.

iii. Remaining SA Provisions Regarding Compliance Assessment
The following SA paragraphs describe the SA required audits and analysis that both the Department and MT will use to assess compliance with the housing-related elements of the SA.
LASD will conduct at least semi-annual analysis of, at a minimum, the following AV data: . . . Voucher Holder compliance checks involving LASD personnel. (paragraph 82g)
In addition to compliance reviews and audits, the Monitor shall conduct qualitative and quantitative outcome assessments to measure whether LASD's implementation of this Agreement has eliminated practices that resulted in DOJ's finding a pattern and practice of constitutional violations. These outcome assessments shall include collection and analysis, both quantitative and qualitative, of . . . Section 8 Compliance Enforcement Measurements . . . (paragraph 153c)
The revised Analysis of LASD Stop and Use of Force Data for Antelope Valley submitted by LASD addresses some of SA paragraph 153. The other required analyses are expected to begin in the next reporting period. Once implemented, final compliance will require the Department to meet the requirements for at least one year. The Community Survey described in the Community Engagement section below will also address Section 8 related outcomes.

D. Community Engagement
As described in previous reports, the term “community engagement” primarily refers to the LASD’s efforts to interact productively with the community and thus build and maintain trust and confidence in the Department among all community members. The Monitoring Team’s role in the community engagement process is to observe and assess LASD’s efforts to interact with and improve its relations with the Antelope Valley community. As with other sections of the SA, the MT may also provide advice and technical assistance as appropriate and necessary.

1.

Monitoring Team Activities

The MT participated in the following activities and events in the past six months, several of which are discussed in more detail in the next section.

a. In addition to various onsite activities and meetings held between MT staff, LASD personnel, and community stakeholders, the MT and DOJ conducted two site visits during this monitoring period (June 12–15 and September 18–22) to more

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

19

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 25 of 48 Page ID #:448

fully engage with the community. These activities were centered around reviewing LASD outreach efforts and community policing and problem-solving endeavors between LASD and the community.

b. Reviewed and responded to LASD-AV’s community engagement report, Bridge to Peace: LASD Crime Prevention and Community Engagement Strategies 2016, including providing a memo with recommendations to the Department.

c. Reviewed LASD-AV Monthly Community Engagement Reports.

d. Reviewed drafts of LASD community relations material.

e. Attended Lancaster CAC quarterly town hall meeting.

f. Held joint meeting with both Lancaster and Palmdale CACs.

g. Participated in individual and group meetings/discussions with community members. Informally interviewed community leaders to receive input on LASD– Community relations.

h. Reviewed semi-annual reports from CACs. Provided CACs with suggested outline for future reports.

i. Received and followed up on community members’ calls, emails, and other inquiries informing the MT of complaints they have lodged with the AV stations or providing feedback to the team.

j. Rode along in Lancaster and Palmdale to observe deputy interactions with the community and monitor compliance with specific provisions of the SA.

k. Interviewed AV station deputies, sergeants, and command staff.

l. Worked with LASD, DOJ, and UCLA research team to develop the AV Community Survey.

2.

LASD Community Engagement Activity

The LASD-AV stations maintain a monthly Community Engagement Tracking Report, which lists the various meetings and events that LASD personnel have attended. It is clear that LASD is participating in numerous community events and has been making a concerted effort to reach out to the various AV communities, and to track these outreach efforts. LASD has also sought to provide opportunities for all deputies to participate in community engagement activities, such as Palmdale’s Coffee with a Commuter event, which allowed deputies at the end of their “midnight” shift to interact with AV residents starting their day. LASD and the MT are in

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

20

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 26 of 48 Page ID #:449

discussion about what constitutes compliance in this area. Although LASD has made progress, not every sworn staff member of LASD-AV is participating in quarterly community meetings and events. Until the compliance measures for deputy participation in community meetings and events are finalized, compliance with the mandate to regularly attend meetings (SA paragraph 88) cannot be assessed.

LASD submitted a draft of its 2016 Community Engagement Annual Report to the MT in August. On August 30, the MT responded in a memo to LASD. The following quoted paragraph captures the crux of the memo: “We [the Monitoring Team] recommend the Department provide more detail regarding the specific goals and objectives [outcomes] that it hopes to achieve through its community engagement strategies—and not simply document attendance at events. Although attendance of LASD personnel at certain community events and meetings is very important, attendance alone is not necessarily relationship building. And public relations efforts do not necessarily constitute or result in meaningful community engagement. The MT urged the Department to be mindful of the introduction to the Community Engagement section of the Settlement Agreement, which states: ‘LASD agrees to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community, to engage constructively with the community to ensure collaborative problem-solving and bias-free policing, and to increase community confidence in the Department.’”

3.

Lancaster and Palmdale Community Advisory Committees

On the evening of June 14, the MT and DOJ attended the Lancaster CAC’s quarterly town hall meeting. The meeting followed the Days of Dialogue format that both CACs have used, which places small groups of community members and Lancaster deputies in circles to discuss police– community relations. Although the flyer for the town hall meeting was widely distributed on social media and via email, there were approximately 15 community members present, along with 10 members of LASD.

On September 19, the MT held a joint meeting with both the Lancaster and Palmdale CACs. In attendance were several members of the MT, the DOJ, and LASD.

CAC members discussed with the MT their concerns, challenges, and successes with fulfilling their CAC mission. The MT asked about how the Department is processing feedback from the community and how the CACs are documenting those issues and responses. There was discussion of the CACs issuing regular reports, as required by the SA. The MT also asked CAC members what LASD can do to improve relations with the AV community. At the request of CAC members, a few days after the meeting, the MT provided a suggested outline for ongoing CAC semi-annual reports. The MT offered the CACs additional technical assistance as needed; several CAC members expressed interest but a date has not yet been agreed upon.

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

21

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 27 of 48 Page ID #:450

4.

Monitoring Team Recommendations

The MT has encouraged LASD to view community engagement as a means of developing and nurturing long-term relationships with neighborhoods and community members, especially in communities of color and with youth (as specified by the SA). LASD can achieve these objectives by having sincere community dialogues, implementing a comprehensive community policing strategy, participating in a broader array of community meetings and events, and receiving and responding to community input. The MT has made the following suggestions on how LASD-AV can improve community engagement.

•

The Department must develop and document a plan to comply with paragraph

88 of the SA, which mandates that LASD-AV’s Community Engagement plan “take

into account the need to enhance relationships with . . . youth and communities

of color.” This recommendation has been made to LASD in person in meetings

and was mentioned in the previous six-month monitoring report. This plan

should incorporate the programs LASD already has in place, identify any

programmatic gaps that need to be filled, and describe the Department’s

overarching goals and strategies regarding youth outreach. The MT will be

reviewing LASD’s current youth programs, including Making Appropriate Choices

(MAC), the Explorer Academy, VIDA, Pen or Pencil, and the Yellow Submarine

Drop-in Center.

•

Beyond the CAC meetings, the MT recommends LASD consider hosting quarterly

town hall meetings for the purpose of hearing from the community. Department

personnel giving talks or presenting reports to the community can serve

important purposes, but these town hall meetings should instead stress the

Department listening to the community members. The MT recommends

participants at these meetings include patrol deputies and sergeants, in addition

to the captains of each station and a few others in leadership, and that these

personnel sit with and engage community members. This recommendation has

been made to LASD in person in meetings and was made in the previous

six-month monitoring report.

One of the community members suggested that each station hold a community event or series of town hall–type meetings in Spanish—not a meeting held in English that offers translation, but a meeting held in Spanish that provides translation into English for those who need it. It was also suggested that LASD make it clear that members of the undocumented community are invited to the meeting and are guaranteed that they will be safe to attend. LASD should consider working with CAC members to determine effective ways to assuage the concerns of the undocumented community.

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

22

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 28 of 48 Page ID #:451

In addition to responses and recommendations quoted above, the MT has also encouraged
LASD to adopt and define a genuine community policing model to implement in the Antelope Valley.3

5.

Steps Toward Compliance

LASD is in partial compliance with several provisions of the SA. For each of these, LASD has fulfilled much of the material elements explicitly described in the text. However, similar to newly developed policies or trainings, full implementation compliance has additional criteria, including documentation of the practices and ongoing assessment (by both the Department and MT) to ensure the practices are being conducted as intended and, importantly, are having the intended impact in LASD–Community relations. The SA also establishes a mandate for “sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing and public trust.”4

a.

LASD-AV’s Bridge to Peace community engagement report mentioned above meets the

requirements of SA paragraph 91. As described above, the MT has given feedback as to

how future iterations of the report can be improved.

b. LASD-AV consistently participates in local community meetings and has formally established and memorialized the CACs into policy (SA paragraph 94). The MT and Parties continue to discuss how deputy participation in community meetings can be expanded and how the operation of the CACs can go further to establish them in their role of expressing the voice of the whole AV community and serving as link between the Department and AV residents.

c.

The LASD sought the assistance of community advocates and widely disseminated to the

public, including on the website—in English and Spanish—an explanation of the SA

requirements (paragraph 92). LASD and the MT must continue to assess whether the

non-English-speaking members of the AV community have a clear understanding of the

SA and the role of the monitors and CACs, and, more broadly, equal access to LASD

services.

d. The LASD has formally established CACs at both stations. The LASD is providing the CAC with reasonable administrative support, including meeting space. In addition, LASD has

3 The US DOJ COPS office illustrates what is meant by community policing: “Community policing emphasizes proactive problem solving in a systematic and routine fashion. 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.” (https://cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2558)
4 SA paragraph 15 states that "’Full and effective compliance’ means achieving both sustained compliance with all material requirements of this Agreement and sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing and public trust, as demonstrated pursuant to the Agreement's outcome measures.”

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

23

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 29 of 48 Page ID #:452

facilitated the Monitor’s efforts to provide advice and technical assistance to the CACs (SA paragraph 96). The focus now is on improving the capacity of the CACs to meet their stated mission, including, when appropriate and possible, LASD and the MT providing additional support and technical assistance.

e.

LASD ensures that the CACs will not have access to any nonpublic information regarding

an individual deputy or allegation of misconduct or disciplinary action (SA paragraph 97).

The MT has seen no indication that confidential information is released to the CACs or

any member of the public.

However, key activities remain fully or partially incomplete. Other items do not have clear definitions. In the following areas of the SA, either the Department is not in compliance or certain definitions or compliance metrics are being clarified among the Parties:

a.

Work with the community on the development of diversion programs (SA paragraph 87).

b. Develop a plan for all LASD sworn personnel to actively and regularly attend community meetings and events based on the results of the annual community satisfaction surveys and feedback from the civilian panel, and take into account the need to enhance relationships with particular groups within the community, including youth, and communities of color (SA paragraph 88).

c.

Provide structured, annual in-service training on community policing and problem-

oriented policing methods and skills for all AV deputies, including station supervisors

and unit commanders (SA paragraph 89).

d. During LASD’s monthly Crime Management Forum meetings and semiannual Risk Management Forum meetings, the MT recommends including consideration and discussion of the expectations and priorities of the AV community members (as identified through the CACs, LASD community engagement activities, and other means) in order to identify areas of concern and to better develop interventions to address them (SA paragraph 90).

e.

Although the Department is in compliance with several provisions related to the CACs, it

remains in only partial compliance with SA paragraph 93. The Department provides

information and support to the CACs and in turn supports the CACs in providing advice

and feedback to the LASD's Antelope Valley stations. However, LASD needs to advance

its efforts in leveraging “the insights and expertise of the community to address policing

concerns, including, but not limited to, racial or ethnic profiling and access to law

enforcement services” and in the CACs working with the Sheriff and station commanders

to establish and carry out community public safety priorities.

f.

LASD to post the CAC reports on the Department’s website and consider and respond to

the civilian panel's recommendations in a timely report (SA paragraph 95).

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

24

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 30 of 48 Page ID #:453

6.

Community Survey Update

The MT, LASD, DOJ, and UCLA held a series of meetings to finalize the community survey required by SA paragraphs 98–101. The survey will be administered to the AV community beginning in early 2018. The survey will assess the community’s interactions with and perceptions of LASD on a number of factors, such as service provision, openness to hearing grievances, bias-free policing practices, and community relations. The survey will be administered annually, with this first survey serving as a baseline to determine how those perceptions change over time. If the survey does not reflect a representative sample of the AV community (SA paragraphs 98-99), the MT, LASD, DOJ, and UCLA will develop additional survey methods or outreach to reach any portions of the community that are underrepresented in the survey (e.g., law enforcement personnel, Section 8 voucher holders, detained arrestees, and demographic groups).

7.

Next Steps

In November, the MT submitted the draft compliance measures for the Community Engagement section of the SA. LASD and DOJ are reviewing the draft, and the Parties will meet to negotiate the finalization of the compliance measures in early 2018.

In the next reporting period, the MT will continue to support and monitor the research team with administration of the survey and data collection. The MT will continue to host periodic community meetings, beginning in December, and will attend CAC meetings. If desired by the CACs, the MT will provide training to CACs on CAC roles, responsibilities, and activities as well as report structure and meeting documentation. The MT will work with the Department to facilitate compliance with the remaining provisions of the SA, including addressing those concerning regular deputy engagement with the community, diversion programs, training regarding community-oriented policing, and leveraging the input of the CACs to improve its law enforcement practices.

E. Use of Force
Section VIII of the SA governs LASD policies, procedures, and culture associated with the use, review, and adjudication of force by Department members. The SA requires LASD to “revise its use-of-force policies and practices to reflect its commitment to upholding the rights secured or protected by the Constitution.” (page 24.) Specifically, LASD is currently revising its use-of-force (UOF) policies, training, and accountability measures so that AV deputies use force as a last resort, use only the level of force necessary while avoiding unnecessary injury, and de-escalate the use of force at the earliest possible moment (SA page 24).

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

25

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 31 of 48 Page ID #:454

LASD has agreed to revise its policies and associated training materials to abide with SA paragraphs 102–123, which address:

•

The use of force and the use of advisements, warnings, threat assessments,

de-escalation, and proportionality; and the prohibition of retaliatory force

(paragraphs 102–105);

•

Use-of-force training, reporting, investigation, review, and adjudication

(paragraphs 107–119); and,

•

Analysis and audit of the use of force by AV deputies (paragraphs 120–123).

1.

Use-of-Force Analysis and SA Required Audits

SA paragraphs 120–123 mandate that the Department conduct a specific use-of-force analysis in compliance with the following requirements:

•

To analyze the AV stations’ force data annually, including related outcomes data,

to identify trends and deficiencies and correct them.

•

To assess the frequency and nature of use-of-force incidents that are referred for

investigation, the subject of complaints or civil suits, related criminal obstruction

or resisting issues, or repeated complaints against deputies or units.

•

To determine whether policy or training curricula changes are needed.

•

To document the results of the use-of-force analysis in a public report.

The Department’s AAB has published several audit reports that cite and “consider” various SA paragraphs. However, the Department has yet to conduct any of the SA required audits for MT evaluation of SA compliance with these or any other SA paragraphs. The Department is out of compliance with these paragraphs and will remain out of compliance until it submits the specifically required SA audits, along with the associated audit work papers for MT evaluation for completeness and the audit standard of due professional care. Those audits must ultimately document sufficient audit evidence to demonstrate compliance has been achieved and subsequently sustained for at least 12 months. Also, as described in the Bias-free Policing section above, the Department submitted Analysis of LASD Stop and Use of Force Data for Antelope Valley, 6-9-2017, which provided certain UOF analysis. At this time, the MT and DOJ have not approved the report. This subject will be discussed in meetings with the MT, the Parties, and the researcher in the next reporting period.

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

26

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 32 of 48 Page ID #:455

2.

MT Activities in this Reporting Period

The AV Monitor’s fourth semi-annual report included that the MT prepared an outline of what an “improved and comprehensive use-of-force policy would contain and how it might be structured.” That outline has been the subject of several discussions among the MT, LASD, and the DOJ and has resulted in the resolution of several significant issues, including the definition of key elements such as off-duty use-of-force reporting requirements and specific language to be used regarding the de-escalation of use-of-force incidents.

In September 2017, LASD submitted for preliminary review to the MT and DOJ a draft revision of its use-of-force policies that includes several noteworthy improvements and addresses the following SA mandates:

•

SA paragraph 101 provisions associated with upholding the rights secured or

protected by the Constitution were added to Policy Section 3-10/000.00;

•

SA paragraph 103 provisions associated with de-escalating confrontations

through tactical communication, advisements, warnings, and verbal persuasion

were added to Policy Section 3-10/005.00;

•

SA provisions associated with using force in a manner that avoids unnecessary

injury to deputies and civilians were added to Policy Section 3-10/020.00;

•

SA paragraph 105 provisions associated with the prohibition of the use of

retaliatory force were added to Policy Section 3-10/030.50; and,

•

SA paragraph 109 provisions associated with the prohibition of the use of

boilerplate language and holding deputies accountable for material omissions

and inaccuracies in their statements were added to Policy Section 3-10/110.00.

The draft policy also includes a list of factors to be considered by Department management in determining the objective reasonableness of the force used by AV deputies. However, the MT and DOJ have several concerns with the draft policy which are under on-going discussion with the Department. Chief among those concerns are the Department’s definition for a reportable use of force and the length of the draft policy, which is 34 pages, constituting Volume 3, Chapter 10 of the LASD Manual of Policy and Procedures. Monitors believe the Department would be well served to develop a UOF policy that is clear, succinct, and easily understood by deputies and all AV stakeholders.

3.

Use-of-Force Audit Planning and Early Work

During this reporting period, the MT took the following steps to assess the Department’s progress to fulfill SA use-of-force related requirements, including laying the groundwork for a UOF audit:

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

27

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 33 of 48 Page ID #:456

•

Met with the LASD and DOJ representatives and discussed the Department’s draft

use-of-force policy changes.

•

Attended a presentation of a draft proposed use-of-force policy for custody

operations that, according to the Department, may be considered as a

Department-wide template at a future date.

•

Attended an LASD Risk Management meeting.

•

Reviewed the AAB proposed audit work plan of use-of-force investigations in the

AV and provided feedback.

•

Reviewed the AAB audit of Lancaster use-of-force investigations.5

•

Reviewed a sample of complaint investigations involving the use of force by AV

deputies.

•

Completed and submitted an MT UOF audit work plan to evaluate AV use-of-

force investigations, and their adjudication, along with related LASD policies and

procedures.

•

Identified an audit population, sample, and strata of use-of-force investigations in

the Antelope Valley.

•

Conducted use-of-force audit entrance interviews with LASD DOJ Compliance

Unit managers and supervisors.

4.

Steps Toward Compliance

LASD is not yet in compliance with any of the UOF provisions (SA paragraphs 102–123). As described above, the Department has made progress towards revising their UOF policies to address SA paragraphs 102–117, but the draft policies require additional revisions before they can be finalized. Once the policies are approved, the department will be required to draft and submit the course curricula or other documentation to demonstrate compliance with the training and review processes required by paragraphs 118 and 119. The Department has not submitted sufficient documentation of the audits, analyses, and assessments required by paragraphs 120–123. Along with the MT’s audits, those documents will be required for the MT

5 The stated purpose of the AAB audit of Lancaster use-of-force investigations was to evaluate Department policy and not demonstrate compliance with SA paragraphs 120–123. Thus, it was not evaluated for, nor will it satisfy compliance with, those paragraphs.

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

28

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 34 of 48 Page ID #:457

to assess the successful implementation of paragraphs 102–119 and, thus, the Department’s compliance with the UOF provisions.

5.

Expected Activities in the Next Six Months

During the next six months, the MT will conduct an SA compliance audit of UOF investigations involving LASD deputies in the AV. This audit will be comprehensive and will include a thorough analysis of AV use-of-force investigations including their completeness, the review and approval processes, and management oversight. The audit will function as an integral component of the Monitor’s procedures to evaluate how the Department documents, investigates, adjudicates, and memorializes the use of force by LASD deputies in the AV and the Department’s compliance with the following SA paragraphs:

1.

LASD agrees to continue to prohibit the use of force above [compliant] handcuffing to

overcome passive resistance . . . (paragraph 102)

2.

Deputies shall use advisements, warnings, and verbal persuasion, when possible, before

resorting to force; and de-escalate force immediately as resistance decreases. (paragraph

103)

3.

LASD agrees . . . deputies may not use force against individuals who may be exhibiting

resistive behavior, but who are under control and do not pose a threat to the public

safety . . . Antelope Valley deputies assess the threat . . . prior to using force, and emphasize

that a use of force must be proportional . . . (paragraph 104)

4.

LASD agrees to explicitly prohibit the use of retaliatory force . . . (paragraph 105)

5.

LASD agrees to explicitly prohibit . . . discouraging a member of the public, who is not

violating any other law, from taking photographs or recording video. . . . Such prohibited

interference includes: . . . Using force upon that person . . . (paragraph 106)

6.

LASD will continue to require . . . that a hard strike to the head with any impact weapon,

including a baton, is prohibited unless deadly force is justified. Unintentional or mistaken

blows to these areas must be reported . . . (paragraph 107)

7.

LASD agrees to continue to require deputies to report all uses of force above un-resisted

handcuffing. LASD shall continue to require Antelope Valley deputies to completely and

accurately describe the . . . specific force used in response to the suspect’s actions, any

injuries or complaint of injuries, and any medical treatment or refusal of medical

treatment. (paragraph 108)

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

29

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 35 of 48 Page ID #:458

8.

The use of force reporting policy shall explicitly prohibit the use of conclusory

statements . . . “boilerplate” language. . . . Deputies shall be held accountable for material

omissions or inaccuracies in their use of force statements . . . (paragraph 109)

9.

LASD agrees to continue to require deputies . . . to notify their supervisors immediately

following any reportable use of force incident or upon receipt of an allegation of

unreasonable or unreported use of force by any deputy. (paragraph 110)

10. For all reportable uses of force, the investigating supervisor shall conduct a thorough investigation . . . (paragraph 111)

11. . . . each supervisor shall continue to complete a supervisory investigation documented in a “Supervisor’s Report on Use of Force.” This Report shall include . . . (paragraph 112)

12. Upon completion of the Supervisor’s Report on Use of Force, the investigating supervisor shall forward the report through their chain of command, which will review the report to ensure that it is thorough and complete, and that the analysis and findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. (paragraph 113)

13. LASD agrees to continue to require that the Executive Force Review Committee review use of force incidents requiring response by the IAB Force/Shooting Response Team . . . and to review the incidents for any policy, training, or tactical concerns and/or violations. (paragraph 114)

14. LASD will hold deputies accountable for uses of force that violate policy or law . . . , require station commanders to refer uses of force that may violate law or the Department’s Prohibited Force policy, to the Internal Affairs Bureau . . . for further investigation or review. (paragraph 115)

15. LASD will hold supervisors accountable for not detecting, adequately investigating, or responding to force that is unreasonable or otherwise contrary to LASD policy. (paragraph 116)

16. LASD and Antelope Valley unit commanders will be responsible for identifying and reporting force trends and for taking preventive steps to curb problematic trends . . .
(paragraph 117)

17. LASD and Antelope Valley unit commanders will regularly review and track “training and tactical review” related findings, recommendations . . . to ensure that informal supervisory feedback does not replace the need for formal discipline. LASD will ensure that the supervisory feedback, including feedback documented in the “training and tactical review” portion of a Supervisor’s Report on Use of Force, is documented in the PPI. (paragraph 118)

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

30

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 36 of 48 Page ID #:459

The audit will propose recommendations to address any issues identified in the audit’s findings, and subsequent audits will examine the Department’s implementation of the previous audits’ recommendations and other efforts by LASD.

The audit will be submitted as partial documentation of the SA requirement that the Monitor perform various assessments and audits, as described in the following SA paragraphs:

•

. . . the Monitor will assess the County's progress in implementing, and achieving

compliance with, the Agreement; report on the status of implementation to the

Parties and the Court . . . (paragraph 146)

•

In order to assess and report on LASD's implementation of this Agreement and

whether implementation is resulting in constitutional policing, the Monitor shall

conduct compliance reviews and audits and outcome assessments as specified

below . . . (paragraph 148)

•

The monitor shall conduct compliance reviews or audits as necessary to determine

whether LASD has implemented and continues to comply with the material

requirements of this Agreement. . . . Compliance reviews and audits will contain

both qualitative and quantitative elements as necessary for reliability and

comprehensiveness. (paragraph 149)

•

The monitor will conduct an ongoing review and report on LASD use of force on

restrained individuals, use of force in response to spitting, and use of OC spray.

(paragraph 151)

F. Personnel Complaint Review

The preamble to the section of the SA governing personnel complaints states the LASD agreed to ensure that all allegations of personnel misconduct are received, that they are fully and fairly investigated, and that personnel who commit misconduct are held accountable (page 29).

Recognizing that a law enforcement agency’s policy governing the intake and classification of
community complaints is a threshold issue to its entire disciplinary process, several SA
paragraphs specifically address the way in which personnel complaints are to be classified and distinguished from non-disciplinary service complaints.6 Specifically, LASD agreed to:

•

Ensure personnel complaint forms and information is available at specified

locations in the AV and on their website, that the Department accept all

6 A personnel complaint alleges employee misconduct, while a service complaint is about the Department’s policies or service prioritization.

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

31

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 37 of 48 Page ID #:460

complaints, and that refusing to accept a complaint or discouraging a complaint is grounds for discipline (Paragraphs 124-126).

•

Revise its complaint investigation policies to ensure that all personnel allegations

are classified accurately so each allegation receives the appropriate level of

review (SA paragraph 127);

•

Ensure that personnel complaints are not misclassified as service complaints (SA

paragraph 128); and,

•

Revise its policies regarding allegations that may require discipline and need to

be investigated as administrative investigations rather than as a service

complaint. (SA paragraphs 129–130).

Additionally, the SA delineates requirements for the investigation of complaints including which complaints must be referred to Internal Affairs, who must be interviewed, and what constitutes a thorough investigation (paragraphs 131–137). The SA requires that information on the Department’s complaint process be available to the public and it identifies the training that is to be provided to deputies and supervisors (paragraphs 138–139). Finally, it requires the Department to perform an annual audit of complaints (paragraph 140).

1.

Monitoring Team Activities

During this reporting period, the MT continued to assess the way in which the Department accepts, investigates, reviews, classifies, adjudicates, and memorializes community complaints in the Antelope Valley. In August 2017, the MT was advised by DOJ of three instances in which community members alleged that LASD personnel refused to accept or discouraged complaints. In addition, the MT team conducted interviews with LASD personnel during the September 2017 site visit that raised concerns about complaint intake or discouragement of complaints. The MT will continue to monitor complaint intake at the Lancaster and Palmdale stations to ensure LASD personnel do not discourage or undermine the complaint intake process.

The MT conducted a comprehensive audit of complaints made by members of the AV community to determine:

•

The availability of complaint forms for AV community members;

•

The Department’s community complaint intake practices in the AV;

•

The classification of AV community complaints;

•

The completeness of AV community complaint investigations;

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

32

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 38 of 48 Page ID #:461

•

The review and approval of AV community complaints;

•

The quality and completeness of management’s review not only of the complaint

itself, but any policy, training, or discipline that may arise in a community

complaint;

•

Records retention mandates associated with complaint investigations; and,

•

Department compliance with the SA paragraphs governing personnel complaints.

(paragraphs 124–140)

2.

Steps Toward Compliance

Whether the LASD is in compliance with the Personnel Complaint Review section of the SA cannot be determined at this time. The results of the MT’s complaints audit will, however, shed light on the Department’s progress toward compliance with that section’s provisions, with the exceptions of paragraphs 132, 138, 139, and 140. Paragraph 132 was not addressed in the audit, but will be in assessed through other means. To address compliance with the training and review processes required by paragraphs 138 and 139, the Department will need to submit for review by the MT and DOJ the course curricula and other documentation. The MT will observe trainings, review the Department’s documentation of training participants, and assess training outcomes through various means. The Department has not submitted for review the audits and related documents required for the MT to assess compliance with paragraph 140.

3.

Next Steps

The MT’s audit report is scheduled to be finalized at the start of the next reporting period. The report will be used to inform a discussion with the Department and DOJ to review the audit’s findings and recommendations and develop a plan to correct any deficiencies identified. This may include training, development of investigative protocols, and revisions to current policies and procedures. Subsequent audits conducted by monitors will evaluate the Department’s implementation of any proposed recommendations.

The audit findings will also be used to finalize the monitoring work plans for the complaint sections of the SA, particularly with respect to quantitative and qualitative measurements of compliance. The audit will inform the work plans, because it will identify those SA provisions that are critical and require a high degree of compliance (e.g., investigations must be sufficiently thorough to allow for reliable and complete findings [Paragraph 131]) and those that may not require such a high degree of accuracy (e.g., entry of background data into PRMS).

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

33

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 39 of 48 Page ID #:462
G. Accountability
The Accountability section of the SA (paragraphs 141–145) encompasses a primary focus on management accountability practices, outlining requirements related to data collection and evaluating personnel performance via the Personnel Performance Index (PPI, now known as the Performance Recording and Monitoring System or PRMS) and the Performance Mentoring Program (PMP). Specifically, these paragraphs require LASD managers to collect the data necessary to evaluate personnel performance by making peer comparisons and analyzing trends, and to provide follow-up interventions—including mentoring—for employees whose performance falls below expected standards. The intent of the Accountability section and related provisions in the SA is to ensure organizational accountability and appropriate oversight through the observation and evaluation of both individual behaviors and the collective performance of employees at all levels of the organization, including that of management staff.
Management accountability requirements are much broader than defined in paragraphs 141–145. In fact, they permeate every aspect of the SA. Without them, even the best policy, procedure, and training will not prevent the deficiencies found in the DOJ investigation.
As stated in the previous semi-annual report, accountability begins and ultimately ends with LASD management. It requires ongoing attention to and evaluation of both individual and group performance, as well as a willingness to scrutinize and remedy systemic deficiencies. The accountability process includes consideration of each stage of detailed personnel performance evaluation and establishing and updating the policies, procedures, and training necessary to comply with the intent of each section of the SA. Every section involves various policy and procedural requirements that will be measured and evaluated as part of the work the MT conducts related to those sections. It is the intent of the MT to focus primarily on the processes related to management oversight and accountability. Accountability processes must be built into the fabric of operations at every level of the organization. The MT’s work will consider the Department’s entire accountability system while paying particular attention to the key components where deficiencies have been identified in the DOJ findings letter and addressed in the SA.
These accountability systems provide two important functions. The first is to enable the MT to verify that, in fact, operations are conducted consistent with policy and as required by the SA. But, second—and more important—is to provide permanent mechanisms for management to routinely review and evaluate operations and performance in real time, assess risk exposures, and ensure and verify that standards are being appropriately met.

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 40 of 48 Page ID #:463

To that end, the LASD has implemented several accountability practices that the MT has observed over the past six months. These practices include weekly reviews of Deputy Daily Work Sheets (DDWSs) by supervisors and monthly reviews by the Unit Commanders of the report known as the Sheriff’s 11, which identifies deputies who have demonstrated comparatively poor performance on key performance factors. These efforts will be discussed further below.

1.

Monitoring Activities in this Reporting Period

The MT’s primary activities in this six-month period included a series of in-person meetings, observations, data system reviews, and conference calls meant to systematically examine and document the Department’s current accountability practices, including any revisions made since the SA was established; assess the strengths and weaknesses of that system; and continue to work toward meeting the SA requirements.

On August 10, 2017, the MT met with the LASD Compliance Unit to discuss the Department’s approach to developing and implementing standard processes for management accountability and the requirements in the SA for developing specific plans for management to review and analyze information necessary for accountability. The MT and Compliance Unit agreed that it is not enough to have systems that capture and provide data and ad hoc processes for the review of that data. It is necessary to have written processes in place that establish guidelines for reviewing and using the data to ensure that performance meets the established policy standards. Also discussed at this meeting was the draft accountability work plan—including compliance measures—that the MT prepared and presented to the Compliance Unit and DOJ for review and input before adoption.

On August 23, the MT presented a follow-up document to the Compliance Unit describing the “next steps” for moving the accountability process forward.

On September 8, the MT conducted a conference call with the Compliance Unit and the Station Captains to discuss current processes and practices that are meant to address the SA requirements for accountability. These practices include the supervisors’ weekly review of DDWSs to identify errors in data entries made by deputies on incidents and calls for service and to counsel deputies on how to avoid those errors in the future. It also included a description of how the Station Captains review the Sheriff’s 11 monthly reports and identify deputies whose performance will be monitored in the PMP.

In Antelope Valley during the week of September 18–21, the MT met with the Parties at the Lancaster and Palmdale stations for a series of meetings and personnel interviews with the station captains, operations lieutenants, watch commanders, shift supervisors, compliance sergeants, and others. Accountability processes and practices were observed by and described in detail to the MT and DOJ participants.

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

35

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 41 of 48 Page ID #:464

On September 21, the MT observed the Risk Management Forum (RMF).7 The RMF is designed to evaluate several elements of operations at the micro and macro level, while identifying trends or irregularities in statistics. The RMF reviews data for the different stations and provides an opportunity for the Station Captains to respond to questions from superior command personnel.8
Also on September 21, the Parties met to discuss the Accountability Work Plan Draft. The discussion revealed that the Compliance Unit needed more time to review and evaluate the work plan. A meeting will be scheduled to finalize the work plan in the near future.
On November 3, the MT provided an updated outline for accomplishing the “next steps” necessary to develop the plans and protocols for meeting the requirements of the SA and for implementing and monitoring those plans. This updated outline for moving the accountability process forward included target dates for documenting current practices, formalizing protocols, MT review and approval, LASD implementation, and finally, the auditing and monitoring of the protocols by the MT. As proposed, this timeline should be completed by the end of April 2018.
On November 9, the parties met to discuss the accountability work plan and the proposed timeline and target dates for completing the required steps toward full implementation of the accountability plans and protocols.
On November 13, the MT met with the Compliance Unit to discuss establishing how Department management will formalize an accountability plan and protocols to comply with SA sections 141–145. The Compliance Unit presented a draft document describing the Department’s current accountability processes, including how and when performance reviews are undertaken, who performs the review, what factors are considered, what assessment standards or guidelines are applied, how issues are responded to, what documentation of the process occurs, and what checks and balances exist to ensure the entire process is conducted appropriately. The document is a good start to developing additional standards and protocols necessary to provide consistent processes for accountability. The MT has recommended that modifications be made to provide more detail on current practices. The Compliance Unit has committed to revising the document and providing the next draft in December.

2.

Steps Toward Compliance

The Personnel Performance Index (PPI) is now referred to as the Performance Recording and Monitoring System (PRMS). PRMS is LASD’s Department-wide decision support system in matters related to risk management and service reviews.

7 The RMF is chaired by an Assistant Sheriff with participation by top departmental command personnel and is conducted quarterly by Patrol Division.
8 Although the RMF does not directly address some of the key components identified in the SA, it could be modified to more directly address those elements.

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

36

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 42 of 48 Page ID #:465

SA paragraph 141 requires that the PRMS be modified “so that it can make peer comparisons between deputies and units.” It also requires AV unit commanders and supervisors to “conduct periodic reviews of all deputies and units under their command to identify potential trends.” As described in the previous section of this report, this modification is underway. The Department has provided extensive materials regarding these processes; however, there is not yet sufficient written documentation of what specific comparisons are made; what parameters are used to assure issues and trends are identified; how the computer systems are used to automatically “red flag” potential issues and, conversely, how their data systems can be adapted to allow supervisors and management to perform ad hoc analysis and comparisons to ferret out problems; or, finally, what accountability structures are in place to ensure these reviews are conducted in a thorough and consistent manner and are documented. Unit commanders do conduct periodic reviews of deputies via the Sheriff's 11, but that does not address all the elements that should be measured and compared. Also, the Department has not sufficiently demonstrated how they document the reviews.
The SA indicated that the development of PRMS was estimated to take three years to complete. However, the SA requires an alternative process for making such comparisons during the compliance period, pending the full development of the PRMS automated system. Although the Department has initiated some management accountability practices, an alternative process for management review and oversight pending the development of the PRMS automated system has not been presented to the MT as of this writing and is still necessary to evaluate and establish compliance with this requirement of the SA.
LASD has committed in SA paragraph 142 to modifying its procedure for Performance Log Entries (PLEs) so that all entries are maintained in an electronic format, ensuring that PRMS data are accurate, and holding responsible AV personnel accountable for any inaccuracies in data entered. The Department conducts some of the processes described but is not in compliance. Some of the issues are technical, that is, the Department informed the MT that PRMS may not be capable of integrating essential data that is currently captured in other data systems.9 For instance, the data about the stops, searches, and arrests is not in PRMS. It is in a different data system where the CAD data are stored. PLEs are also recorded and accessed through a different system for both technical and bureaucratic reasons. The LASD must complete the evaluation of the systems, determine what data integration is possible, and develop alternative methods as needed to meet the spirit and goals of the SA where integration may not be possible.
Holding all personnel accountable for their conduct and performance is the general intent of accountability, and holding personnel accountable for “inaccuracies in any data entered” as required in SA paragraph 142 is appropriate and necessary, but the most important outcome is to impact future performance. While some practices have been initiated, such as the weekly DDWS reviews, processes have not been documented to establish the guidelines for each
9 For example, the PRMS is administered by a different bureau in a different system than the CAD and MDE information.

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

37

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 43 of 48 Page ID #:466

accountability process. Any process must include how data will be collected and by whom, who will be responsible to review the data, and how personnel are being held accountable for inaccuracies, including a process to measure or evaluate how the requirement’s existence is impacting performance.
In SA paragraph 143, LASD has committed to develop a plan—in consultation with the MT and to be approved by DOJ—to periodically analyze the AV stations’ response “to concerns unique to their stations, such as trends identified through civilian complaints, the CAC, community survey, or other means.” This plan will be critical in establishing management accountability with regard to proactively responding to identified trends. To date, the Department has not developed the required plan. Once the plan is ready, the MT will conduct reviews to determine whether the Department is identifying trends and taking steps to address any identified deficiencies.
The PMP is a non-disciplinary process whereby a supervisory team assists employees in need of specialized or additional training, supervision, or mentoring to address and remedy deficiencies in performance. Mentoring plans are tailored to enhance the specific performance of the individual employee.
SA paragraph 144 states that “LASD will continue to provide mentorship to deputies in the North Patrol Division’s locally based . . . PMP, as well as through LASD’s department-wide PMP, based upon an appropriate determination of eligibility. To increase the effectiveness of the remedies and corrective action used to address a deputy’s behavior, LASD will support and implement a plan to ensure that the LASD wide PMP program provides mentoring of AV personnel within 30 days after the need for mentoring is identified, and that appropriate procedures are in place for supervising deputies whose performance fails to improve subsequent to mentoring.” In practice, the LASD has some of the required processes in place, but has not yet presented the required plan to the MT. Processes for command personnel to monitor and manage the PMP have not been adequately identified. Any plan should establish criteria for placement into the PMP, with goals or desired outcomes specifically identified for the involved personnel. A standard process will also be necessary for supervisors to document the impacts of the PMP on individual performance.
SA paragraph 145 requires that the Department-wide PMP and the North Patrol Division’s PMP “coordinate as appropriate with each other and share information about deputies and their individual mentoring programs.” The MT will assess the Department’s process for assuring this is done on a regular and effective basis.

3.

Next Steps

To summarize, the Department has several accountability practices in place that will need to be properly documented, formalized, and, in some cases, possibly revised to comply with the SA. Directives for some of these management practices are established in a variety of departmental

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

38

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 44 of 48 Page ID #:467
handbooks, memos, procedures, and newsletters, but there is no central directive or policy document that establishes and speaks directly to accountability measures in terms of what actions are required, by whom, and at what intervals, and how these actions are to be documented, reviewed, measured, and accounted for. As described above, the Compliance Unit has begun compiling this document. In the next reporting period, the MT will work with the Compliance Unit to identify any gaps or shortcomings in accountability practices and to determine which practices are and are not sufficiently formalized to assure consistent application and SA compliance. Planning for an MT audit of the Department’s review and accountability processes as they relate to these provisions will begin early in the next reporting period.
III. CONCLUSION
The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department continues to work diligently toward compliance with the Settlement Agreement, particularly in this past year. This progress is attributable first and foremost to the attentive, talented, and hard-working members of the Compliance Unit. The Monitor also appreciates the skillful consultations of the County Counsel’s office, the leadership of the Sheriff and the division chief, and the insight and support of the DOJ team. Moreover, the Monitors would like to commend the deputies, sergeants, lieutenants, and captains in the Antelope Valley on their own hard work and, in particular, their openness to constructive feedback. As with all culture change efforts, there have undoubtedly been obstacles to the reform efforts during the last six months. However, all of these participants have shown a commitment to overcome these issues and move the work forward. The Monitors particularly highlight the implementation of the Constitutional and Bias-Free Policing trainings, both of which are exemplary. These trainings required an extensive mobilization of departmental resources, intensive time collaboration with nationally known trainers, and dedication from the stations and their leadership. The Department’s cooperation and transparency around the complaints audit was also impressive and noteworthy. The Monitoring Team will continue to work closely with the Parties to provide the technical assistance and oversight needed to support the Department’s compliance efforts. We are confident that the next six months will indicate further demonstrable progress.

AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

39

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 45 of 48 Page ID #:468
Appendix A: The Monitoring Team The court-appointed Monitors—Dr. Angie Wolf and Joseph Brann—have assembled an experienced group of team members with credentials and skills uniquely suited to the Settlement Agreement (SA) work. The membership of the Monitoring Team (MT) was finalized in March 2016. The two Monitors and seven team members have extensive expertise and experience in monitoring and evaluation work in policing and corrections. Additionally, most of the MT members have served in law enforcement or continue to have distinguished careers in this field, several in the Los Angeles area. Several have served in leadership positions in law enforcement or corrections agencies during the implementation of the compliance period of a settlement agreement or consent decree and therefore understand the unique challenges that large organizations face in those circumstances. The MT members also have particular expertise in dealing with the diverse issues addressed in the SA, such as those related to use of force, training, the Fair Housing Act, data collection and analysis, survey methods, and the complexities of community engagement. This constellation of team members was assembled to support the Monitors’ philosophy of collaborative reform; it is using the principles of evaluation and technical assistance to provide an actionable assessment of LASD’s progress toward implementation of the SA.
AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 46 of 48 Page ID #:469 Appendix B: Antelope Valley Monitoring Website
This website allows Antelope Valley community members to learn more about the Settlement Agreement, the backgrounds of the Monitoring Team members, and the monitoring activities; access documents related to the monitoring work, including the semi-annual reports; follow links to LASD’s homepage and other relevant websites; and—most importantly—submit questions and comments directly to the Monitoring Team. The website’s URL is antelopevalleysettlementmonitoring.info
AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 47 of 48 Page ID #:470
Appendix C: How the Parties and Monitoring Team Work
To complete the work of the Settlement Agreement (SA), the Parties (US DOJ, LASD, and the County of Los Angeles) and the Monitoring Team (MT) are in daily communication through a variety of means. In each six-month period, the Parties and MT hold multiple meetings at LASD headquarters, at the offices of the Compliance Unit, at other administrative offices, at the Palmdale and Lancaster stations, and at various community centers, schools, and places of worship in the Antelope Valley (AV). The MT periodically meets in person with the captains of both AV stations and their staff and participates in multiple onsite meetings with LASD’s Compliance Unit, usually regarding specific issues such as policy or protocol review or data system discussion. The MT also holds meetings with particular units or leadership from other operations that are critical to this reform work, such as the Audit and Accountability Bureau (AAB) or the Commander in charge of training. The MT typically observes the semi-annual LASD risk management meeting and the Crime Management Forum. Although some of these meetings and events are general in scope and pertain to several sections of the SA, most are related to specific sections or provisions of the SA. The Parties and MT also participate in several small- and larger-group community meetings in Palmdale and Lancaster—often with the Community Advisory Committees (CACs)—where various topics are discussed, such as the MT semi-annual reports, LASD and CAC community engagement reports, community perceptions about LASD and its approach to policing, and other topics.
In addition to in-person meetings, there are a variety of conference calls each month along with daily email or telephone communication among representatives of the Parties and the MT. The MT and DOJ participate in a bimonthly call to address substantive issues and planning; another similar bimonthly call is held that involves the MT, the DOJ, and the Compliance Unit; and the MT and Parties, including the Office of County Counsel and extended LASD command staff, participate in a monthly telephone conference call to discuss workflow, future events and meetings, and other salient topics. Several times per year, “onsite” meetings are held where most participants from the Parties and the MT spend several days together doing intensive work on various topics.
When all are not able to be physically present in meetings, videoconferencing is used whenever possible. Documents are shared extensively via email for the purposes of review and collaborative development of the various policies and procedures, training curricula, community engagement materials, audits, and other written elements of the SA. LASD shares departmental data in various formats with the MT via secure email and digital media.
AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 31 Filed 12/22/17 Page 48 of 48 Page ID #:471
Appendix D: Monitors’ Note on the Settlement Agreement, Constitutional Policing, and Organizational Change
As noted in previous reports, the Monitoring Team understands and remains mindful of the many complexities encountered when a large organization undertakes broad policy changes, as well as the challenges of implementing such changes. The Monitors also appreciate the considerations of LASD management in dealing with matters of this nature, such as whether the changes will be confined to the AV stations or affect the entire organization; the likelihood that other existing policies could be affected and therefore need to be revised; that evolving “best practices” and legal considerations also influence policies related to use of force, video recordings, and so on; and the need in many instances to consult with labor groups or legal resources before such policy changes can occur. Throughout the work to date, the Monitors have found the Parties to be strongly committed to ensuring that the requirements of the Settlement Agreement (SA) will not be weakened or overlooked because of these considerations. Based on the ongoing collaboration among the Parties, the MT believes the SA objectives can be achieved in a timely manner. Critical to successfully implementing and sustaining the SA reforms is a commitment to constitutional policing principles. LASD’s ability to meet these responsibilities is dependent on clear policies and effective training. Only when prepared with sufficient training and clarity about the purpose of the SA can deputies clearly understand what the Department expects from them in their community interactions. Only then can deputies honor constitutional standards of policing. Department capacity is also affected by the need to have sufficient accountability systems in place to monitor and evaluate employee performance and management oversight practices.
AV 6 Month Report V Jul-Dec 2017

 
 Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 60 Page ID #:472

MARY C. WICKI-IAM,County Counsel
ROGER H. GRANBO Senior Assistant County Counsel 2(SBN 108372) . .• rgran~o~counsel.lacounry.gov
648 Kenneth Hahn Hallo Administration 3 500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, California 90012-2713 4' Telephone:(213)974-1609 • Faac:(213)626-2105

5' Attorneys for
6 The County ofLos Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department
7

8 '~

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,WESTERN DIVISION

11

12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

CASE NO.2:15-CV-03174-JFW-FFM
SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' SIXTH SEMI-ANN-UAL REPORT

15 TIC COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
16 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

17

Defendants.

18

19

On May 1,2015,the Court approved and entered the parties' Settlement

20 Agreement("Agreement")to resolve the United States'claims against the County of

21 Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department pursuant to

22 42 U.S.C. 14141 (re-codified at 34 U.S.C.§ 12601)and the Fair Housing Act,42

23 U.S.C. 3601 etseq.

24

Paragraph 171 ofthe Agreement requires the Monitors to publically issue a

25 report every six months that details the Parties' progress in implementing the

26 Agreement and achieving compliance with the Agreement. The parties hereby

27 submit the Monitors' Sixth semi-annual report.

28
HOA.I02268915.1
SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' SIXTH SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT

''~ -~-.V-~~,.74

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 2 of 60 Page ID #:473

i
DATED: 2

2Z Z~1 ~ ~!

MARY C. WICKHAM County Con 1

By

~~ ~

4

ROGER GRANBO

5

Senior istant Counsel Counsel

6

Attorneys for the County ofLos Angeles and

7

the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

HOA.102268915.1

SUBMISSION OF MONITORS'

-2-

SIXTH SEMI-ANNiJAL REPORT

1.15-C'V 0'i174

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 3 of 60 Page ID #:474
Attachment

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 4 of 60 Page ID #:475

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 5 of 60 Page ID #:476
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1 A. A Note About Compliance .............................................................................................2
I I. WORK TO DATE.................................................................................................................................4 A. Stops, Seizures, and Searches .......................................................................................4 B. Bias-Free Policing............................................................................................................11 C. Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance....................................................................16 D. Community Engagement.............................................................................................22 E. Use of Farce ......................................................................................................................35 F. Personnel Complaint Review ......................................................................................39 G. Accountability...................................................................................................................44
I II. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................50
APPENDICES A. The Monitoring Team B. Antelope Valley Monitoring Website C. How the Parties and Monitoring Team Work D. Monitors' Note on the Settlement Agreement, Constitutional Policing, and
Organizational Change

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 6 of 60 Page ID #:477
INTRODUCTION
This is the sixth semi-annual report issued by the Monitoring Team (MT). It covers the monitoring activities that have taken place during this reporting period and in the months prior. This report provides an overview of both administrative and operational issues. It describes the MT's observations as to the progress of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department(LASD)in meeting the requirements of their Settlement Agreement(SA)' with the US Department of Justice(DOJ)for the Antelope Valley(AV).This reportfocuses primarily on work undertaken between January 2018 and June 2018.
Key MT activities of this reporting period included working with the Parties to use the findings of the MT's complaints audit to inform changes to lASD-AV policy and procedure,conducting the MT's use-of-force audit, working with the Parties and an outside consultant in implementing the AV-wide community survey, reviewing LASD stops data, and working with the LASD Compliance U nit and AV station command staff to document LASD accountability processes in preparation for an audit of the Departments review and oversight practices. Responding to a Community Advisory Committee(CAC)request,the MT continued to provide technical assistance to AVCACs. The MT completed an attendance verification for LASD's new trainings in bias-free and constitutional policing, and reviewed and commented on Department data analyses and audits. The MT and the Parties continue to devote considerable attention to reviewing and revising policies, procedures, and training curricula and to developing quantitative and qualitative compliance measures for the various provisions in the SA. This report covers progress in all these areas, along with a discussion as to how this work fits into the broader context of achieving the objectives of the SA.
This report addresses the SA provisions where the Department has reached compliance or made substantial progress. Also discussed are those provisions where compliance has not yet been met, with comments about which areas will likely require substantial time and resources for the Department to come into compliance or for the MT to effectively assess levels of compliance. When possible, this report also summarizes the sequence of activities and steps the Department must take to achieve full compliance.
The Sheriff's Department has made considerable progress as of this reporting period with publishing new and revised policies, implementing new full-day trainings and developing roll call and in-service trainings, improving data collection, helping the MT document Department accountability processes, and addressing some of the larger SA-required activities such as the Community Survey and stops data analysis. The MT acknowledges and appreciates these efforts, with special recognition of the especially hard-working and collaborative Compliance Unit personnel. The Compliance Unit, the AV station command staff and personnel, divisional management,and the Office of County Counsel continue to cooperate with and engage in the various monitoring activities and,importantly, are open to compromise as the Department,the members of the D01 team,and the MT work to meet the goals of the SA and make meaningful i mprovements to law enforcement services in the AV.The MT also wants to acknowledge and
~ Settlement Agreement, No.CV 15-03174, United States v. Los Angeles County et al.(D.C. Cal. Apr.28,201S).
AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 7 of 60 Page ID #:478
express its appreciation to AV community members for their candid participation in meetings and for their assistance in promoting and completing the Community Survey.The MT also appreciates the continued efforts of the members of the CACs to thoroughly embrace their roles as voices for the whole AV community.
The Antelope Vallev Settlement Agreement:Summary
The Antelope Valley Settlement Agreement(SA)was established between the US Department of Justice (D01), Civil Rights Division;the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department(LASD);and the County of Los Angeles and was filed with the US District Court for the Central District of California in April 2015.(DOJ, LASD,and the County together are referred to as the Parties.)The purpose of the SA is to ensure that the residents of the AV have police services that are lawful and fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States and contemporary policing practices. The SA specifically identifies, as individual sections, a variety of reforms and objectives to be met by LASD in the AV related to: Stops, Seizures, and Searches; Bias-Free Policing; Enforcement of Section S Compliance; Data Collection and Analysis; Community Engagement; Use of Force; Personnel Complaint Review; and Accountability. The SA also stipulates that a professional monitor be selected to track and assess LASD's progress in implementing and achieving compliance with the SA, work with the Parties to address obstacles to achieving compliance, and report on the status of implementation to the Parties and the Court. As per Paragraph 171 of the SA between the Parties,the Monitor submits asemi-annual report(every six months); the first of these was issued in December 2015.
The AV lies in the northeast corner of the County of Los Angeles and includes two cities— Lancasterand Palmdale—and several unincorporated communities spread across hundreds of square miles. LASD provides law enforcement services in the unincorporated areas of the AV as well as via contracts with Palmdale and Lancaster. An LASD station serves each city, with law enforcement activities for the surrounding areas roughly split between the two.
A. A Note About Compliance
Much of the SA involves the development or revision of policies, procedures,or training, and putting into place various processes(such as a plan for ensuring new AV deputies receive training) and mare effectively engaging community organizations and entities such as the CACs. This work is usually done in a collaborative fashion among the Parties and the MT, with documentation of the change(new policy, revised training, etc.)eventually being formally submitted to the MT and DOJ for approval. Gaining that approval would seemingly indicate that the Department is now "in compliance" with that provision. However, while it does represent a crucial step forward, the Department at that stage is considered to be in partial compliance (or "policy compliance"). This is because, in most cases, there are more steps involved before the Department reaches full implementation (SA paragraph 20,see reference below)and,thus,full compliance.
AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 8 of 60 Page ID #:479
An approved policy will need to be distributed to every deputy according to SA-required procedures and, as necessary, incorporated into training curricula. An approved training curriculum will require documentation that appropriate personnel have received the training. Most important,each of the established improvements—for instance,the policies and trainings—will need to be found to perform or "work" in the real world. That is, they will need to be assessed through such MT activities as reviews. audits, interviews, observation, and data analysis and found to be successfully reflected in law enforcement practices and in the qualitative and quantitative impact on the AV community.
Changes to policy and practice must also be incorporated into LASD-AV's accountability practices. The reviews, analyses, studies, and audits that the SA requires LASD to conduct must use appropriate methodologies and, in turn, their findings must be used effectively to inform policies and practices.Z In some cases, the SA requires ongoing improvement in delivery of services (SA paragraph 15). Finally, this level of performance needs to be sustained for one year to reach full and effective compliance and to satisfy the terms of the SA (paragraph 205).
This process of achieving compliance is laid out in various provisions of the Settlement. Agreement,especially through the following paragraphs.
ParacLgh 20: Implementation is defined as "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." What is meant by "consistent and verified performance" is laid out in the compliance measures section of each SA section's work plan. That is, the compliance measures currently being reviewed by the Parties will establish the qualitative and q uantitative criteria by which the MT will determine consistent and verified performance and,thus, compliance.
Paragraph 205.The terms of the SA will have been met when "the County has achieved full and effective compliance with the Agreement and maintained such compliance for no less than one year."
Paragraph 15. Pull and effective compliance means "achieving both sustained compliance with ail material requirements of this Agreement and sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing and public trust, as demonstrated pursuant to the Agreements outcome measures."
z Paragraph 171b gives a summary of the stepwise process toward compliance. Most provisions of the SA need to be "(1)incorporated into policy;(2)the subject ofsufficient training for all relevant LASD deputies and employees; (3) reviewed or audited by the Monitor to determine whether they have been fully implemented in actual practice, including the date of the review or audit;and (4)found 6y the Monitor to have been fully implemented in practice."
AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 9 of 60 Page ID #:480
11. WORK TO DATE
This section of the report provides detailed descriptions of the work performed to date by LASD, DOJ, and the MT to ensure the requirements of the SA are fulfilled, concentrating primarily on those activities undertaken or completed during the past six months(January through June 2018). The report discusses MT observations related to the goals,scope, and nature of the work; issues and obstacles that have arisen in the course of the work; MT findings; and critical observations that have been discussed with the Department. LASD's progress toward compliance with each of the sections of the SA is delineated along with steps toward compliance that are still left to be addressed.
As in prior semi-annual reports,one section of the SA—Data Collection and Analysis—is not addressed separately.The concepts and activities for data collection and analysis overlap significantly with the other sections of the SA.The work on data collection and analysis done thus far is best understood within the context of the other sections to which it also pertains; therefore, these discussions are embedded as appropriate in related sections. Finally, some SA paragraphs are discussed in more than one section of this report because some SA paragraphs address more than one area of AV policing. For example, paragraph 51 concerns Constitutional stops and searches, Section 8 housing compliance, and bias-free policing. Similarly, "accountability" is addressed throughout the SA, not only in the Accountability section.
A. Stops, Seizures, and Searches
The Settlement Agreement provisions describe the way in which LASD-AV deputies must conduct and document investigative stops, detentions, and searches. These provisions also detail how Department supervisors and managers must document,track, review,and assess these practices. The introduction to Stops, Seizures, and Searches summarizes the overall goals of this section:
LASD agrees to ensure that all investigatory stops, seizures, and searches are conducted in accordance with the rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. LASD shall ensure that investigatory stops and searches are part ofon effective Duero(( crime prevention strategy, do not contribute to counter-productive divisions between LASD and the community, and are adequately documented for tracking and supervision purposes.(SA Page 7)

AV 6 Month Report VI )an-Jun 2018.docx

4

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 10 of 60 Page ID #:481
The Importance of Stops Data A key focus of the monitoring activity for this section of the SA are the various types of data collected by deputies as they conduct their daily operations. They record extensive information chronicling nearly every interaction with the public, including each stop or call for service; each search. detention, citation, or arrest; the dispositions of each call; and short narratives in some circumstances. As will be described below,they also now record certain community engagement activities. It is essential that these data, which serve as the foundation for all audits, analyses, and reviews conducted by both the MT and by LASD,are accurate,thorough,and reliable. When a deputy stops and detains someone, however briefly,the facts and circumstances that led to that stop and detention and any subsequent action must be rigorously documented and later reviewed in an effort to assess the deputy's decision making,the legality of his or her actions, and compliance with LASD policy and the terms and conditions of the SA. Data collection for stops requires entering one or more alpha or numerical codes associated with the primary actions of the stop. Deputies can consult codebooks for these. The codes determine the other fields that appear on the screen and that must be completed. Importantly, supervisors, managers, and auditors typically use these codes to retrieve information about each entry to properly supervise deputies and units, conduct risk management assessment,and monitor activities. For example, a supervisor may want to review all records from the past month for pedestrian stops, which use code 841. Such a request will retrieve only the stops recorded as pedestrian stops. Incorrectly coded stops will not appear in the search. With thousands of stops and other activities recorded in the database, it is, of course, very important that accurate codes are used to identify each type.
LASD Activities a. Audits and Station Training Regarding Stops Data LASD conducted two significant stops-related audit and review efforts during this period:(1)the Audit and Accountability Bureau (AAB)stop information audit, and (2)an LASD Compliance Unit informal review of recent stops information.
AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 11 of 60 Page ID #:482
The AAB released an audit of stops data from the Lancaster station,3 which the MT reviewed. The audit specifically considered:(1) whether LASD deputies provide adequate documentation for backseat detentions, consent searches, weapons pat downs, and reasonable suspicion searches; and (2) whether SA-required Deputy Daily Work Sheet(DDWS)reviews are being conducted by LASD supervisors. The audit revealed significant shortcomings in terms of compliance with LASD data collection policies. Deputies were not including the required information related to the narrativejustifications for reasonable suspicion stops when there was no otherjustification for the stop (e.g., equipment violation, speeding, etc.). Additionally, the AAB found a low rate of compliance with the supervisory review of DDWS forms at the Lancaster station. The audit did not focus on other aspects of the SA requirements for data collection d uring stops,such as the duration ofthe stop,the accuracy of location notations, and ensuring all required fields are thoroughly completed.The Compliance Unit conducted an informal review of more recent stop data than the AAB audit sample examined and found significant deficiencies in the thoroughness of the stops narratives.
Based on the findings ofthe AAB audit and the Compliance Unit informal review,the Compliance Unit created a training document titled Protocols for DDWS Review in the Antelope Valley. The document was used for additional training to LASD-AV station supervisors in how to conduct proper reviews of the DDWSs for stop data. The Compliance Unit expects this training will lead to better compliance. During MT ride-alongs in the AV, LASD-AV supervisors commented on having received the additional DDWS training regarding their responsibilities for reviewing stops. The Compliance Unit has also noted that this training was well accepted by staff.
b. Constitutional Policing Training
During this reporting period, LASD presented another Constitutional Policing training session on April 5, 2018.The training was presented to LASD-AV deputies who were either unavailable for previous training sessions or had been newly assigned to the AV.This reflects LASD's commitment to providing the approved training to all LASD deputies assigned to the AV stations.
3 LASD A.4B Detentions ofIndividuals and Da[a, Collection Audit North Patrol Division, Lancaster Sheriff's Stotian, No. 2017-14-A,January 31,2018.
AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-tun 2018.docx

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 12 of 60 Page ID #:483
2. Monitoring Activity
a. Constitutional Policing and Bias-Free Policing Training Verification
During this reporting period, both the Compliance Unit and the MT engaged in efforts to verify deputy attendance at the Constitutional Policing and Bias-Free Policing trainings—that is, to determine that those AV deputies required to take the training actually did take the training. In brief, this task involved comparing the active roster for each station with the list of deputies who had attended each training (based on signed attendance sheets)and then calculating the verified attendance percentage.
There are three important training verification issues for which the Parties have yet to finalize compliance measures:(1) precisely which deputies are required to attend the traini~gs;(2) which deputies are considered "available" for each training date offered; and (3)what percentage of deputies need to receive the trainings in order to achieve SA compliance.
Regarding the first of these issues, the Parties agree that all deputies assigned to either of the AV commands(Lancaster or Palmdale station) are required to take the Constitutional and Bias-Free trainings.The Parties are still discussing whether two other groups of deputies are required to take the traini~gs: Reserve Deputies (that is, deputies who volunteer their services) and deputies working regularly in the AV but who are under the supervision of a non-AV command (such as the Gang Unit).^ In this first round of training, training verification percentages assumed only those deputies assigned to the chain of command in the AV stations were required to attend the sessions on Constitutional and Bias-Free Policing.
The second issue—defining "available" deputies—is based on the status of each deputy on the date of the training. The Parties and MT agree that valid or sanctioned reasons for not attending a training (that is, being counted as not available)include retired, Injured on Duty(IOD), Relieved of Duty(ROD), Military Leave(ML), Family Medical Leave Act(FMLA), LASD-AV deputies no longer assigned to the AV stations (e.g., transfers), and deputies newly assigned to the LASD-AV stations but who arrive after the date of the training. However, in the first round of training,the Department listed some deputies as unavailable without specifying a reason, possibly due to confidentiality concerns. There has also been continued discussion among DOJ, the MT,and IASD about the status of Reserve Deputies. In the next reporting period,the Parties will have further discussions on the specific definitions of these statuses, what information the Department needs to provide to verify them,and which will be counted as unavailable. In this first round of training, verification percentages were calculated using the Department's determination of availability.
The third issue is the percentage of AV deputies required to attend the training in order to reach compliance. This will be decided among the Parties. Pending a final agreement,95%was used as an interim metric in this first round of training.
° The training was offered as an option for reserve deputies and for deputies not under AV supervision.
AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 13 of 60 Page ID #:484
Both the Compliance Units internal attendance verification and the MT's attendance verification found that over 95% of required deputies received the training. Specifically,for Palmdale,the Constitutional Policing attendance percentage was 98.9%, and Bias Free Policing was 99.5%. For Lancaster,the Constitutional Policing attendance percentage was 96.9%,and Bias Free Policing was 97.5%. Again,for this iteration of the process, Reserve Deputies and deputies who work specialized assignments in the AV but are under anon-AV command were not required to take the training (and thus were not counted in the percentage), and the Compliance Unit's definition of "available" was used. Future attendance verification reviews will be based on final agreements regarding these compliance measures.
At the conclusion of the verification process,the MT made five recommendations to the Parties. The first two suggested that LASD-AV commanders regularly monitor and update station rosters and consider offering a training session on weekends in order to reach more deputies,including reserves. The remainder of the recommendations regarded the Parties finalizing the three compliance measures on training verifications.
The MT is well aware and appreciative of the commitment and attention to detail required to successfully train such a large amount of staff in a short time period. Reaching such a high percentage of deputies trained represents a significant accomplishment for Department.
b. MTStops Data Review
In 2017,the MT began to review datasets containing stop information provided by LASD.The initial review was an opportunity to become acquainted with the data and develop a list of clarifying questions to discuss with the Compliance Unit. The MT intended to conduct a more formal review of the required stop information but decided to halt the review based on the finding from the AAB audit and the Compliance Unit that both AV stations showed low levels of compliance in data entry regarding stopjustification narratives. Due to the known unreliability of the data as well as the laudable efforts by the Compliance Unit to remedy the issue, the MT decided to delay a formal review until the recent trainings can take effect at the stations. The MT will conduct a thorough review of more recent sets of stop data during the next six-month reporting period.
Field Observations
During this period,the MT continued to participate in ride-alongs and observed AV station deputies engaged in traffic stops, detentions,and arrests. This activity provided the MT with additional insights and awareness of deputy activities and community services. Monitoring activities such as ride-alongs and personnel interviews, coupled with document review and stops data analysis, provide a foundation for assessing how patrol activities and tactics comport with the station commanders'crime reduction strategies. This consideration pertains to page 7 of the SA,which states,"LASD shall ensure that investigatory stops and searches are part of an
AV 6 Month Report VI tan-Jun 2018.docx

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 14 of 60 Page ID #:485
effective overall crime prevention strategy, do not contribute to counter-productive divisions between LASD and the community,and are adequately documented for tracking and supervision purposes." The MT looks forward to discussions with ~P,SD regarding these overall crime reduction strategies and expectations for the deputies.
3. Steps Toward Compliance
The Parties have not yet agreed on compliance measures for Stops, Seizures, and Searches, and formal assessment of compliance has not begun.The MT offers the following observations on the many efforts the Department has made so far toward achieving the aims of the SA,as well as associated requirements yet to be addressed.
a. Constitutions!Policing Training
LASD continues to provide the training sessions for DASD-AV deputies who were unavailable for previous training sessions or who were newly assigned to the AV. The Department must continue to do so as long as there are deputies who have not yet received this training. To that end, a Constitutional Policing course was conducted on April 5, 2018.(Developments regarding the Bias-Free training are discussed in the Bias-free Policing section below.)As the training becomes institutionalized,the true measure of the effectiveness of the revised policies and new training is in determining whether AV deputies interact with the communities they serve in alignment with the trainings and whether the intended outcomes of the changes occur. Therefore, beyond meeting a training schedule, it is critical that the concepts of the training are practiced by LASD-AV deputies and supported through strong supervision by the leaders of the AV stations.
b. Stops Data Collection
The findings of non-compliance in the AAB audit suggest that LASD's oversight concerning this important activity has been insu~cient. The SA states:"LASD agrees to implement additional accountability and supervision practices outlined below in the Antelope Valley, and ensure that existing policies are followed,to ensure that unlawful stops, searches. and seizures are detected and effectively addressed"(SA paragraph 58). The SA requires regular audits of the DDWSs and provides correction when errors or policy violations are identified by the supervisor(SA paragraphs 59,60-62). Additionally,the SA also requires LASD to hold supervisors and commanders accountable for "appropriately and thoroughly reviewing" reports(SA paragraph 63).
AV 6 Month Report Vl Jan-Jun 2018.docx

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 15 of 60 Page ID #:486
The collection and analysis of stop data remains a core responsibility required by the SA, and every effort must be made to ensure the accuracy of the data. The initial efforts by the compliance Unit to remedy the found deficiencies and to improve the DDWS reviews are one part of these accountability practices. So far, the AAB audits reviewed by the MT have looked at some aspects of the stops information required by the SA;the MT recommends a complete audit of all SA required stop information.The MT will assess the success of these efforts and conduct its own review of accountability processes related to stops beginning in the next reporting period.
4. Next Steos
The MT and Parties will discuss the Stops, Seizures,and Searches work plans and compliance measures.They expect to finalize these in the upcoming reporting period. Included will be final agreement on training verification procedures. As part of future training verification, the MT will collect station rosters on an ongoing basis.
During the next period,the MT will begin a series offormal reviews of data collected as required by the SA to assess the accuracy of data entry and the adequacy of the required narrative fields. These reviews will look at the thoroughness and accuracy of the required SA data points, such as race, age, location of the stop, and whether the deputy used a backseat detention. The reviews will also examine the SA required narratives in which the deputies give their rationale for searches and detentions. The MT reviews will assess the sufficiency of the narrative content, and eventually focus on the quality of the decision making.
During the scheduled July 2018 site visit,the MT will visit the AAB and review its methodology for the audit of Lancaster station stops. The MT is specifically interested in the methodology used to assess the required narrative summaries for stops, including thejustifications for searches and detentions by AV deputies.To conduct an accurate review of the AAB audit and,if need be, to interpret any differences in the findings of the AAB audit and the MT's audit, it is importantfor the MT to clearly understand the criteria the AAB used to assess the narratives.
During this period,the MT received copies of all complaints pertaining to allegations of improper stops, detentions, and/or searches in the AV during 2017. In the next reporting period, the MT will review the allegations to gain an understanding of the types of stops involved in the complaints and any patterns that may be present. Understanding the types of activities that Iead to complaints is an important step in determining if policing efforts are building trust with the community or, conversely, hurting those relationships.(The quality of the complaint investigation will be assessed in the course of the formal MT audits conducted as part of the Personnel Complaint Review section of the SA.)

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

10

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 16 of 60 Page ID #:487
As expressed in the last six-month report, investigative stops represent intrusions that if overused, used withoutjustification, or conducted without appropriate respect and professionalism can lead to mistrust of law enforcement within the community. Therefore, as part of its review of the impact of actions in the field, the MT will continue to assess community attitudes toward LASD with regard to investigative stops, detentions, and searches. LASD-AV efforts to build and sustain collaborative relationships with the diverse community it serves will also be considered. In particular, the MT will review LASD community engagement activity, CAC activity(see SA paragraph 93),the organizational climate and culture assessment(see SA paragraph 69), and the Community Survey currently underway(SA paragraphs 98-101;see the Community Engagement section below). Part of this review will include an evaluation of how LASD's Bias-Free trainings (both the full-day course and the in-service trainings) are reflected in the Departments community policing strategies.(Because there is overlap in the activities and goals of various sections of the SA—and far the sake of efficiency—data reviews and other activities will be done in concert with the monitoring activity related to those other relevant sections, such as Bias-Free Policing, Community Engagement, Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance, and Accountability.)
The SA sets out clear expectations and requirements of how first-line supervisors and managers must supervise the work of LASD-AV deputies. Competent, direct, and consistent supervision provides the framework for the fair, Constitutional, and professional policing required by the SA, sought by the Department, and expected throughout the diverse communities of the AV. During the site visits, meetings with LASD-AV staff, and review of LASD documents,the MT will continue to assess how LASD-AV supervisors ensure that investigative stops, detentions, and searches are consistent with the SA, LASD expectations, and the Constitution.
B. Bias-Free Policing
The primary goal of the Bias-Free Policing section of the SA is encapsulated in SA paragraph 64:
In conducting its activities, LASD 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, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation, and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Deputies shat! not initiate stops or other Feld contacts because ofan individual's actual or perceived immigration stotus.
This section of the report describes the additional LASD and MT activities that are underway to reach that goal.

AV 6 Month Report Vi Jan-Jun 2018.docx

11

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 17 of 60 Page ID #:488
LASD Activities
The previous LASD-AV instructor for Bias-Free Policing is no longer available to teach the course. As a result, there were no Bias-Free Policing trainings offered during this reporting period. The Compliance Unit identified the trainer for the Constitutional Policing course as a possible replacement, and he will provide a pilot training session on July 12, 2018. LASD, DO1, and the MT discussed the pilot training session with this trainer. He has agreed to prepare course revisions and submit them for review prior to the pilot training session. The Parties have agreed that the new trainer will work from the same curriculum as the previous trainer, but that he may adapt supporting materials and descriptions to fit his own teaching style and experience. it is important to identify a permanent replacement to teach this important course; this training m ust be offered at regular intervals for newly assigned LASD deputies in the AV.
LASD submitted for review by the MT and DOJ five draft exercises to be used for Bias-Free Policing training scenarios as required in SA paragraph 71:"LASD-AV will conduct roll call trainings at least quarterly to emphasize the importance of preventing discriminatory policing. These roll call sessions will include scenario-based discussions of real and hypothetical situations." Each of the five exercises includes the following: a specific scenario for LASD-AV deputies to consider and discuss,five true-or-false questions to be answered,an instructor answer key,and a specific explanation for the rationale of the exercise. The scenarios are structured to highlight which deputy actions violate or adhere to LASD Bias-Free Policing policies and,therefore,should facilitate discussion. The roll call trainings also address Fair Housing Act issues from the Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance section. The Department and trainer are now reviewing MT and DOJ comments on the roll call curricula.
The new LASD Limited English Proficiency policy has now been published. The policy is meant to ensure that there is timely and meaningful access to police services for community members who are not fluent in English (SA paragraph 66).The Compliance Unit is currently conducting a verification review to ensure each AV deputy has received and understands the new requirements. The MT will then do its own verification and discuss with the Parties any next steps for the new policy.
2. Monitoring Activity
a. Bias-Free Policing Training:Attendance Verification and Rof(Cal! Curriculum Review
The MT conducted an extensive review of attendance at the Bias-Free Policing training sessions as detailed in the above Stops, Seizures, and Searches section of this report. The MT determined that LASD has trained over 95% of its available deputies according to current definitions. As previously discussed,there are still some outstanding items to be discussed and resolved between the Parties in the upcoming reporting period.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-)un 2018.docx

12

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 18 of 60 Page ID #:489
The MT received five draft exercises proposed to fulfill the requirements of SA paragraph 71's q uarterly roll call training sessions.The MT has reviewed the exercises and provided specific feedback to LASD in the following areas:(1)content in need of clarification or correction; (2)emphasis of critical points in the material;(3)the recommended addition of content related to the Federal Housing Act(FHA);and (4)clarification regarding delivery/administration of the training.
b. Field Observations: LASD Programs, initiatives, and Activities
The MT participated in several ride-alongs during this period and observed DASD-AV station deputies engage in traffic stops, detentions, and arrests. This activity provided the MT with additional understanding of the activities of LASD-AV deputies and the service provided to the community. As also mentioned in the Stops, Seizures, and Searches section of this report, these observations are important to ensure that stops are part of an "effective overall crime prevention strategy,[and]do not contribute to counter-productive divisions between LASD and the community"(SA page 7). They also provide a basis for evaluation of LASD-AV per paragraph 68, which requires LASD to "assess all programs, initiatives, and activities involving the Antelope Valley Stations to determine the extent of any disparate impact and to ensure that no program, initiative, or activity is applied or administered in a manner that unlawfully discriminates against individuals on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender,gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation."The MT looks forward to meeting with LASD and DOl to gain an understanding of LASD's overall crime-reduction strategies.
c. Limited English Proficiency
During field visits,the MT has found that Limited English Proficiency(LEP) materials are available in the lobbies of LASD-AV stations, and interviews with LASD deputies have indicated access to bilingual staff is provided when needed for translation. Deputy adherence to the new LEP policy will be part of MT reviews moving forward through review of a variety of inputs,such as complaints, arrest reports, direct observation, and information from CACs and community members.The MT will continue to assess access to LEP materials and staff(SA paragraph 66). In the next reporting period,the MT will work with the Compliance Unit to conduct a policy acknowledgment verification similar to that for the housing policies (see the Enforcement of Section S Compliance section below).

AV 6 Month Report VI Jai-Jun 2018.docx

13

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 19 of 60 Page ID #:490

d. Museum of Tolerance
The MT met with two representatives of the Museum of Tolerance in Los Anqeles. The SA states: "LASD agrees to continue to consult with the Museum of Tolerance personnel and others to ensure clear guidance for tASD-AV deputies,through policy,training, and supervision, on prohibited conduct, including selective enforcement or non-enforcement of the Iaw and the selection or rejedio~ of particular tactics or strategies, based upon stereotypes or bias"(paragraph 65). The staff from the Museum were very knowledgeable of implicit bias and bias-free policing concepts. It was clear that LASD central training staff were in contact with Museum staff to develop and provide bias-free and implicit bias training for the LASD academy and LASD training updates. LASD sends representatives to participate in focus groups for the Museum`s training development.The Museum provides the state-mandated implicit bias training to LASD deputies. LASD-AV deputies attend the update training sessions, although the number of attendees appears small.(The state-mandated implicit bias training is separate from. the SA-required bias-free policing sessions.) The Museum does not confer directly with the station captains in LASD-AV. Besides potentially leaving the Department out of compliance with paragraph 65,the MT believes this is a missed opportunity for LASD-AV station commanders to tap into readily accessible expertise regarding the reduction of bias and community outreach in law enforcement. In the upcoming reporting period,the MT will conduct further reviews of the Departments consultation with the Museum and will evaluate the alignment of the Museum's training curricula with that of the Departments Bias-Free Policing trainings to ensure they enhance one another and do not conflict.

3. Steps Toward ~omgliance

The MT, DOJ,and IASD met with the author ofAnalysis o(LASD Stop and Use ofForce Data for Antelope Vo!!ey(submitted June 9, 2017), which assessed data on stop and use offorce to determine if disparate treatment is taking place in the AV.The research addressed SA paragraphs 82-83 in the Bias-Free section and paragraphs 120-121 in Use of Force. The MT acknowledges LASD's genuine effort to fulfill these requirements. However,the MT did not approve the report for release, primarily because significant questions have been raised about the underlying data used in the report. DOJ and the MT also had concerns about the methodologies chosen. However,the meeting with the researcher was productive, and the Parties gained a better understanding of the methodologies used to complete the assessment. The researcher has agreed to engage collaboratively with the Parties and the MT in further study when there is more confidence in the underlying data.

The MT encourages LASD to address the questions and topics remaining for the Bias-Free Policing quarterly training. As noted earlier, the feedback provided to LASD included, in brief: (1)content in need of clarification or correction;(2)emphasis of critical points in the material; (3)the addition of FHA-related content; and (4)clarification regarding delivery/administration of the training. This regular training is an important step to complete as it will serve a critical reinforcement of the training LASD deputies received in the Constitutional Policing and Bias-Free Policing courses. If too much time passes without these reminders, the key lessons from the training could be forgotten or not perceived as highly valued concepts of the LASD station command structures.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

14

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 20 of 60 Page ID #:491
To date, LASD has trained over 95% of available LASD-AV deputies. LASD is required to provide the Bias-Free Policing training for LASD-AV deputies who have not yet attended the training. The MT understands the difficulty of replacing the primary instructor who was no longer available and will work with the Parties to find a suitable replacement.
The MT will work with the Parties to review any of the proposed changes to the Bias-Free Policing curriculum that result from the selection of a new trainer. The topics presented in the training sessions address some of the core concerns that brought about the SA.The MT will closely observe the delivery of the training. It must maintain the same Ievel of adherence to the requirements and principles of the law,the requirements of the SA,and LASD-AV policy and be delivered in a manner that will resonate with the deputies. Compliance with the Bias-Free Policing training requirements are dependent on a formally approved training course and instructor. Without both in place,the Bias-Free Policing training cannot be offered on a regular basis, as required by the SA.
4. Next Steos
The MT and Parties will discuss the Bias-Free Policing work plans and compliance measures, with finalization expected in the upcoming reporting period.
The MT provided feedback to LASD regarding the Bias-Free Policing and FHA training scenarios and looks forward to reviewing revisions to the training scenarios.
The MT will be on site for the delivery of the pilot presentation of the Bias-Free Policing training session on July 12, 2018. As agreed,the MT and DO1 will receive the training material for their final approval prior to the delivery of the pilot. The MT will also provide feedback to LASD at the conclusion of the pilot training session.
The MT will work with the Compliance Unit to verify that deputies have received the new LEP policy.
The MT will review the type and level of consultation the Department receives from the Museum of Tolerance as a basis for determining SA compliance.The MT,in collaboration with the Department, will also compare the Museum's implicit bias curriculum with the SA-required Bias-Free Policing training to ensure they are complimentary and achieve the goals and objectives of the SA.
During the ne~ct period,the MT will assess LASD's efforts to improve the quality of the stop data collected and do its own review of the accuracy and quality of stops data. The MT will also continue its reviews of the processes in place to make certain that supervisors and commanders are held accountable for ensuring the data are accurate.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

15

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 21 of 60 Page ID #:492

Finally, the MT will meet with LASD station captains to discuss the issues raised above in Field Observations: LASD Programs,initiatives, and Activities regarding paragraph 68 and other SA provisions requiring assessments of the Departments stops and policing strategies. The MT looks forward to meeting with LASD and DOJ to gain an understanding of ~P,SD's overall crime reduction strategies and how they affect LASD community relations and Bias-Free Policing outcomes.
C. Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance
I n previous six-month reports,the MT described what gave rise to the SA housing provisions and described in detail LASD's progress toward developing two new policies: its Housing Non-Discrimination Policy and revising Housing Authority Section 8Non-Criminal Investigations/Inspections.Those policies are now being disseminated to the deputies. Earlier reports also described development of the housing-related training curricula incorporated in the constitutional Policing and Bias-Free Policing trainings. Most deputies have now received the trainings, as discussed in the Stops, Seizures, and Searches and Bias-Free Policing sections above. This section will describe the steps that have been undertaken with these policies and trainings. It will also describe the MT's observations in tracking the policy and training implementation,the development of bias-free roll call trainings and what is beginning to occur with respect to the assessment of policy effectiveness and outcomes.
Activities in This Period
a. Housing PolicyApprova!
The new Housing Non-Discrimination(HND)Policy required by the SA is meant to reflect LASD's commitment to the requirements of the FHA and explain how to file a complaint of discrimination in housing.The required revisions to the Housing Authority Section 8 Non-Criminal Investigations/Inspections(FOD 12-002)lay out the Department's policies on deputy accompaniment on Section 8 compliance checks,on housing fraud investigations and referrals for prosecution, and on sharing information with a housing authority. It also describes the steps for proper documentation by LASD of all voucher holder activity.
I n December 2017,following DO)and MT approval ofthese policies, the supervisors' union, Professional Peace Officers Association (PPOA), requested revisions to the HND Policy, and the deputy's union,Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs(ALADS),requested revisions to FOD 12-002.The PPOA proposed adding language to the HND Policy to clarify what actions by Department members might constitute discriminatory conduct in violation of the FHA.
ALADS requested the following substantive changes,along with several non-substantive edits, to FOD 12-002.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

16

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 22 of 60 Page ID #:493

A watch commander shall share alI information posing a safety risk to any deputy approved to accompany a housing authority worker on a Section 8 compliance check.
Language to clarify the application of the plain view doctrine during deputy accompaniment of a housing authority worker on a Section 8 compliance check.
Removal of language that detective referrals of their investigations of fraud on the voucher program are made to the District Attorney's Office "without expressing any recommendation, unless in response to a specific request,thus allowing the District Attorney to decide on a filing decision independently."
After review and discussions among the Parties,the MT, DOJ,and LASD reached agreement on the changes,and the internal approval process resumed. Both documents were subsequently finalized and published: The new HND policy (also known as FOD 18-001) was published February 23, 2018, and revised policy FOD 12-002 was published March 14, 2018.5 Both policies were disseminated departmentwide at the time they were published. The policies were sent to the AV stations with instructions on their distribution according to SA requirements.
b. Housing Policy Dissemination
With final approval and publishing of the two policies, LASD is now in partial compliance with paragraphs 73,74, and 76—SO ofthe SA.The next step toward full compliance is for the Department to provide documentation to the MT that all appropriate deputies have received, understand, and agree to abide by the new policy. The process for dissemination is laid out in paragraphs 74 and 75 for the HND and in paragraph 164 for FOD 12-002. For both policies, a Policy Acknowledgement Form must be signed and requires deputies to acknowledge the fallowing.
"I have read and understand the Housing Non-Discrimination Field Operations Directive or the Housing Authority Non-Criminal Investigations/Inspections Field Operations Directive and understand that I will be held accountable for policy and procedure violations."
"I understand my responsibilities pursuant to the policy, including my duty to report violations of policy."
"i understand supervisors of all ranks shall be accountable for identifying and responding to policy and procedure violations by personnel under their command:'
5 The full [ex[ of the policies can be accessed through the LASD Compliance Unit website at http://www.lasheriff.org/s2/page_re n d e r.aspx?page na me=avc_main

AV 6 Month Report Vl Jan-Jun 2018.docx

17

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 23 of 60 Page ID #:494
The HND also requires that deputies sign a Supplemental Policy Acknowledgement Form ("Supplemental Farm").
"I have received a copy of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Field Operations Directive #18-001—Housing Non-Discriminotion Policy. 1 have been given the opportunity to have any questions I have about the policy answered either by contacting a supervisor or by submitting the questions)on this form."
The Supplemental Form has a section for submission of written questions)and a statement: "Any questions submitted will be answered 6y the Compliance Unit within 30 days ofsubmission."
The LASD processes to obtain all the requisite deputy acknowledgments and associated roster verifications are underway.The LASD Compliance Unit is expecting to receive the signed forms from the AV stations soon and will then complete their internal roster verification process. The MT will then commence its own verification, similar to the attendance verification process for the trainings described in the Stops, Seizures, and Searches section of this report.
Roll Call Training
Also in this reporting period,lASD submitted for review their proposed Bias-Free Policing roll call training scenarios required by paragraph 71 and described in the Bias-Free Policing section of this report. The MT reviewed these and. in addition to the changes described in the Bias-Free section above, has requested that a Fair Housing Act scenario be included in this training.
d. MT Review ofPolicy and Training Outcomes
With the housing policies in place and verification pending, and with most AV deputies having been trained in Section 8 issues, housing-related monitoring activity has shifted to(1)tracking ongoing policy implementation and training;(2)assisting with the development of the roll call trainings; and (3)assessing outcomes related to these policies and training. Outcomes to be assessed include (1) whetherthe concepts, requirements, and procedures expressed in the policies and trainings are successfully reflected in practice;(2)whether the intended impacts are being experienced in the AV community; and (3) if LASD supervisors and managers routinely monitor and evaluate compliance with these policies and trainings, track outcomes,and take appropriate corrective action when issues arise for individual deputies, units, or the Department.
The MT's assessment of compliance will also include a review of any revisions to the trainings or changes in how they would be conducted, which could become necessary based on audits and outcome analysis.

AV 6 Month Report Vl Jan-Jun 2018.docx

18

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 24 of 60 Page ID #:495

MT work assessing outcomes begins with a records and data review. To that end,the MT submitted a document request to LASD in February 2018 that contained requests for the fallowing housing-related documents.

•

Investigations, Claims for Damages and Litigation related to Section 8 Housing,

including but not limited to:Claims for Damages,Lawsuits,Service Comment

Reports, Administrative Investigations.

•

All documentation related to LASD investigations or referrals for prosecution for

criminal fraud based on voucher holder compliance with the voucher contract.

•

AID non-criminal investigation/inspection security request forms submitted by

housing authority workers from January 1, 2017,through December 31, 2017.

• Computer Aided Dispatch(CAD)data for all stat code 787 calls;January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

• Watch Commander logs for first quarter 2016.
LASD promptly provided this information, including a spreadsheet of the CAD data for stat code 787 calls from January 1, 2017,through December 31,2017,and reports from the Los Angeles Regional Crime Information Center(LARCIS)for the same period for the Lancaster and Palmdale stations. The Compliance Unit and MT will coordinate on a review of Watch Commander logs in the next reporting period. Follow-up document requests will likely occur as well.
Code 787 is used in the deputies' mobile computer system to record and describe any type of deputy accompaniment,for security reasons,for non-criminal investigations or inspections.The MT found there were no stat code 787 entries related to voucher holder compliance checks, independent investigations for criminal fraud based on voucher holder compliance with the voucher contract or deputy calls and observations, or incidents involving voucher holders. This finding is consistent with the Departments assertions that they do not participate incompliance checks or any other Section 8housing—related law enforcement actions.
The ~ARCIS reports for Lancaster and Palmdale for the relevant period were blank. LASD explained that LARCIS is a relational database—driven application that houses and provides electronic access to crime and incident information for alI reports written by patrol and various other LASD units. LARCIS is where data are entered for any criminal case associated with Section 8 investigations or referrals for criminal fraud, or for requests by the housing authority far deputy assistance with Section 8 investigations or inspections. LASD stated that the blank LARCIS forms demonstrate that "there are no investigations for Section 8 criminal fraud, referred cases to the District Attorney based on Section S criminal fraud, and no requests made by a housing authority to assist with Section 8 investigations/inspections during the time period requested"(email communication from LASD Compliance Unit, February 21, 2018).

AV 6 Month Report Vl Jan-tun 2018.docx

19

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 25 of 60 Page ID #:496

2. Steps Toward Compliance
Publishing the new HND policy and revisions to FOD 12-002 were major steps toward achieving compliance with this section (paragraphs 73,76-80). As laid out above,the next step is for LASD to demonstrate that all deputies subject to these policies have signed the HND Policy Acknowledgement Forms and the Supplemental Policy Acknowledgement Form, and that any deputy questions related to the HND Policy have been answered in a timely manner by the Compliance Unit(paragraphs 74-75). Related training requirements(paragraphs 57,70)are also in partial compliance, with curricula being approved,trainings being conducted, and attendance verification showing most AV deputies have already received the course. The Bias-Free Policing roll call trainings(including FHA modules, paragraph 71)are in development. MT work toward verifying LASD-AV's full compliance will include tracking the continued delivery of required trainings and the outcomes review described above, including confirmation of the Department's accountability practices related to these provisions.
Full compliance will be achieved when each provision of the Housing section of the SA is met and the MT determines through onsite observations, records reviews, audits, and outcome analysis that the Department has met and remains in compliance with these requirements for at least one year, including evidence that the intentions of the SA as expressed in the new policies are thoroughly and consistently met in the field and that outcomes are reviewed by supervisors and managers, with appropriate corrective action taken as necessary.
3. Next Steps
The following summarizes the expelled MT activities in the ne~ct reporting period with regard to Section 8 housing.
a. HND Policy
The MT will sample and analyze policy dissemination documentation to determine if ail deputies have the requisite signed acknowledgments.
The MT will review LASD complaints,administrative investigations, survey results, Watch Commander logs, and other relevant documents and resources for LASDAV deputy involvement in housing-related activities to determine whether such activity was conducted in accordance with the FHA and the HND Policy.
The MT will conduct interviews of LASD personnel, community members, and persons with information relevant to LASD-AV housing activities to determine whether any such activity was conducted in accordance with the FHA and the H ND Policy.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-)un 2018.docx

20

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 26 of 60 Page ID #:497
b. Accompaniment Policy(FOD 12-002)
The MT will review and analyze alI stat code 787 data, including deputy accompaniment of housing authority workers during voucher holder compliance checks, LASD's independent investigations far criminal fraud based on voucher holder compliance with the voucher contract,and deputy calls, observations,or incidents involving voucher holders.
The MT will analyze LASD complaints, administrative investigations, Community Survey results, Watch Commander logs, and semi-annual analysis of data containing stat code 787 and other relevant documents and resources for LASD-AV deputy involvement in housing-related activities to determine whether such activity was conducted in accordance with FOD 1 Z-002.
The MT will conduct interviews of relevant LASD personnel, community members, and persons with information potentially relevant to LASD-AV housing activities.
c. Additional SA Provisions Regarding Compliance Assessment
The following SA paragraphs describe the SA required audits and analysis that address multiple SA provisions and that both the Department and MT will use to assess compliance with the housing-related elements of the SA.
LASD wil!conduct at leastsemi-annual analysis of, ata minimum,the following AV data:... Voucher Holder compliance checks involving LASD personnel(paragraph 82g).
In addition to compliance reviews and audits, the Monitor shall conduct qualitative and quantitative outcome assessments to measure whether LASD's implementation ofthis Agreement has eliminated practices that resulted in DOJ's finding a pattern and practice ofconstitutional violations. These outcome assessments shall include collection and analysis, both quantitative and qualitative, of...Section 8 Compliance En/orcement Measurements...(paragraph 153c).
The other required analyses are expelled to begin in the next reporting period. Once implemented,final compliance will require the Department to meet the requirements for at least one year. The results of the Community Survey described in the Community Engagement section below will also be analyzed to address Section 8—related outcomes.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

21

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 27 of 60 Page ID #:498
D. Community Engagement
The Community Engagement section ofthe SA states that"LASD agrees to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community,to engage constructively with the community to ensure collaborative problem-solving and bias-free policing, and to increase community confidence in the Department'(page 20). The term "community engagement" primarily refers to the Department's efforts to engage the community and thus build and maintain trust and confidence in the Department among all community members, per the goals of the SA.The MT's role in the community-engagement process is to assess LASD's efforts to interact with and improve its relations with the AV community.The MT may also provide advice and technical assistance as appropriate and requested.
1. Monitoring Activities
The MT made three site visits during this monitoring period (December 12-14, 2017, February 8, 2018, and April 17, 2018)to further engage with the community,to learn about the community's current experiences with and perceptions of LASD,and to meet with LASD and the CACs regarding compliance with the Community Engagement section of the SA. In addition, MT members were able to directly observe engagement and interactions between LASD and the community and provide feedback to station personnel.
a. Ride-A(ongs
On December 13, members of the MT conducted ride-alongs with various LASD deputies in Palmdale and Lancaster. For the purposes ofthe community engagement monitoring work,the ride-alongs allow the MT to directly observe deputies' interactions with the community and monitor compliance with specific provisions of the SA. Ride-alongs and interviews with on-duty deputies also allow the MT to identify to what extent policing strategies and public safety priorities in the AV are informed by or considered with community members as envisioned in SA paragraph 93. These observational activities also allow the MT to assess the impact of the Constitutional and Bias-Free Policing trainings and the soon-to-be implemented in-service trainings on policing strategies and tactics and community relations.

AV 6 Month Report Vl Jan-tun 2018.docx

22

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 28 of 60 Page ID #:499

b. Community Town Hall Meeting
On December 14,the MT hosted a community town hall meeting with The Community Action League(TGAL)and AV-LU~AC(League of United Latin American Citizens). The meeting was held at a church in Lancaster and was attended by approximately 50 community members and LASD personnel. The MT and DOJ provided updates to the community on the SA. Following that, most of the meeting was dedicated to listening to community members about their appreciation, concerns, complaints, and ideas regarding IASD—community relations in the Antelope Valley. One woman,who had made several observations throughout the evening,summed up the sentiment from the community regarding relations with LASD and the Departments i mprovements:"We have come a long way. but we still have a long way to go."
Community comments regarding relations between the community and LASD included the following themes.
Generally,sentiments were expressed among community members that significant improvement in community engagement has been noticed since the DO1 investigation and the implementation of the SA. In fact, several community leaders and members of LASD have hypothesized that low turnout to community engagement events is, in part, related to the general improvements in LASD and community relationships. It is possible that the community is more satisfied with their interactions with the stations and are thus less likely to spend their limited free time attending LASD engagement events.
LASD has a more noticeable presence in the community and is doing more outreach and using multiple strategies in their outreach since the negotiation of the SA.
"There is outreach happening but not as effective as we want them to be."
LASD leadership,such as the captains of the LASD-AV stations, have been making a visible effort to improve their community engagement.The MT has witnessed and documented multiple occasions where the captains have attended more meetings,sometimes in civilian attire(which some community members have noted and appreciated)and not always surrounded by staff. The captains seem more approachable, receptive, listening, and engaging and provide contact information for specific follow-ups with individuals. Many members of the community have corroborated this observation. Importantly, this positive perception is directed at a select group of deputies and LASD personnel, but not necessarily for all deputies as a whole. Community members have praised individual deputies by name to the MT, but some have also expressed a belief that these deputies are outliers. There continues to be a perception that many deputies remain disengaged or defensive,at least during the larger community engagement events.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

23

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 29 of 60 Page ID #:500

Since the negotiations ofthe SA,there is a perception that LASD has effectively engaged some leaders of specific community-based organizations(CBOs)in the AV but has not put the same focus or effort toward building relationships with black and Latino community members who are not already well known to them or recognized as community leaders.
The Department has taken laudable steps to broaden the scope of its outreach in a variety of ways (as described in the Department's annual Antelope Valley community engagement reports),6 and consequent improvements in community relations are evident. At the same time, these community comments also indicate that some in the community still feel alienated from the Department.The Department will be well served to apply special effort to identify and reach those groups. Information from the CACs,Community Survey, and other community feedback should help in this regard. It is not uncommon in law enforcement—community relations for improvement with certain groups to take longer or require a different approach than with others. This could be due to a number of factors, including the nature of current or past experience with law enforcement, immigration concerns, or language barriers. IYs also true in community relations that the facts are sometimes less important than perceptions. Current law enforcement activities that would not normally elicit ill-feelings among community members may nonetheless do so because of associations with lingering memories and narratives of past experiences. This should not discourage the Department from continuing its efforts, as they seem to be bearing fruit. Rather, it is incumbent on both the Department and community members—including CAC members,CBOs,and individual citizens—to understand these dynamics,to communicate honestly and reasonably, and to share the goal of improving trust and openness.
Community comments that reflected concerns or constructive criticism included the following themes:
Community members question the transparency and accountability of LASD-AV, particularly in their confidence that LASD will document complaints, conduct follow-up, and hold deputies accountable without retaliation to the complainant or the complainants family.
Community members request increased outreach in Spanish. The Department has held Spanish-language meetings at markets in both cities and is encouraged to continue and broaden this practice.
Some community members believe that classism is a problem in the AV and that deputies treat poor people and poor communities unfairly.
6 LASD-AV community engagement reports can be accessed through the MT's website (http://www.antelopevalleysettlementmonitoring.info)or the Compliance Unit website(http://www.lasheriff.org/s2/page_render.aspx?pagename=avc_main).See also the CAC Public Reports at the Compliance Unit website)

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

24

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 30 of 60 Page ID #:501
In one event, a community member suggested holding town hall—style community meetings in more varied neighborhoods, such as Park Circle in East Lancaster.
For some community members,there is resentment arising from a perception that a local park was renamed for a slain officer without community input. The City of Lancaster made the decision to rename the park, but some in the community attribute the change to LASD-AV. The MT is unaware as to whether there was or was not a structured process for community input facilitated by the city. Nevertheless, the Department and community members should engage in open dialogue on both the facts and the perceptions of the situation. This can be extremely helpful in building relationships and healing the trauma of community members and law enforcement alike.
Several community participants in this reporting period described rudeness, bias, or excessive force from deputies from Lancaster and Palmdale.
Some community leaders have shared concerns that the national rhetoric around policing is influencing the overall view of law enforcement in various AV communities or neighborhoods. Community members may associate LASD-AV with incidents outside of the AV. In this context, such high-profile tragedies as the recent shooting of Romando Garcia (by Palmdale deputies) can diminish the perception of progress. Reforming policing practice and responding in an open and non-defensive manner to any missteps are obviously critical steps toward overcoming community mistrust, but perceptions and lingering associations may take longer to change.
All these themes and comments from community meetings are important because they reveal certain perceptions of community groups that may be counterproductive to a robust community policing strategy. For both formal complaints(SCRs)and informal comments and concerns,the Department should not only focus on the veracity of an allegation or characterization of an incident, but on the underlying fears and mistrust they may reveal.The Department's responses to these fears and perceptions are crucial. They provide an opportunity for the AV stations to actively engage with their CACs,community leaders, and local experts on community policing and bias-free policing to develop a systematic and transparent process of documenting and responding to community concerns and evaluating the stations' current policing strategies and the costs and benefits of those strategies on the communities.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

25

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 31 of 60 Page ID #:502
It is important to note that it is not the role of the MT tojudge the veracity of any particular accusation of bias or misconduct. However, it is the role of the MT to ensure that each AV station has a systematic, reliable process to investigate both formal and informal complaints, communicate with the aggrieved party, engage the CACs appropriately, and maintain effective accountability structures. As an example,the MT was notified by CAC members that there was an incident at a quarterly community meeting in which a community member felt that the treatment of a citizen was influenced by bias on the part of the deputies. After repeated requests,the Compliance Unit was able to brief the MT on the station's response to this issue but not in enough time for the MT to review for this report. With this and any other similar incidents,the MT will evaluate the CAC and station's coordination and responsiveness to this kind of issue and to ensure compliance with the SA.
c. Technical Assistance to CACs
To directly support the functioning of the CACs,the MT has offered to train the AV CACs on the various missions and processes of law enforcement community advisory boards, commissions, and committees. This would help the CAC members better understand their roles in the AV and processes by which they can best do their work and would provide greater detail about the suggestions the MT has made to the CACs over the past year. In February,the MT received a request from members of the AV CACs for such a training.
As a result, the MT provided training for both AV CACs in April 2018 that was tailored to the issues and questions they raised. Fifteen members of the CACs attended and were highly engaged in the training. The Lancaster CAC liaison also attended the training.
SA paragraph 93 defines the role of CACs as:
LASD will continue to support Lancaster and Palmdale's CACs to advise and provide feedback to the LASD's Antelope Valley stotions. The panel will leverage the insights and expertise ofthe community to address policing concerns, including, but not limited to, racial or ethnic pro~(ing and access to law enforcement services, and promote greater transparency and public understanding ofLASD. The civilian pane( shall be authorized ta:(a)advise the Sheriffand the station commanders on strotegies and training to improve community relations, bias-free policing, and access to the civilian complaintsystem;(b) work with the Sheriffand station commanders to establish and carry out community public safety priorities;(c) provide the community with information on the Agreement and its implementation;and(d)receive and convey to LASD public comments and concerns.
The core messages of the training emphasized the role of the CACs as follows.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

26

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 32 of 60 Page ID #:503

•

Serve as a liaison between the community and LASD, especially for community

members less able or inclined to directly engage with the Department or

participate in open forums.

•

Regularly provide information about community concerns to LASD.

•

Actively seek out community members for their perspectives and input, especially

those that LASD might not otherwise become aware of.

•

Serve as a two-way conduit of information and report back to the community,

when and where appropriate.

•

Inform community members of LASD reform efforts, events, and responses to

incidents or concerns.

•

When requested or needed, provide input to the stations on community policing

strategies and public safety priorities(SA paragraph 93)and discuss possible

unintended consequences of those strategies.

•

Be a voice for the community to LASD.

•

Occupy a special position and privilege with direct access to the station captain

and other leaders at the stations as well as in representing the community and

reflecting community views.

There was a very positive response to the training from the CAC members.Also,the MT learned of developments from the CACs.

There was strong interest and desire evident during this session for improved relations between the community and LASD, with community members acknowledging the positive changes that are occurring and expressing the need for further progress.

The Departments liaisons to the CACs have made efforts to recruit an invested and diverse membership on the CACs.

Four members had direct involvement in the initial TCAL-NAACP lawsuit that led to the DOJ investigation and then the SA.

There are now two members of the Lancaster CAC who are members of and advocates for the LGBTQ community.

There is a homeless advocate on the Palmdale CAC.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

27

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 33 of 60 Page ID #:504
There is now a total of four youth members on the two CACs, with three new youth members recently added, one in Lancaster and two in Palmdale. All three new members are students at AV Community College.
There was openness to discussing the need to improve the functioning of the CACs and acknowledgment that they need help with some of their administrative tasks, such as in developing meeting agendas, documenting meeting minutes, ensuring follow-up on issues of concern, and communicating more frequently with the MT regarding these operational issues.
2. LASD Community Engagement Activity
The LASD-AV stations maintain a monthly Community Engagement Tracking Report, which Iists the various community meetings and events that LASD holds or participates in and each deputy's attendance record. Such meetings include: Coffee with the Captain, in which the captain from each station and some deputies have an open meeting at a cafe to hear from community members; LASD Ice Cream Socials, in which LASD provides free ice cream to children in the community,and deputies are available to answer questions and spend time with children; and monthly NAACP membership meetings. It is clear that LASD is participating in numerous community events and has been making a concerted effort to reach out to the various AV communities and to document these outreach efforts.
Another way the Department has begun tracking each deputy's community engagement activity is by enabling deputies to document in their mobile computer system substantive, non-law enforcement interactions with community members.The Community Engagement work plan is not fully finalized, but an agreement on the manner in which LASD-AV will meet the requirement that all deputies regularly engage in community events(SA paragraph 88)is described below.
Both Lancaster and Palmdale CACs hold quarterly community meetings that are open to the public and allow the CAC members and LASD personnel to engage with community members on progress in meeting the SA requirements and other objectives. These meetings are facilitated and actively advertised by the Department(SA paragraph 94).

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

28

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 34 of 60 Page ID #:505

3. Joint Activities
a. Community Survey
As required by the SA,the first annual AV Community Survey was launched in February 2018 by an independent research team that has been contracted to administer and manage the community survey. The purpose of the survey is to assess community perceptions of the relationship between LASD and the AV community and to attempt to measure how, if at all, the SA reforms affect that relationship. The survey has been available for community members to complete both online and on paper. Several AV community-based organizations have been engaged to help raise awareness of the survey and to distribute a link to it. Many of these organizations have physical copies of the survey available as well. LASD has also been effective at spreading the word about the survey, using its social media to recruit a significant number of respondents.
In addition to the general survey being distributed throughout the AV,a youth survey is also being administered. Students at two high schools, one in each city, took the survey in March and April.
As the data collection phase of the survey process—including the outreach and encouragement of community members to complete the survey—nears completion, the Parties and the research team are working to ensure that the survey responses yield a representative sample of the AV community. Representativeness, in this context, refers to how well the demographics of survey respondents match up with the demographics of the AV community at large. At the time this report was written, early data visualizations revealed that people of color (particularly black and to a lesser extent, Latino) were underrepresented in the initial pool of respondents. White youth were also underrepresented.The research team was asked to conduct more targeted outreach to these underrepresented communities, and those efforts are currently underway.
The research team will also soon collect qualitative data through a series offocus groups. Both youth and adult focus groups will provide the research team with more in-depth conversations about the relationship between LASD and the AV community.This will help provide further context for the survey responses. The Parties and research team are currently determining the methodologies for the qualitative data collection and are procuring internal review board (IRB) approval of qualitative data.'
After the data collection phase is complete and the data are analyzed, survey results will be compiled and released to the public. The data gathered through this initial annual survey will be used as a baseline and will be compared with future survey data to assess changes in the relationship between LASD and the community over time.
~ An IRB is a type of committee that reviews the methods proposed for research to ensure that they meet ethical standards.The purpose of the IRB is to make certain that appropriate steps are taken to protect the rights and welfare of humans participating as subjects in a research study.

AV 6 Month Report Vl Jan-Jun 2018.docx

29

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 35 of 60 Page ID #:506

b. Compliance Metrics:Damning Regular Community Engagement
The Parties and MT conferred in mid-May over a few final issues relating to work plans and compliance metrics for the Community Engagement section of the SA. It is expected that these plans will be finalized early in the next reporting period.
Key provisions that were finalized in this reporting period include SA paragraph 88, which mandates:"AII sworn personnel at the Antelope Valley stations shall actively attend community meetings and events...on a regular basis and take into account the need to enhance relationships with particular groups within the community,including, but not limited to, youth, and communities of color."
The MT first considered a definition of "regularly" in paragraph 88 as requiring every single sworn member of the Palmdale and Lancaster stations attend at least one community meeting or event every three months. However, LASD receives a high volume of calls far service and has clearly articulated goals and values that require a timely response to all calls for service. Because each station's policing strategy is highly influenced by their commitment to call responsiveness, allocating time for all community engagement activities is extraordinarily challenging. These challenges, which also include the impracticality of holding community events during the overnight shift, may have made compliance with a quarterly mandate for every deputy u ntenable.
As an alternative, LASD proposed an innovative idea to allow more organic community engagement efforts to count toward compliance. LASD submitted that deputies who engage in voluntary, meaningful,and sometimes spontaneous engagement with members of the community could be tracked and counted through their mobile computing systems using the "Community Relations" stat code,755. For example,if deputies encounter a group of people playing basketball in the park and have the time to engage in a meaningful discussion with them about their concerns or ideas on improving LASD-community relations, that encounter would count toward their mandated community engagement efforts. The MT applauds this solution, as it both solves a logistical dilemma and illustrates that daily encounters between deputies and community members are an important opportunityfor the Department to bring its community engagement activities into alignment with its evolving community policing strategies and problem-oriented policing practices.
Subsequently, the Parties agreed that the following will constitute compliance with paragraph 88 of the SA.
LASD Deputies are meaningfully participating in community engagement as evidenced by the 755 stat code log and the monthly Community Meetings report submitted by LASD-AV showing every deputy assigned to an AV Station attends community meetings and engages involuntary, positive,self-initiated community contacts and at the following intervals:

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-)un 2018.docx

30

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 36 of 60 Page ID #:507
Every twelve months,two community meetings/events and two voluntary, positive, self-initiated community contacts OR one meeting/event and a minimum of six voluntary, positive, self-initiated community contacts.
2. Voluntary, positive, self-initiated community contact will be logged utilizing stat code 755. LASD will provide appropriate training to deputies on how to use the 755 stat code and regularly review deputies' logs to ensure the 755 stat code is being used correctly.
4. Monitorina Team Recommendations
As the MT has emphasized in previous reports and in other communications, community engagement is a means of working to establish long-term,trusting, and productive relationships with communities and community members, especially among the minority and youth populations (as specified by the SA). In the context of the Community Engagement section of the SA, it is crucial that all members of the Department understand that community engagement and community relations are not one and the same.The quality of community relations is a reflection or outgrowth of the policing philosophy, strategies, and tactics that are employed by a Iaw enforcement agency. Policing tactics and practices have a direct and immediate influence on the quality of the relationship between the community and their law enforcement providers. And many decades of experience have shown that positive community relations can be more readily achieved when there is a shared commitment between the community and law enforcement to a community policing philosophy and the adoption of problem-solving practices.
Community policing differs from community relations in that it focuses on a unique process and specific actions that are intended to foster ongoing collaboration and support for achieving well-defined, mutually agreed upon objectives. It requires a law enforcement agency to commit to undertaking meaningful collaboration by actively engaging with community members who then become true partners and co-producers of public safety. This differs significantly from traditional policing models wherein the community is relegated to simply becoming passive recipients of those public safety services that only the agency determines to be suitable and appropriate.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

31

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 37 of 60 Page ID #:508
SA paragraphs 87, 89, 90, and 93 identify a number of specific objectives that ~P,SD can achieve by having sincere community dialogues, implementing a comprehensive community policing strategy, engaging the community in identifying community and neighborhood priorities, examining effective and appropriate policing tactics to be employed, participating in community meetings and events, and receiving and responding to community input. As reported in previous six-month reports,the MT has also encouraged LASD to define and adopt a genuine community policing model to implement in the Antelope Valley.e The MT is optimistic that after the development and implementation of the in-service trainings required by SA paragraph 89, the department will be in a better position to implement and carry out these objectives. Paragraph 89 states:
LASD agrees to provide structured annual in-service training on community policing and problem-oriented policing methods and skills for a((AV deputies, including station supervisors and unit commanders. 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 interpersonalskills (d)community engagement techniques, including how to establish formal portnerships and actively engage community organizations, including youth, immigrant and LGBT communities;(e)problem-oriented policing tactics;(fl conflict resolution and verbal de-escolation ofconflict•and(g)cultural awareness and sensitivity training.
Beyond the CAC meetings, LASD should consider hosting quarterly town hall meetings to hear from the community and implement a structured, reliable follow-up process. Department personnel giving talks or presenting reports to the community can serve important purposes, but these meetings should also stress that the Department is listening to community members. Whenever possible, LASD should seek to have patrol deputies and field sergeants present, in addition to the captains of each station and others in leadership. It is beneficial to have deputies in attendance so that they can also engage directly with community members.

e The US DOJ Once of Community Oriented Policing Services(COPS Office)illustrates what is meant by community policing:"Community policing emphasizes proactive problem solving in a systematic and routine fashion. Rather than responding to crime only aker 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.,, (https://cops.0sdoj.gov/DefauIkasp?Item=2558)

AV 6 Month Report VI tan-Jun 2018.docx

32

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 38 of 60 Page ID #:509

A community member suggested that each station hold a community event or series of town hall—style meetings in Spanish. Although the stations typically provide translation services,the community is requesting that the meeting be held in Spanish as the primary language and translated to English for non—Spanish speakers. It was also suggested that LASD make it clear that the undocumented community is invited to the meeting and is guaranteed that it will be safe to attend. LASD should consider working with CAC members to determine effective ways to assuage the concerns of the undocumented community. The stations should continue to promote public awareness of the Departments position.
5. Steps Toward Compliance
As reported in previous six-month reports, LASD is incompliance with several provisions of the SA.
1. LASD sought the assistance of community advocates and widely disseminated to the public, including on the website—in English and Spanish—an explanation of the SA requirements,thus addressing the provisions of paragraph 92.
2. LASD-AV consistently participates in local community meetings and has formally established and memorialized the CACs in policy (paragraph 94).
3. LASD has formally established CACs at both stations. LASD remains in compliance with the requirement to provide the CACs with reasonable administrative support, including meeting space, and needs to continue to respond to CAC requests for additional operational consultation and assistance. In addition, LASD has facilitated the MT providing advice and technical assistance to the CACs(paragraph 96).
4. LASD takes steps to ensure that the CACs will not have access to any non-public information regarding an individual deputy or allegation of misconduct or disciplinary action. LASD is currently in compliance with this provision (paragraph 97).
5. The previous six-month report discusses LASD's compliance with paragraph 91 requiring regular reporting on the Departments community engagement efforts.(No report was due in this current six-month reporting period.)9
The following areas of the SA are either not in compliance or in partial compliance.
Work with the community to develop diversion programs(paragraph 87).

9 Previous reports can be found at the Compliance Unit website(http://www.lasheriff.org/s2/page_render.aspx?pagename=avc_main).

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

33

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 39 of 60 Page ID #:510
2. Develop a plan for all LASD sworn personnel to actively and regularly attend community meetings and events based on the results of the annual community satisfaction surveys and feedback from the civilian panel, and take into account the need to enhance relationships with particular groups within the community,including, but not limited to, youth and communities of color (paragraph 88). Though preliminary agreement has been reached on compliance measures regarding how often deputies must participate in community engagement,the nature and content of the engagement needs to be further developed in light of ongoing community feedback.
3. Provide structured annual in-service training on community policing and problemoriented policing methods and skills for all AV deputies, including station supervisors and unit commanders(paragraph 89;full text above).
4. LASD's monthly Crime Management Forum meetings and semi-annual Risk Management Forum meetings must include discussion and analysis of trends in misconduct complaints and community priorities to identify areas of concern, and to better develop interventions to address them (paragraph 90).
6. Next Stens
Once the compliance metrics have been finalized,the MT will specifically monitor the provisions ofthe Community Engagement section ofthe SA to determine compliance on these measures. Early in the upcoming reporting period, the MT will meet with the Compliance Unit to discuss the most efficient methods for these monitoring activities and to establish a timeline far carrying them out.
The MT will maintain regular communication and check-ins with the CACs as a follow-up to the training that was conducted and provide any needed technical assistance, including those mentioned by the CAC members,such as furnishing meeting agendas, documenting meeting minutes, and ensuring follow-upon issues of concern.
Regarding the main outstanding issues of LASD's non-compliance with the SA,the MT will review the proposed in-service training curriculum when it is submitted and observe the trainings. The MT will track the use of the new stat code 755 and determine if the activities being documented qualify as genuine community engagement.
LASD-AV is planning to participate in a new countywide youth diversion program.The MT recognizes that development and coordination of these programs requires a large commitment of time and resources. The MT will engage with the Compliance Unit in reviewing the countywide program and any other options,including programs already operating in the AV,to ensure they have potential to comply with paragraph 87 before major efforts are expended.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 40 of 60 Page ID #:511
Data collection for the community survey will continue into the summer and will conclude after youth and adult focus groups are conducted. Once data collection is complete and the data are analyzed,survey results will be published, including a report summarizing the findings. The Parties will meet to discuss the survey results and use that information to inform compliance with the SA and next year's survey process, and to establish a baseline for assessing the relationship between LASD and the community over time.
E. Use of Force
LASD's policies and procedures governing the use, investigation, and adjudication of force is the cornerstone to the Antelope Valley's community trust in the Department. The Preamble to the section of the SA governing the use of force(UOF)states:
LASD agrees to revise its force policies and practices to reflect its commitment to upholding the rights secured or protected by the Constitution ofthe United States, protecting human fife and the dignity ofevery individual, and maintaining public safety.
LASD agrees to ensure that its occountability measures are implemented appropriately so that Antelope Valley deputies use force only when objectively reasonable, and in a manner that avoids unnecessary injury to deputies and civilians and to use force as o last resort and de-escalate the use offorce at the earliest possible moment.
Deputies and stoffshall endeavor to use only that level offorce necessary for the situation.(SA page 24)
Additionally,the SA delineates requirements for the Departments use-of-force training (paragraph 119)and requires the Department conduct an annual analysis, to be published in a public report, of use-of-force outcome data, use-of-force trends, and the assessment and frequency and nature of uses of force that are referred to the Departments Internal Affairs Bureau for investigation (paragraphs 120-123).

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

35

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 41 of 60 Page ID #:512

Monitoring Activities
a. Monitors'Audit ofAV UOFInvestigations
The MT devoted the bulk of their UOF-related work in this reporting period to conducting an audit of the use offorce by AV deputies.This audit is evaluating the Departments compliance with the SA provisions governing the use, investigation, and adjudication of force by AV deputies and will propose recommendations to address areas where the Department can improve its UOF policies, procedures,and accountability processes. As reported in the last six-month report, the Department has drafted extensive revisions to its use-of-force policy. The MT's audit will provide information to help the Department finalize those changes.Toward that end,the MT developed a comprehensive audit plan that was submitted to LASD and DOJ. Much of the resulting audit plan was completed in this reporting period.
Audit's Scope and Methodology.The MT audit team worked with LASD's Compliance Unit, the Lancaster and Palmdale station captains, and the LASD Discovery Unit to discuss the audit's scope, objectives, and methodology;to arrange access to the records needed to conduct the audit; and to validate that the files under review represent every UOF incident that occurred during the audit period.
Audit Population and Sampling: The audit team intends to examine all uses of force that occurred in the AV during the audit population time period, including cases involving deputies from "embedded" units, which operate on a regular basis in the AV but do not report directly to the AV commander.The MT has received all the requested files except for those from embedded units.
Measures to Determine the Departments Compliance with SA Paragraphs 102-118: When the UOF work plans and compliance measures are established, subsequent audits will measure the Department's level of compliance on the various audit findings against those standards. In the current audit, compliance will be determined by applying professional judgment to SA paragraphs 102-118.
Audit Impairments: At the beginning of this audit, LASD had a 14-month backlog of scanning and uploading documents from completed AV UOF investigations into the Performance Recording and Monitoring System (PRMS). Also,the Department has not provided Monitors with any UOF investigations involving LASD embedded unit personnel(who do nat report directly to the AV commanders)to be evaluated for SA compliance. LASD has offered to provide them but not to have them be used to determine compliance with the SA or for publication. The Parties and MT will discuss these cases involving embedded units further, as it has been a significant impairment to auditing and monitoring that remains unresolved.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-tun 2018.docx

36

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 42 of 60 Page ID #:513
Audit Report An exit conference draft report will be prepared and presented to DOJ and LASD for their consideration and for an opportunity to respond to any of the audit findings or recommendations. The Monitors will then have an opportunity to review and respond to any objections or concerns from LASD to the audits findings. Any subsequent changes to the audit report and the related rationale will be transparent and fully documented.
The MT has evaluated a significant percentage of the UOF incidents in the audit sample.The MT appreciates the timeliness and thoroughness of the Compliance Units response to all requests for follow-up information and documents. If the issues around the scope of the audit can be resolved promptly,the UOF audit will be published in the next reporting period.
2. Steps Toward Compliance
As reported in the last six-month report,the Department has done extensive work toward revising its use-of-force policies. While many of the Department's proposed changes represent clear steps in the right direction, the MT's UOF audit will provide information essential to finalizing those revisions.
The Department has responded to the SA requirement that it conduct UOF audits and data analysis(paragraphs 119-123)in two ways. First, LASD's Audit and Accountability Bureau (AAB) has published severe) audit reports that acknowledge the SA as a consideration of their audit(s), but it has not specifically dedicated an audit to evaluate whether the Department is in compliance with SA paragraphs 102-118.
Second,the Department submitted a repot, Analysis ofLASD Stop and Use ofForce Data for Antelope Volley,June 9,2077, which provided extensive analysis intended to address some provisions of SA paragraphs 120-121. The MT has significant concerns associated with the methodologies used to analyze the Department's UOF data and,therefore, did not accept the report. Chief among those concerns, the analysis was based on the Departments internal coding of the force levels used by suspects and deputies during UOF incidents. The analysis then compared the UOF codes to draw conclusions about the data. The report was appropriately transparent about methodologies used; however, no independent efforts were taken to determine if the codes entered by the Department were correct, which challenges the reliability of any subsequent analytical assessments and related findings. The scale used was also an overly simplistic method for assessing UOF incidents. A thorough review of the UOF investigation report is required to reliably assess the circumstances that led to the behavior of the subject,the appropriateness of the force response,and the use of appropriate de-escalation tactics.(See also the discussion of this analysis with regard to racial disparity in the Bias-Free Policing section of this report.)

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

37

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 43 of 60 Page ID #:514
a. Review ofLASD Pilot Programs
During this reporting period,the MT attended a presentation on the Department's proposed Non-Categorized Force Investigation (NCI) Pilot. The NCI Pilot was designed to streamline the investigation and reporting process of very minor UOF incidents so that field supervisors could be more readily available to provide oversight in the field. The NCI Pilot program was conducted in the AV from November 1, 2017,through April 30,2018.The results of the NCI Pilot are being evaluated by the Department to determine if it should modify its countywide policy pursuant to the Pilot's findings.
MT members met with the Palmdale and Lancaster station captains, who indicated their belief that the NCI Pilot has been successful and that it helps facilitate thorough and consistent UOF investigations. These cases can now be completed more expeditiously, which allows the investigating sergeants to spend more time in the field providing supervision and oversight of AV deputies. This project on the part of the Department was not specifically required by the SA but is being reviewed by the MT because changes to the UOF policy may have an impact on provisions of the SA.
LASD is conducting another UOF pilot in the AV to test a streamlined version of LASD's Use of Force Form (SF-R 438P). The Compliance Unit created the streamlined form with the help of Department executives and the Force Training Unit. The form emphasizes answering several i mportant and standardized questions regarding the application of force; the previous method relied heavily on a mostly narrative and sometimes incomplete account of the incident. Training was given to deputies assigned to Lancaster and Palmdale stations, and both stations completed the Pilot on December 31, 2017. The pilot was then expanded across the North Patrol Division. The Department is now reviewing the findings to determine if it should be used throughout the county. The MT supports these efforts, having stressed the importance of providing consistency in UOF investigations by using a more comprehensive 438 form and investigation guidelines for supervisors to follow.
The MT appreciated the opportunity to preview these innovations and will work with the Compliance Unit to assess how NCI force incidents and the new Use of Force Form affect the monitoring work,including incorporating them into future UOF audits.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

38

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 44 of 60 Page ID #:515

3. Next Steos
Once the analysis of the UOF incidents in the audit sample has been completed, a comprehensive report will be prepared and submitted to the Department with the audits findings. Those findings will include a thorough assessment of the Departments compliance with the SA provisions governing the use, investigation, and adjudication of force by AV deputies. After that, the Department and DOJ will meet to review the audits findings and recommendations and to develop a plan to correct any deficiencies identified in the audit.
The audits findings should also help inform the final decisions regarding possible revisions to the Department's UOF policies. in some cases, the audit may point to additional policy revisions not yet considered. Audit findings may also suggest the need for additional training, documentation, or changes to accountability processes.The findings will be used to refine monitoring workplans for the UOF sections ofthe SA—particularly with respect to quantitative measurements of compliance—and to propose recommendations in the Departments UOF policy. Subsequent audits by the MT will then evaluate the Departments implementation of any proposed recommendations and adherence to existing SA requirements.
F. Personnel Complaint Review
The introduction to the Personnel Complaint Review section of the SA states:
The County will ensure that afl a(fegations ofpersonnel misconduct are received and are fu!!y and fairly investigated, and that al!personnel who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent. To achieve these outcomes, LASD and the County agree to implement the requirements below.(Pages 29-30)
Those requirements include:
Make personnel complaint forms and informational material available to the public(paragraph 124);
Accept ail personnel complaints, including anonymous and third-party complaints(paragraph 125); and
Hold personnel accountable when they are found to have committed misconduct (page 29).
Additionally, the SA requires that the Department revise its complaint policies so that:
All complaints are classified accurately, and each allegation receives the appropriate level of review (paragraph 127);

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

39

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 45 of 60 Page ID #:516

Personnel complaints are not misclassified as service complaints(paragraph 128);
Each allegation of misconduct is identified and investigated fully and fairly (paragraph 130); and
Complaints that may require discipline are handled as administrative investigations rather than as service complaints(paragraphs 129-130).
The SA identifies minimum investigative standards(paragraphs 131-137)and training that must be provided to supervisors (paragraphs 138-139). It also requires that the Department perform an annual audit of community complaints(paragraph 140).
Monitoring Activities
During this reporting period,the MT completed a comprehensive audit of the Department's complaint investigation system and processes—how it accepts, investigates, and adjudicates community complaints in the Antelope Valley. Specifically, the MT conducted a detailed analysis of each community complaint that was made by a member of the AV community during the first quarter(January, February, and March)of 2016.This included all community complaints that resulted in a formal investigation and any community complaint or issue that was recorded in some other manner,such as a claim for damages,civil suit, or Watch Commander log entry.
Pursuant to SA paragraphs 124-140,the audit analyzed the information in each of those complaints as well as the Department's broader personnel complaint systems to determine whether:
• Members of the AV community had access to complaint forms and information;
• The Department accepted and processed all complaints from members of the AV community;
• Community complaints were classified properly and personnel complaints were not misclassified as service complaints;
• Complaint investigations were complete and provided sufficient evidence to support reliable findings;
Management review was thorough, and decisions were based on a preponderance of evidence;
• Any policy, training, or risk-management issues that arose in a complaint were addressed; and

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-tun 2018.docx

40

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 46 of 60 Page ID #:517

The Department complied with the records retention and reporting mandates associated with personnel complaints.

2. Steps Toward Compliance: Results of the MT Audit cTbpoahumrtemafaeugulrnldaisiptthhyodsr.i1t1s0c2ol4fo-Ss1eA3ds9tthoaafnttdthaheredSsAAiVnrsestqeavuteiirroaenlmsaegrneetnasesrfaaolrnldryetcshopenordneudfcoitrneegdwteoardpeeuqbnluoiatcticenoccmoopmmlpaplilaniitansntcfiernowvmiesttthhiegaAtiVons

The Department was not in compliance require that personnel complaint forms

with SA paragraphs and information be

124, 125, and 126, which available at specified

locations and on their website,that the Department accept all complaints,and that

refusing M aterial

to accept a was not on

complaint or discouraging a complaint display at all the AV locations specified

is grounds for discipline. in the SA; none of the

wmoertkheoddscoonrsimseteanntslyf(oer.fgi.l,itneglaepchoomnpel,aiemnatitlh,aotrawrreiltitsetnedfoornm)t;haenDdespeavretrmalenaltlsegwaetbisointseof

deputies failing to accept a complaint were not investigated thoroughly by the AV

stations.

2.

The Department was not in compliance with the SA's provisions for the investigation of

public complaints at the AV stations. Generally, most investigations reviewed for this

audit were quite good. However,there were severe) AV station cases in which key

witnesses were not interviewed and no explanation was provided (paragraph 135).

Further, documentation was lacking to show whether deputies were interviewed

separately from one another(paragraph 137)and/or that interviewing a complainant in

person was imprecticai (paragraph 136). The SA requires that complaint investigations be

as of

thorough as the 52 cases

necessary to reach reliable and complete findings (paragraph 131). in this audit(21%)fell short of that standard. The shortcoming

Eleven

predominantly involved the failure to clearly identify all allegations at the beginning of

the investigation and gather evidence to prove or disprove each one.

t°The audit was released on January 12, and Reports section of the AV Monitor's

2018, and it and the Departments response are available in website(http://antelopevalleysettlementmonitoring info).

the

Documents

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

41

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 47 of 60 Page ID #:518

3. The Department was not in compliance with SA requirements for the adjudication of public complaints. In 23% of the AV station cases, allegations were not identified during the investigation or management review (as required by SA paragraph 130). In 29°/a of the cases, critical information was missing from the investigation, and/or the adjudication was not based on the preponderance of evidence. The audit found that deputy statements were automatically given preference over those of complainants in 27% of the cases reviewed. On the other hand,there were no cases reviewed where the complainant's statement, or that of a witness, was discredited due to his or her criminal history(paragraphs 131, 139).
4. The Department was not in compliance with the SA's requirement for effective management oversight regarding the identification and resolution of critical risk management issues that are brought to light during the investigation of public complaints(paragraph 61). The documentation the MT received for each case—the same documentation ajudge or anyone else would receive when requesting the official record for these complaints—did not contain any record that significant risk-management issues were identified and reviewed and corrective action initiated, although the audit found several cases where such a review should have occurred.
5. The Department was not in compliance with the SA requirements for capturing and entering accurate data into PRMS(paragraph 142). Allegations were often not accurately captured in the complaint investigations data, especially when the complaint involved multiple deputies with multiple allegations and multiple dispositions. The audit found the more than seven-month delay in completing data entry into PRMS for completed cases to be excessive.
6. The Department was not in compliance with SA requirements to conduct its own complaint audits and will remain out of compliance until its Audit and Accountability Bureau(AAB)submits the specifically required audits, along with the associated audit work papers, for MT review (paragraph 140).
The Department has conducted several audits of other SA-related areas, only one of which evaluated the Department's compliance with SA requirements.(The MT is still reviewing that audit.)" These audits, which are independent of MT audits, must ultimately show that compliance has been achieved and sustained for at least 12 months.
7. While not a specific SA requirement,the audit identified problems with the retention and reporting of public complaints. First, the Departments Records Retention Schedule appears to be inconsistent with California Government Code section 26200 et seq.Second,the Department may not be reporting citizen complaints to DOJ as described in sections 832.5 and 13012 of the Penal Code.
~ ~ LASD AAB Detentions ofIndividuals and Data, Co/(ection Audit, North Patro!Division, Lancaster Sheri/fs Station, No.2017-14-A,lonuary 31,207H,

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

42

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 48 of 60 Page ID #:519
3. New Steos
Part of the audit process calls for the MT to submit its findings to the Department and to discuss the audit evidence that supports the audits findings and recommendations.That was done d uring this reporting period, and the Department concurred with the majority of the audit recommendations. Based on the audits findings and recommendations,the Department is in the process of revising its policies and manuals to correct the issues that have been identified. That includes revising the Departments Service Complaint Review Handbook to shore up areas identified as deficient. The MT has reviewed several drafts of that handbook and provided the Department with feedback on the relevant provisions. The Department is revising the handbook but, because it affects the entire Department and notjust the AV stations, any changes will require additional research and attention to ensure they will be effective and appropriately undertaken throughout the Department.
Meanwhile, North Patrol Division,the organizational command responsible for AV commands, has prepared a Unit Order to implement the necessary changes within the AV. The MT has reviewed several drafts ofthat order and,again, provided input on those documents.The draft order is nearing completion and will soon be available. Once the Unit Order is issued,training will occur to ensure LASD-AV employees and their supervisors are aware of the new requirements.The MT will monitor that training, after which afollow-up audit will evaluate the degree to which the required changes have been implemented. It is expected that the follow-up audit will begin about six to nine months after the training is completed. That will allow sufficient time for complaints to be investigated and adjudicated so the entire process can be audited effectively.
This MT audit will also be used to help finalize the monitoring workplans for the complaint sections of the SA, particularly with respect to quantitative and qualitative measurements of compliance. The audit helped the MT identify those SA provisions that are critical and which will require a very high degree of compliance (e.g., investigations must always be sufficiently thorough to allow for reliable and complete findings [paragraph 131]) and those that may not require such a high degree of compliance (e.g., a reasonable percentage of minor data entry errors can be made as long as there is a system for checking and correcting errors and holding personnel responsible).

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

43

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 49 of 60 Page ID #:520

G. Accountability
The intent of the Accountability section and related provisions in the SA is to ensure that organizational accountability is displayed at all levels and appropriate oversight is provided by management and supervisory staff through the observation and evaluation of both individual behaviors and the collective performance of employees.~Z As stated in the previous semi-annual reports, accountability begins and ends with LASD management. it requires ongoing attention to and evaluation of individual and group performance, and the capacity and willingness to scrutinize and remedy systemic deficiencies. Effective accountability includes consideration of every stage of the personnel performance processes. Those processes must be built into the fabric of operations at every level of the organization, and reliable and current information must be available to the managerial leadership.
Accountability systems—including electronic data systems and file storage, and the policies and procedures governing their use—provide permanent mechanisms for management to routinely review and evaluate operations and performance in real time, assess risk exposures, and ensure and verify that standards are being appropriately met.
The MT's role is to verify that these accountability operations are conducted according to policy and as required by the SA. For this Accountability section, monitoring activities primarily focus on paragraphs 141-145 and their requirements concerning data collection and evaluating personnel performance via the Personnel Performance Index (PPI), now known as the Performance Recording and Monitoring System (PRMS), and the Performance Mentoring Program (PMP).
Accountability Provisions in Other SA Sections
Management accountability requirements are far broader thanjust those identified in paragraphs 141-145. In fact, they permeate every aspect of the SA. Each provision of the SA has several steps required to reach full compliance, one of which is that the Department adapts its accountability systems so that the implementation and impact of these changes are tracked, assessed, and corrected as necessary. This includes stations and deputies being held accountable far properly incorporating the change into their practices. It also includes supervisors and managers being held accountable for tracking both deputy performance and establishing whether the change is having its intended effect. The MT will assess the accountability practices required for each section of the SA via the reviews and audits specific to those sections.

1z Management staff in AV includes the North Patrol Division chief and commander,and,at each station, captain, operations lieutenant and watch commander.The sergeants are supervisors rather than managers, but they support management in review functions and in ensuring effective oversight is provided in the field.

AV 6 Month Report Vl 1an-tun 2018.docx

44

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 50 of 60 Page ID #:521
2. Monitoring Activities
Recent MT activity related to this topic included a series of in-person meetings, data system reviews, discussions, and direct observations focused on identifying and documenting the Departments current accountability practices. Several of these are described here.
I n December 2017,the MT met with the Compliance Unit to discuss managerial oversight of, and responsibilities for, tracking Performance Log Entries (PLEB), which is one of the processes used to document both the positive and negative performance of station personnel. The MT also reviewed a sample of Watch Commander(WC)logs to better understand this process and concluded that a more extensive review of those logs will be necessary in the next reporting period. The MT will evaluate whether accountability-related actions made necessary by the activities and observations described in the WC log entries are, in fact, completed and followed upon.For example, if personnel complaints or UOF incidents are reported in the WC logs,those events should also be found in the other databases that would indicate managerial follow-up.
Beginning in the fall of 2017 and throughout this reporting period,the MT worked with the Compliance Unit to develop a comprehensive picture of each of lASD's accountability processes. The Compliance Unit submitted its latest draft of this document in February 2018. The document includes relevant excerptsfrom the directives for these management practices from a variety of departmental handbooks, memos, procedures, and newsletters. The document outlines the various processes and protocols that are intended to promote management accountability, with appendices that reflect the policies and procedures governing these processes. This effort was undertaken to establish whether written documentation of guidelines exists and to establish how these are used to ensure that performance standards and expectations are tracked and achieved.
In December 2017,the MT met with the station commanders at both Lancaster and Palmdale stations to document how accountability processes are conducted at the station level. In May 2018,the MT again met onsite with both AV captains and their respective managers at the Palmdale station for a more detailed review and demonstration of unit-level accountability processes and practices. The May meeting was particularly informative and productive, as the MT was able to review details and nuances of the multiple processes and databases used in accountability oversight in the AV stations. A memo will be provided back to the Compliance Unit outlining the MT's understanding ofthe information, databases, and accountability processes. This and the accountability document prepared by the Compliance Unit will provide the baseline for auditing the Department's systems and procedures for oversight and accountability.

AV 6 Month Report VI )an-tun 2018.docx

45

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 51 of 60 Page ID #:522
3. Steps Toward Compliance
As a result of the discussions, reviews, and demonstrations described above and in the Iast six-month report,the MT has gained a detailed understanding of the SA-related accountability systems in place in LASD-AV and of the Departments efforts to address SA requirements. These information systems, processes,and practices are extensive and,in many ways,impressive.This section summarizes the Department's accountability systems as they relate to the SA paragraphs. The MT has not yet conducted a formal assessment of compliance to determine whether these practices and processes are sufficient to meet those requirements—that assessment will begin in the upcoming reporting period. However,some provisional conclusions about the current state of compliance have been gleaned from the discussions and work conducted to date and are included here.
a. PRMS,SA Required Modifications, and Alternatives
PRMS is LASD's primary Departmentwide decision support system in matters related to risk management and service reviews.The MT found PRMS to be a robust data system with the capacity to facilitate many of the Departments accountability processes.
Paragraphs 141 and 142 require LASD to make several particular PRMS modifications to give it the capacity to compare deputies and units and to be able to access and report additional data relevant to determining compliance with the SA. The SA indicated that these modifications to PRMS were estimated to take three years to complete and that an alternative process was required pending the revisions.
SA paragraph 141 requires that the PRMS be modified "so that it can make peer comparisons between deputies and units." Currently, comparisons are made primarily through the Sheriff's 11 report and the Risk Management Forum (RMF).73 The station captains use the Sheriff's 11 to compare deputies, and the RMF is used to specifically compare performance among stations. The stations rely particularly on the Sheriff's 11 reports to compare deputies, identify trends with individual deputies, and spot general trends among the deputies. The Sheriff's 11 reports are reviewed monthly by the operations lieutenants and captains at both AV stations and also d uring the interim reviews and annual evaluations of each employee. RMFs are held every six months with all North Patrol Division station captains and division management personnel present to review and discuss data tabulations and graphics.

13 RMF reports are prepared using primarily information from PRMS.

AV 6 Month Report Vl Jan-Jun 2018.docx

46

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 52 of 60 Page ID #:523
Paragraph 142 requires PRMS to be modified "to be able to access and report additional data ...including but not limited to data about stops, searches,and arrests...individual compliance with community engagement requirements, and criminal obstruction arrests." It also requires PLEB be accessible through PRMS. Most of the data necessary to make peer comparisons is kept in PRMS,such as shootings. lawsuits, administrative investigations, claims, personnel complaints, uses of force, and other data used to generate the Sheriff's 11 reports. However,some of the data listed in paragraph 142 is not stored or accessed in PRMS.In these cases,the Department has other means of storing and accessing that information. Examples include the following.
Stops data are not included in PRMS,the Sheriff's 11 reports, or the RMF.Stops data are held in a separate database. As required by the SA,they are evaluated through the Deputy Daily Work Sheet(DDWS)reviews, which are conducted weekly by the sergeant supervisors in each station. Stops are also evaluated by supervisors in response to complaints,such as disparate treatment or discrimination. All stops information is in CAD and kept in the Data Systems Bureau database, not in PRMS.Stops data collection training is in the process of being modified to improve the future process for evaluations(see the Stops, Seizures, and Searches section of this report).
PRMS does not contain data about obstruction arrests(or any arrests)or community engagement activities. As an alternative, each station has an Obstruction Arrest Tracker database and a Community Engagement Tracker. Although information from these two tracker systems is not contained in the PRMS(and therefore is not captured in the Sheriff's 11 reports), managers can review this information periodically to determine the number of obstruction arrests by deputies and whether deputies are meeting the requirements of community event attendance.
PLEB are also not captured in the PRMS(and therefore are not captured in the Sheriff's 11 reports). They are kept in a separate local electronic database. The PLE database is reviewed by supervisors during deputy performance reviews and evaluations.
The MT's formal assessment will evaluate LASD-AV accountability processes to determine their consistency, effectiveness, and impact on performance given that the PRMS may never be the standalone information system that was envisioned when the SA was memorialized.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

47

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 53 of 60 Page ID #:524

b. PRMS Data Accuracy
The MT audit of SCRs(see the Personnel Complaint Review section above)found significant problems with the thoroughness and reliability of PRMS,especially when complaints involve multiple deputies and multiple allegations.The MT's formal review will assess whether the Department holds personnel accountable for "inaccuracies in any data entered," whether in PRMS or alternatives, as required in SA paragraph 142.
c. Deputy Performance Reviews
SA paragraph 141 requires AV unit commanders and supervisors to "conduct periodic reviews of all deputies and units under their command to identify potential trends." LASD-AV deputy performance is evaluated in two primary ways: through Annual Performance Evaluations and Unit Level Performance Reviews.
Every deputy receives an Annual Performance Evaluation. This evaluation is completed by his or her direct supervisor and considers whether or not he or she is meeting the expected standards in all areas of performance. During this evaluation the supervisor considers information available in the databases described above,such as the Performance Log and Community Engagement Tracker, as well as information from PRMS.
Additionally, at any time of the year, employees who are identified with performance concerns through the monthly Sheriff's 11 review or by some other means are given a Unit Level Performance Review (ULPR). Conducted by the employee's supervisor, ULPRs include a review of notjust the elements of deficient performance indicated in the Sheriff's 11 report, but every aspect of the employee's performance.
Based upon ether of these performance assessments,the captain may order that an employee be placed on a Performance Mentoring Program to monitor and mentor the employee in an effort to improve performance.
The MT's formal review will assess if these performance review processes effectively and reliably hold LASD personnel accountable for their actions with regard to SA-required provisions and if they are sufficiently formalized and documented to ensure consistent application and SA compliance.
Through the review of these various processes, discussions, and requests for documentation, it is apparent that many ofthe accountability practices and processes used by LASD-AV managers and supervisors, especially regarding performance reviews, are not sufficiently formalized with written guidelines provided for supervisors and managers to follow, which raises concern that accountability processes may not be applied consistently across the stations and personnel. The station managers have expressed support for developing such guidelines for these various functions.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

48

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 54 of 60 Page ID #:525
d. Performance Mentoring
The Performance Mentoring Plan (PMP)is a nondisciplinary process whereby a supervisory team assists employees in need of specialized or additional training, supervision, or mentoring to address and remedy deficiencies in performance. Mentoring plans are tailored to enhance the specific performance of the individual employee.
SA paragraph 144 states that "LASD will continue to provide mentorship to deputies in the North Patrol Division's locally based ...PMP,as well as through LASD's department-wide PMP, based upon an appropriate determination of eligibility. To increase the effectiveness of the remedies and corrective action used to address a deputy's behavior, LASD will support and implement a plan to ensure that the LASD-wide PMP program provides mentoring of AV personnel within 30 days after the need for mentoring is identified, and that appropriate procedures are in place for supervising deputies whose performance fails to improve subsequent to mentoring:`
When unit management observes a performance issue, or a Sheriff's 11 review identifies a need for a performance assessment, decisions are made whether to place an employee on the unitlevel PMP. In performance assessments. decisions to place or not to place an employee into the PMP are documented with the reasoning for the recommendation.
The Departmentwide PMP is managed through the Risk Management Bureau. When the Risk Management Bureau identifies performance deficiencies for an individual employee,through review of Sheriff's 11 or 6y other means, a referral is made to athree-member panel of commanders who determine placement,duration, and eventual removal from the PMP.The Department-level panel's decision is implemented and supervised by the unit and reported back to the three-member panel of commanders.
SA paragraph 145 requires that "the Department-wide PMP and the North Patrol Division's PMP coordinate as appropriate with each other and share information about deputies and their individual mentoring programs." The operations lieutenants at the AV stations are the point of contact for the Risk Management Bureau and the commanders panel for the Departmentwide PMP to coordinate any information related to the departmental-level or unit-level PMP.The MT will assess the PMP program to determine compliance with the SA during the next reporting period.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

49

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 55 of 60 Page ID #:526
e. LASD Review ofStation's Review Processes
I n SA paragraph 143, LASD has committed to develop aplan—in consultation with the MT and to be approved by DOJ—to periodically analyze the AV stations' response "to concerns unique to their stations, such as trends identified through civilian complaints,the CAC,community survey, or other means." This plan will be critical to the process of establishing management accountability for proactively identifying trends and developing appropriate interventions and solutions. The plan is also intended to guide the departments actions in carrying out these responsibilities long after the monitoring team is gone.To date,the Department has not developed the required plan. Once this plan is prepared and approved.the MT will conduct reviews to determine whether the Department is identifying trends and taking steps to address any deficiencies that occur.
4. New Steos
To summarize,the MT has established that the Department has several accountability practices and various databases in place that use information and data from the PRMS and several other sources. Early in the next reporting period,the MT will work with the Compliance Unit and AV station personnel to verify that the MT's current understanding of the accountability processes is accurate and complete. From that information,the MT will develop its plan to formally review the sufficiency and effedive~ess of LASD's accountability processes required in paragraphs 141-145. This review will be designed to not only assess the availability of data and information, but also how the information is accessed,evaluated,acted upon,and documented by managers. It is anticipated this plan will be completed and assessment work begun in the next reporting period, between July and December 2018.
II1. CONCLUSION
As this report has shown, LASD has made steady progress with their implementation of the terms of the SA and pursuit of the goals that were agreed to. The primary focus of the work being conducted by the Department, as well as the Monitors' attention, is gradually shifting from essentially being centered on policy development/refinement and ensuring that necessary training is provided,to now assessing operational impacts and whether the desired outcomes are being achieved. That work will increasingly be accomplished through the use of audits, inspections, and other appropriate monitoring techniques.

AV 6 Month Report Vl Jan-Jun 2018.docx

50

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 56 of 60 Page ID #:527
Various departmental actions observed by the Monitors in this current review period have served to display LASD's willingness to use the results of administrative reviews and audits to identify and address deficiencies and strive to meet the objectives established in the SA. We were pleased to see timely action being taken to address and correct those matters. In an example referenced earlier, when audits revealed compliance deficiencies in existing data collection policies and thoroughness in supervisory reviews of those data, the Compliance Unit rapidly responded to those findings and initiated corrective action. They used audit findings to develop and provide improved training to AV supervisors to correct the deficiencies. Such actions show the value that results from diligent application of the SA provisions and reflects LASD's ability and commitment to carry out the reforms they have agreed to undertake.
While the Monitors have noted clear evidence of progress on a variety of fronts, considerable work still remains. Our commentary in various sections of this report aims to help focus everyone's attention on the priorities, identifying specific tasks to be undertaken and discussions that need to be completed in the coming months to maintain momentum.Some of those tasks will inform and influence the Department's strategies and plans for carrying out major SA provisions. in turn, this will help ensure necessary mechanisms and performance standards are in place to continue to promote a high Ievel of organizational and individual accountability.

AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

51

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 57 of 60 Page ID #:528
Appendix A:The Monitoring Team otsieltteeSTManrfehhnxxearhitaecdfpiptgsetreenooeteMlfcaircrlrmiehnloioTeicemmgirelumee2u,engdnrmenm0t,ngnactncee1shtn-eitewnem6ieaatdiivtz.AbpgtnyFeaTggpeoahrrtmeorihrrraeitroinoelesocehnngHueontmieithoaprsmnewtedraugeftonodoievseanhrftvceicmMeMitettoneeonso(ireLrggnennosSioaneirnictAAasmsvtto.cti)neoAonatshdwmdrnrs,sgooesugseedseire—mennanveaksclDttabln.cilaeareaddiTuedsrwec.rashdsoccastAereeldrurinnelvwuemeomgesfiaersneceisto.inttmwehaernSaitdbonegncocWevcrednertoieaekremnahltrsdmesenthafi.enhenhldnmTiatiretmphheneapioopSaefnmdarlloAavolbiJMlercfs,eceyomeosiTtassrsennuhiuennestgmscenrdtip,haedvhanMhsseenmaautokudrdBvibeinsrlserioevilttctsntneeroeohaoyrnulxosnohrrnetnsdfmiaeaaeie—ectnlvtdnqhtthsgershueiaohereieeTodlsvvolhcniaeuheydesaostinas.esetvmpaimx,udiAepsqpinpda(ltsuetdpognioMreeeaisudatrdmtiiTucintitsbt)hstsiocihlhaeocenoweeeuelandtoaaldllpschfnascleeoareidyfanrfmnn,eorgiipxrleenmolpceaasdoeeelrwtxsri,oshizttfiateinaodtisefeisn acTonhlialsaccbtooinrosa~ttaeiblvileeartaiesofsnoerosmfs;tmieteanistmuosmfienLmgAbSteDhr'esspprwrianoscgirapeslsesssetmoobfwleaevrdadltuioamtspiulopnepmaoenrndtttathteecihoMnnoincoiaflttoahrsess'SisApt.hainlcoestoophpyroovfide
AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 58 of 60 Page ID #:529
Appendix B: Antelope Valley Monitoring Website This website allows Antelope Valley community members to learn more about the Settlement Agreement,the backgrounds of the Monitoring Team members,and the monitoring activities; access documents related to the monitoring work,including the semi-annual reports;follow links to LASD's homepage and other relevant websites; and—most importantly—submit questions and comments directly to the Monitoring Team. The website's URL is antelopevalleysettlementmonitoring.info
AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 59 of 60 Page ID #:530
Appendix C: How the Parties and Monitoring Team Work
To complete the work of the Settlement Agreement(SA),the Parties(US DOJ,LASD,and the County of Los Angeles)and the Monitoring Team(MT)are in daily communication through a variety of means. In each six-month period, the Parties and MT hold multiple meetings at LASD headquarters, at the offices of the Compliance Unit, at other administrative offices, at the Palmdale and Lancaster stations, and at various community centers, schools, and places of worship in the Antelope Valley(AV). The MT periodically meets in person with the captains of both AV stations and their staff and participates in multiple onsite meetings with LASD's Compliance Unit, usually regarding specific issues such as policy or protocol review or data system discussion. The MT also holds meetings with particular units or leadership from other operations that are critical to this reform work,such as the Audit and Accountability Bureau (AAB)or the commander in charge of training. The MT typically observes the semi-annual LASD risk management meeting and the Crime Management Forum. Although some of these meetings and events are general in scope and pertain to several sections of the SA, most are related to specific sections or provisions of the SA.The Parties and MT also participate in several small- and larger-group community meetings in Palmdale and Lancaster—often with the Community Advisory Committees(CACs)—where various topics are discussed, such as the MT semi-annual reports, LASD and CAC community engagement reports, community perceptions about LASD and its approach to policing, and other topics.
I n addition to in-person meetings,there are a variety of conference calls each month along with daily email or telephone communication among representatives of the Parties and the MT.The MT and DOJ participate in a bimonthly call to address substantive issues and pia~ning; another similar bimonthly call is held that involves the MT, DOJ, and the Compliance Unit; and the MT and Parties, including the Office of County Counsel and extended LASD command staff, participate in a monthly telephone conference call to discuss workflow,future events and meetings,and other salient topics.Several times per year,"onsite" meetings are held where most participants from the Parties and the MT spend several days together doing intensive work on various topics.
When all are not able to be physically present in meetings, videoconferencing is used whenever possible. Documents are shared extensively via email for the purposes of review and collaborative development ofthe various policies and procedures,training curricula, community engagement materials, audits, and other written elements of the SA. LASD shares departmental data in various formats with the MT via secure email and digital media.
AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 32 Filed 06/22/18 Page 60 of 60 Page ID #:531
Appendix D: Monitors' Note on the Settlement Agreement, Constitutional Policing, and Organizational Change
As noted in previous reports,the Monitoring Team understands and remains mindful of the many complexities encountered when a large organization undertakes broad policy changes, as well as the challenges of implementing such changes. The Monitors also appreciate the considerations of LASD management in dealing with matters of this nature,such as whether the changes will be confined to the AV stations or affect the entire organization; the likelihood that other existing policies could be affected and therefore need to be revised; that evolving "best practices' and legal considerations also influence policies related to use of force, video recordings, and so on; and the need in many instances to consult with labor groups or legal resources before such policy changes can occur. Throughout the work to date,the Monitors have found the Parties to be strongly committed to ensuring that the requirements ofthe Settlement Agreement(SA)will not be weakened or overlooked because of these considerations. Based on the ongoing collaboration among the Parties, the MT believes the SA objectives can be achieved in a timely manner. Critical to successfully implementing and sustaining the SA reforms is a commitment to Constitutional Policing principles. LASD's ability to meet these responsibilities is dependent on clear policies and effective training. Only when prepared with sufficient training and clarity about the purpose of the SA can deputies clearly understand what the Department expects from them in their community interactions. Only then can deputies honor Constitutional standards of policing. Department capacity is also affected by the need to have sufficient accountability systems in place to monitor and evaluate employee performance and management oversight practices.
AV 6 Month Report VI Jan-Jun 2018.docx

 
 Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 1 of 49 Page ID #:539

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 2 of 49 Page ID #:540

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 3 of 49 Page ID #:541

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 4 of 49 Page ID #:542
Antelope Valley Monitoring Team
Seventh Semi-Annual Report
December 2018

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 5 of 49 Page ID #:543

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 1

A. A Note About Compliance ............................................................................................. 2

II.

WORK TO DATE ................................................................................................................................. 4

A. Stops, Seizures, and Searches ....................................................................................... 4

B. Bias-Free Policing............................................................................................................ 10

C. Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance.................................................................... 15

D. Community Engagement ............................................................................................. 20

E.

Use of Force ...................................................................................................................... 29

F.

Personnel Complaint Review ...................................................................................... 33

G. Accountability................................................................................................................... 36

III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 40

APPENDICES A. The Monitoring Team B. Antelope Valley Monitoring Website C. How the Parties and Monitoring Team Work D. Monitors’ Note on the Settlement Agreement, Constitutional Policing, and
Organizational Change

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 6 of 49 Page ID #:544

I.

INTRODUCTION

This is the seventh semi-annual report issued by the Monitoring Team (MT). It covers the monitoring activities that have taken place during this reporting period and in the months prior. This report provides an overview of both administrative and operational issues. It describes the MT’s observations on progress of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) in meeting the requirements of their Settlement Agreement (SA)1 with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for the Antelope Valley (AV). This report focuses primarily on work undertaken between July 2018 and December 2018.

Key activities of this reporting period included the MT and Parties working together to put into place changes to policies, procedures and training based on the MT’s complaints audit, reviewing data and developing the report for the AV-wide Community Survey, and developing a plan to ensure AV deputies participate in regular and meaningful engagement activities with AV community members. The MT and Parties also spent a significant amount of time on the SA’s training provisions, including incorporating a new instructor for the existing Bias-Free Policing training and developing new in-service training modules for constitutional policing and bias-free policing, Federal Housing Act enforcement, community engagement, and community policing. The MT continued to regularly interact with the AV Community Advisory Committees (CACs), receiving feedback and providing technical assistance. The MT continued to track deputy attendance at LASD trainings, review LASD’s documentation of their accountability processes, review LASD stops data, and review and comment on Department stops data entry procedures and LASD Audit and Accountability Bureau (AAB) audits. The MT finalized most aspects of its use of force (UOF) audit and discussed preliminary findings with the Parties. This report covers progress in all these areas along with a discussion of how this work fits into the broader context of achieving the objectives of the SA.

For more information about the composition of the MT and the processes by which the MT, DOJ, LASD, and community members work together to bring about the reforms required by the SA, see the appendices.

In the past six months, LASD continued to build on its considerable progress with developing new and revised policies, implementing new full-day trainings and developing roll call and inservice trainings, improving deputy data collection, formalizing and documenting Department accountability processes, and addressing other SA-required activities such as the Community Survey. The MT acknowledges and appreciates these efforts, with special recognition of the committed and collaborative Compliance Unit personnel. The Compliance Unit, the AV station command staff and personnel, North Patrol Division management, and the Office of County Counsel continue to cooperate with and engage in the various monitoring activities and, importantly, are open to compromise as the Department, the members of the DOJ team, and the MT work to meet the goals of the SA and make meaningful improvements to law enforcement services in the AV. The MT also wants to acknowledge and express its appreciation to AV community members for their enthusiastic participation at meetings and in other forums. The MT also appreciates the continued efforts of the members of the CACs to understand and meet their SA mandates and to embrace their roles as voices for the whole AV community.

1Settlement Agreement, No. CV 15-03174, United States v. Los Angeles County et al. (D.C. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015).

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

1

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 7 of 49 Page ID #:545
The Antelope Valley Settlement Agreement: Summary
The Antelope Valley Settlement Agreement (SA) was established between the US Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division; the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD); and the County of Los Angeles and was filed with the US District Court for the Central District of California in April 2015. (DOJ, LASD, and the County together are referred to as the Parties.) The purpose of the SA is to ensure that the residents of the AV have police services that are lawful and fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States and contemporary policing practices. The SA specifically identifies, as individual sections, a variety of reforms and objectives to be met by LASD in the AV related to: Stops, Seizures, and Searches; Bias-Free Policing; Enforcement of Section 8 compliance; Data Collection and Analysis; Community Engagement; Use of Force; Personnel Complaint Review; and Accountability. The SA also stipulates that a professional monitor be selected to track and assess LASD’s progress in implementing and achieving compliance with the SA, work with the Parties to address obstacles to achieving compliance, and report on the status of implementation to the Parties and the Court. As per Paragraph 171 of the SA between the Parties, the Monitor submits a semi-annual report (every six months); the first of these was issued in December 2015.
The AV lies in the northeast corner of the County of Los Angeles and includes two cities— Lancaster and Palmdale—and several unincorporated communities spread across hundreds of square miles. LASD provides law enforcement services in the unincorporated areas of the AV as well as via contracts with Palmdale and Lancaster. An LASD station serves each city, with law enforcement activities for the surrounding areas roughly split between the two.
A. A Note About Compliance
Much of the SA involves the development or revision of policies, procedures, or training; and putting into place various processes (such as a plan for ensuring new AV deputies receive training) and striving to more effectively engage community organizations and entities such as the CACs. This work is usually done in a collaborative fashion among the Parties and the MT, with documentation of the change (new policy, revised training, etc.) eventually being formally submitted to the MT and DOJ for approval. Gaining that approval would seemingly indicate that the Department is now “in compliance” with that provision. However, while it does represent a crucial step forward, the Department at that stage may be considered only in partial compliance (or “policy compliance”). This is because, in most cases, there are more steps involved before the Department reaches full implementation (SA paragraph 20, see reference below) and, thus, full compliance.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

2

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 8 of 49 Page ID #:546

An approved policy must be distributed to every deputy according to SA-required procedures and, as necessary, incorporated into training curricula. An approved training curriculum will require documentation that appropriate personnel have received the training. Most important, each of the established improvements—for instance, the policies and trainings—will need to be found to perform or “work” in the real world. That is, they are then assessed through such MT activities as reviews, audits, interviews, observation, and data analysis so that it can then be established whether they are successfully reflected in law enforcement practices and achieve the intended qualitative and quantitative impacts on the AV community.

Changes to policy and practice must also be incorporated into LASD-AV’s accountability practices. The reviews, analyses, studies, and audits which the SA requires LASD to conduct must use appropriate methodologies and, in turn, their findings must be used effectively to inform policies and practices.2 In some cases, the SA requires ongoing improvement in the delivery of services (SA paragraph 15). Finally, this level of performance must be sustained for one year to reach full and effective compliance and to satisfy the terms of the SA (paragraph 205).

This process of achieving compliance is laid out in various provisions of the SA, especially through the following paragraphs.

•

Paragraph 20: Implementation is defined as “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 of that

policy or procedure in actual practice.” What is meant by “consistent and

verified performance” is laid out in each SA section’s work plan. These

compliance measures or metrics represent the specific quantitative and

qualitative criteria by which the MT will assess full compliance with each

SA provision.

•

Paragraph 205. The terms of the SA will have been met when “the County

has achieved full and effective compliance with the Agreement and

maintained such compliance for no less than one year.”

•

Paragraph 15. Full and effective compliance means “achieving both

sustained compliance with all material requirements of this Agreement

and sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing and

public trust, as demonstrated pursuant to the Agreement's outcome

measures.”

2Paragraph 171b gives a summary of the stepwise process toward compliance. Most provisions of the SA need to be “(1) incorporated into policy; (2) the subject of sufficient training for all relevant LASD deputies and employees; (3) reviewed or audited by the Monitor to determine 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.”

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

3

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 9 of 49 Page ID #:547
During this reporting period, the MT and Parties continued work on finalizing compliance metrics for the work plans associated with each section of the SA. Many of these metrics are straightforward and easily agreed upon; other are more complex. In these cases, the Parties use the information gleaned from the ongoing audits, data and document reviews, interviews, and observation conducted by the Department and MT to determine appropriate compliance metrics.
This report addresses those SA provisions where the MT considers the Department to be in compliance or having made substantial progress toward compliance. Also discussed are those provisions that require additional work, with emphasis on those that will likely require substantial time and resources for the Department to come into compliance or for the MT to effectively assess levels of compliance. When possible, this report also summarizes the sequence of activities and steps the Department must take to achieve full compliance.
II. WORK TO DATE
This section of the report provides detailed descriptions of the work performed to date by LASD, DOJ, and the MT to ensure the requirements of the SA are fulfilled, concentrating primarily on those activities undertaken or completed during the past six months (July through December 2018). The report discusses MT observations related to the goals, scope, and nature of the work; issues and obstacles that have arisen in the course of the work; MT findings; and critical observations that have been discussed with the Department. LASD’s progress toward compliance with each section of the SA is delineated along with steps toward compliance that are still left to be addressed.
As in prior semi-annual reports, one major section of the SA—Data Collection and Analysis—is not addressed separately. The concepts and activities for data collection and analysis overlap significantly with the other sections of the SA. The work on data collection and analysis done thus far is best understood within the context of the other sections to which it also pertains; therefore, these discussions are embedded as appropriate in related sections. Finally, some SA paragraphs are discussed in more than one section of this report because some SA paragraphs address more than one area of AV policing. For example, paragraph 51 concerns constitutional stops and searches, Section 8 housing compliance, and bias-free policing. Similarly, “accountability” is addressed throughout the SA, not only in the Accountability section.
A. Stops, Seizures, and Searches
The SA provisions describe the way in which LASD-AV deputies must conduct and document investigative stops, detentions, and searches. These provisions also detail many of the ways Department supervisors and managers must document, track, review, and assess these practices. The introduction to Stops, Seizures, and Searches summarizes the overall goals of this section.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

4

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 10 of 49 Page ID #:548

LASD agrees to ensure that all investigatory stops, seizures, and searches are conducted in accordance with the rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. LASD shall ensure that investigatory stops and searches are part of an effective overall crime prevention strategy, do not contribute to counter-productive divisions between LASD and the community, and are adequately documented for tracking and supervision purposes. (SA p. 7)

1.

Activities in this Period

As described in detail in this section, the MT worked closely during this reporting period with the LASD Compliance Unit and station personnel on Constitutional Policing training curricula and attendance verification, stops data collection by AV deputies, stops data review by both station supervisors and the MT, and LASD AAB audits.

a. Constitutional Policing Training
LASD continued to provide the Constitutional Policing training for LASD deputies assigned to the AV stations. This training addresses the bulk of the SA requirements regarding stops, seizures, and searches. During this period, there were two sessions offered, one on August 16 and another on November 2, 2018. This training was previously approved by the MT, DOJ, and LASD as meeting SA training requirements for Stops, Seizures, and Searches. It has been provided by an outside presenter with decades of experience in constitutional law training. All existing personnel as well as any newly assigned LASD-AV deputies or deputies not previously available are required to attend the training. The Compliance Unit staffs the training with a representative to ensure the accuracy of the attendance roster and to collect the evaluations at the end of the course. This training is critical for all LASD AV deputies to ensure a shared understanding of constitutional practices has been established in the AV.

b. Training Verifications
In April 2018, the MT reported on its first Constitutional Policing training attendance verification for AV deputies. That report found that 95% of deputies assigned to one of the LASD stations and available for the training (that is, not on leave or under some other status that would prevent them from attending) had attended the required training in constitutional policing. For the current reporting period, the MT conducted a review to calculate the percentage of AV deputies who had attended the training prior to the end of the second and third quarter of 2018. That review again found more than 95% of available AV deputies had received the training. The Parties have not yet finalized compliance metrics for full-day training attendance, but it is likely that 95% will be the standard.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

5

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 11 of 49 Page ID #:549

i.

Quarter 2 Training Verification

•

Palmdale Station Constitutional Policing Training Compliance: 99%

»

180 total deputies assigned to Palmdale Station



178 were available to be trained



Two were not available to be trained



Eight had transferred to Palmdale after the training was offered



149 trained prior to this quarter



21 trained in this quarter (including one deputy trained twice)

»

Final attendance percentage: 169/170=99.4%.

•

Lancaster Station Constitutional Policing Training Compliance: 95%

»

200 total deputies assigned to Lancaster Station



199 were available to be trained



One was not available to be trained



Nine had transferred to Lancaster after the training was offered



162 trained prior to this quarter



19 trained in this quarter (including one deputy trained twice)

»

Final attendance percentage: 180/190=94.7%.

ii. Quarter 3 Training Verification

•

Palmdale Station Constitutional Policing Training Compliance: 98%

»

179 total deputies assigned to Palmdale Station



178 were available to be trained



One was not available to be trained



Five had transferred to Palmdale after the training was offered



164 trained prior to this quarter



Five trained in this quarter

»

Final attendance percentage: 169/173=97.7%.

•

Lancaster Station Constitutional Policing Training Compliance: 97%

»

205 total deputies assigned to Lancaster Station



All deputies were available to be trained



15 had transferred to Lancaster after the training was offered



172 trained prior to this quarter



12 trained in this quarter

»

Final attendance percentage: 184/190=96.8%.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

6

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 12 of 49 Page ID #:550
iii. Quarterly Roll Call Training and Train-the-Trainers
SA Paragraph 71 states: “LASD-AV will conduct roll call trainings at least quarterly to emphasize the importance of preventing discriminatory policing. These roll call sessions will include scenario-based discussions of real and hypothetical situations.” With consultation from the Parties and an outside trainer, the Department developed curricula for roll call trainings addressing constitutional policing, bias-free policing, and housing. The curricula also address the in-service training requirement from paragraph 89 in the Community Engagement section. The roll call trainings are further discussed in each of those related sections of this report. The interconnectedness of these various sections of the SA mirrors the intersection of the principles of constitutional and non-discriminatory policing and effective community engagement as they apply in every interaction between LASD personnel and members of the AV community.
“Roll call” refers to the daily briefing deputies receive at the start of each of their shifts. They are the primary time when supervisors have the opportunity to impart and discuss with the deputies the station and Department command staff’s daily and long-term law enforcement priorities and instructions. Roll call briefings are also the primary place that deputies get updates and reminders on policies and procedures as well as reinforcement of previous trainings. The required roll call trainings are an important element of making sure the full-day trainings take hold and that the principles taught are practiced in the field. Updates like this are important because understanding and retention of the principles taught in trainings and of current Department policy and legal standards are perishable. Regular reminders are critical for non-discriminatory enforcement as well as effective community engagement.
LASD’s plan for the required roll call trainings is that they will be conducted by LASD-AV station sergeants and lieutenants. An external expert trainer will use a Train-the-Trainer curriculum approved by the Parties to train those sergeants and lieutenants to conduct the deputy roll call trainings. The new roll call trainings will then be given once per quarter during each shift’s briefing.
To implement this plan, LASD submitted the Train-the-Trainer curriculum to the MT and DOJ for review. The MT and DOJ provided feedback to LASD and held subsequent calls to reach agreement regarding the final content of the training. The training took place December 3–7, 2018. LASD assigned approximately eight to 12 students to each course. Members of the MT and DOJ were present to observe the training for the first three days. The trainer effectively followed the approved curriculum for the course. After the first day, the MT and DOJ made recommendations for improvement, which the instructor used to make adjustments in the subsequent day of training.
At the conclusion of the course, the students completed course evaluations. Most rated the course positively, although some students were critical of the content and delivery. The MT was encouraged to see honest feedback from the students. When possible, slight adjustments to the course were made based on the feedback.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

7

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 13 of 49 Page ID #:551

During the observed days of instruction, it was apparent the supervisors and commanders had a good baseline understanding of the constitutional policing, bias-free policing, and housing content. The LASD-AV stations have invested significant resources into the full-day Bias-Free and Constitutional Policing training sessions over the last two years, and it shows. The curricula for constitutional policing, bias-free policing, and housing were subsequently approved for use in the roll call sessions for deputies. However, as described in greater detail in the Bias-Free Policing and Community Engagement sections, the community engagement scenarios have not been approved for the roll call trainings. Correcting this issue is priority work in the next reporting period because community policing principles and practices are crucial elements not just of community engagement but also of constitutional policing and bias-free policing. Failure to reach compliance on those provisions in the Community Engagement section may affect compliance in the other sections as well.

c.

MT Stop Data Review

The MT has continued to review the stops data collected by LASD as required by the SA. MT activities have been focused on evaluating the integrity of the various data collected by deputies as they conduct their daily operations. Deputies are required to record information chronicling each stop, call for service, citation, or arrest; dispositions of the call; and short narratives in certain circumstances. Understanding and validating those data is key monitoring work because it is essential that the data on which most of the various LASD and MT audits, analyses, and reviews are based are complete and reliable and that assumptions and limitations of analyses are clearly defined.

The MT is examining each of the SA-required data fields. This analysis includes review of descriptive codes and variables related to each stop (e.g., type of stop, result of stop) and to persons stopped (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender) and any associated required narrative information (e.g., reason for the initial stop, reason for subsequent actions such as search or backseat detention). As is always required when working with large and complex law enforcement data systems, the MT has put extensive effort into understanding exactly how the variables in the LASD dataset describe what occurred in the field; that is, how data entry requirements for stops being conducted by LASD-AV deputies are structured and related to one another in the datasets. It is critical to take the time at this stage to ensure the data are understood in a way to gain a full picture of the enforcement activity underway in the AV and that the data are valid and reliable in preparation for other data analysis requirements of the SA. This process is complicated by the fact that the datasets often include multiple rows of data for the same stop, depending on how many deputies and how many community members were involved; and it is often not clear which information applies to which individuals, particularly in the narrative field. Stops of a single civilian by a single deputy provide the clearest view of deputy actions and rationales, so the MT is using those cases to illuminate the way in which cases where multiple LASD-AV deputies conduct a stop are described in the data. The MT will share its findings regarding data integrity and stops practices as they become available and in subsequent semi-annual reports.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

8

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 14 of 49 Page ID #:552
The Importance of Stops Data
A key focus of the monitoring activity for this section of the SA are the various types of data collected by deputies as they conduct their daily operations. They record extensive information chronicling nearly every interaction with the public, including each stop or call for service; each search, detention, citation, or arrest; the dispositions of each call; and in some circumstances, short narratives. They also now record certain community engagement activities. It is essential that these data—which serve as the foundation for all audits, analyses, and reviews conducted by both the MT and by LASD—are accurate, thorough, and reliable. When a deputy stops and detains someone, however briefly, the facts and circumstances that led to that stop and detention and any subsequent action must be rigorously documented and later reviewed in an effort to assess the deputy’s decision making, the legality of the deputy’s actions, and compliance with LASD policy and the terms and conditions of the SA.
Data collection for stops requires entering one or more alpha or numerical codes associated with the primary actions of the stop. Deputies can consult codebooks for these. The codes determine the other fields that appear on the screen and that must be completed. Importantly, supervisors, managers, and auditors typically use these codes to retrieve information about each entry to properly supervise deputies and units, conduct risk management assessment, and monitor activities. For example, a supervisor may want to review all records from the past month for pedestrian stops, which use code 841. Such a request will retrieve only the stops recorded as pedestrian stops. Incorrectly coded stops will not appear in the search. With thousands of stops and other activities recorded in the database, it is of course very important that accurate codes are used to identify each type.
d. LASD Stop Data Review
In the last reporting periods, the Accountability and Audit Bureau produced audits showing both AV stations had low levels of compliance (1) with the SA requirements for articulating specific facts and circumstances related to stops, searches, and detentions and (2) with supervisory review of stops data. The MT plans to consult with the LASD AAB regarding their stops audit methodologies. The MT seeks to better understand the LASD data and to ensure AAB and MT audits follow similar methodologies so that in the future, the Department can rely on just the AAB audits to monitor station performance and to ensure its own stops data analyses are based on the most valid and reliable data possible.
During site visits, the MT spoke to station commanders and supervisors: Two of the supervisors mentioned the additional training they and deputies have received from the Compliance Unit regarding stops data entry as well as the added scrutiny they are putting on their personnel to ensure data entered for each stop are thorough and accurate. It was clear that station management were aware of the previous shortfalls in data collection and continue to engage the Compliance Unit to improve the processes.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

9

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 15 of 49 Page ID #:553

2.

Steps Toward Compliance

As reported above, LASD continues to put substantial effort into ensuring all AV personnel receive the Constitutional Policing training and is currently meeting the likely compliance metric of 95% for those parts of the SA.

In response to the earlier AAB audits that found that both the Lancaster and Palmdale stations fell short of the requirements for documenting the required SA stops information, the LASD Compliance Unit has put significant effort into providing guidance to the deputies, supervisors, and commanders at the AV stations regarding the accurate entry of their data. The LASD Compliance Unit provides additional training to LASD-AV deputies and monitors the completion of the information via the Deputy Daily Worksheet (DDWS forms. The Compliance Unit also continues to provide training to LASD-AV Station supervisors and commanders in the proper review of stop forms for accuracy and completeness. This is a critical step to ensure data are accurately collected, which will lead to a clearer understanding of the enforcement taking place in the AV.

3.

Next Steps

In the next reporting period, the MT anticipates providing the Parties with a review of the quality and any observed strengths or weaknesses of LASD stops data. Once the MT’s review of the quality and reliability of the data is completed and the Department has addressed any identified technical or procedural issues, the data analysis of the type required in SA paragraph 83 and other provisions will begin.

In addition to continuing to assign new and transferred LASD-AV deputies to the Constitutional Policing training sessions, LASD supervisors and commanders must also regularly monitor and hold LASD deputies accountable for practicing the constitutional policing practices in their work. The next stage of MT activities will also include assessing these accountability practices and their success in ensuring the principles of constitutional policing are consistently practiced in the field.

B. Bias-Free Policing
The primary goal of the Bias-Free Policing section of the SA is encapsulated in SA paragraph 64:
In conducting its activities, LASD 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, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation, and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Deputies shall not initiate stops or other field contacts because of an individual's actual or perceived immigration status.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

10

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 16 of 49 Page ID #:554

This section of the report describes the various LASD and MT activities underway to reach that goal.

1.

Activities This Period

a. Bias-Free Policing Training

In the first half of 2018, there were no Bias-Free Policing training sessions because the previously assigned instructor was no longer available to provide the training to LASD. LASD identified a replacement instructor and began to work with the Parties to make minor modifications to the curriculum to fit the instructor’s style. The Parties participated in numerous rounds of review and feedback regarding the material. The reviews and feedback focused on compliance with the law and the SA, as well as on training delivery advice. This process was iterative, and all Parties were open to clarification and suggestions to strengthen the material. The trainer was receptive to the feedback and made the appropriate changes. A pilot training was held on July 12, 2018, with the Parties in attendance to observe. The trainer was found to deliver the material effectively; and, with a few modifications based on observations from the Parties, the trainer and curriculum were approved. The LASD Compliance Unit also staffed the training with a representative to ensure the accuracy of the attendance roster and to collect the evaluations for the course.

b. Training Verification
As with Constitutional Policing training, the MT conducted training verification for the full-day Bias-Free Policing course offered to AV deputies during this reporting period. As mentioned above, there was no available Bias-Free Policing instructor for the first and second quarter of 2018; therefore, a compliance percentage was calculated for only the third quarter of 2018. As with the Constitutional Policing training, the Parties have not yet finalized compliance metrics for full-day training attendance, but it is likely that 95% will be the standard.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

11

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 17 of 49 Page ID #:555

i.

Quarter 3 Training Verification

•

Palmdale Station Bias-Free Policing Training Compliance: 99%

»

179 total deputies assigned to Palmdale Station



177 were available to be trained



Two were not available to be trained



Five had transferred to Palmdale after the training was offered



152 trained prior to this quarter



19 trained in this quarter

»

Final attendance percentage: 171/172=99.4%.

•

Lancaster Station Bias-Free Policing Training Compliance: 98%

»

205 total deputies assigned to Lancaster Station



All deputies were available to be trained



15 had transferred to Lancaster after the training was offered



162 trained prior to this quarter



24 trained in this quarter

»

Final attendance percentage: 186/190=97.9%.

c.

Quarterly Roll Call Training and Train-the-Trainers

As described in detail in the Stops, Seizures, and Searches section above, the Department, working with the Parties and an independent trainer, developed curricula to be used to train supervisors to teach the SA-required roll call trainings. The supervisors and commanders displayed a good understanding of the constitutional policing, bias-free policing, and housing content. These elements of the course were approved for use in the roll call trainings with deputies. However, the elements of the course addressing community engagement—and in particular, community policing—have not been approved for the roll call trainings.

While community policing is a provision of the Community Engagement section of the SA (paragraph 89), it also plays an important role in the Bias-Free Policing section. MT observations described here from a few areas of work in this reporting period signal that the roll call trainings as they pertain to community engagement and community policing are strongly linked to the success of the SA’s bias-free policing objectives.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

12

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 18 of 49 Page ID #:556
As described in more detail in the Community Engagement section below, the MT met with a group of community members on July 11, 2018. While participants noted they were aware of LASD’s recent efforts and see some improvement in engagement, they expressed some concerns regarding a continuing lack of engagement with black and Latino communities in the AV. The community members also stated that some residents may not want to attend community events because they do not trust the police and feel things will not change. Additionally, the community members continued to express concerns regarding specific incidents and treatment by LASD-AV deputies that they cited. Comments and perceptions of this nature may not necessarily constitute evidence of biased policing on the part of LASD-AV deputies but are indicators of potential issues that should not be ignored by Department leadership. As expressed in the last semi-annual report and in numerous meetings with the Department, the MT believes that these perceptions of community groups may be counterproductive to positive community–Department engagement and to a robust community policing strategy unless they are addressed.
During a site visit, the MT met with LASD-AV station commanders to discuss their efforts in community policing, problem solving, and crime reduction. The AV station commanders discussed the various ways information is shared with their personnel, such as email alerts, investigators meeting directly with patrol deputies, “crime dashboards,” alerts sent to deputies in the field, and publications from crime analysts. There did not appear to be consistent training in community policing and problem-solving concepts in the LASD-AV stations. In fact, one senior commander described learning community policing “on the job” without any formal training in the concepts. LASD has made numerous community outreach efforts, but there is a lack of an established and coherent community policing plan and a lack of understanding of the distinction between community relations and community policing. Additionally, the AV station commanders discussed the use of specialized units for enforcement to address specific problems, but it was unclear how those units fit into the AV stations’ community policing efforts and if safeguards are present to ensure they are conducted consistently with bias-free policing practices. The impacts of specialized units must be carefully monitored as a part of an overall AV community policing plan.
Based on these observations of the train-the-trainers, the community meetings, and the discussions with the station commanders, the MT believes there is an inconsistent understanding of community policing principles and practices among deputies and leadership, which may lead to inconsistent implementation in the AV. Bias-free policing must also extend to decisions for enforcement actions, community partnerships, and community policing efforts. Strong community policing efforts consider potential disparate impacts in the community and institute strategies to address those potential impacts.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

13

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 19 of 49 Page ID #:557

As mentioned in the Stops, Seizures, and Searches section, the roll call briefings during which the new trainings will be taught are the primary way the station’s enforcement priorities and strategies are conveyed to deputies on a regular basis. This is when an overarching community policing strategy and plan is important. Deputies have to make quick decisions in dynamic circumstances; at most times, several different aspects of law, policy, and the SA have to be applied at once. A well-defined community policing plan gives deputies an overarching context within which to fit all the moving parts of their daily activities and decision making. An additional benefit of an overarching plan is that deputies can spend discretionary time they may have—apart from responding to calls—in activities that fit with the larger station objectives. A plan also facilitates more practice consistency across different deputies and shifts. Without that guidance or plan, discretionary time can be spent in relatively random enforcement activities, which can inadvertently put constitutional policing and bias-free policing objectives at risk. Ensuring the new roll call trainings are designed in a way to successfully impart this important information will be a priority of the MT in the next reporting period.

2.

Steps Toward Compliance

LASD continues to meet the tentatively agreed-upon compliance metrics for the Bias-Free Policing training. LASD also provides this training to LASD deputies outside the LASD-AV stations and offers compensation to Reserve Deputies assigned to the AV stations for training attendance. Additionally, LASD has put significant effort into developing the new roll call trainings and has now trained a cadre of supervisors and commanders who can provide regular roll call trainings to the LASD deputies in order to reinforce the full-day trainings. These sessions are critical to ensure LASD-AV deputies remain aware of how to effectively practice bias-free policing and how biases might affect policing practices. These efforts represent a strong commitment to ensure LASD station deputies receive these valuable trainings and increase the likelihood that bias-free policing principles and practices are routinely applied in the AV.

3.

Next Steps

LASD must continue to assign LASD deputies to the Bias-Free Policing training sessions and will soon institute the Bias-Free Policing roll call trainings. An element of MT work moving forward will be to continue to review the processes by which LASD supervisors and commanders regularly monitor and hold LASD deputies accountable for applying bias-free policing practices in their work.

The MT will continue to meet with the Parties and attend community meetings to gather feedback and observations in the critical area of community policing. The MT also remains available to assist LASD and the AV station personnel in their efforts to establish a foundation of community policing principles and practices.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

14

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 20 of 49 Page ID #:558

LASD-AV should begin to systematically “assess all programs, initiatives, and activities to determine the extent of any disparate impact” and to ensure that none unlawfully discriminate (paragraph 68). This is an involved but important activity and at the core of the SA; as paragraph 64 states, “In conducting its activities, LASD agrees to ensure that members of the public receive equal protection of the law, without bias based on race, color, or sexual orientation, and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . .”

C. Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance
Previous semi-annual reports have described the issues regarding LASD-AV deputy accompaniment on Section 8 compliance checks, housing fraud investigations and referrals for prosecution, and sharing information with a housing authority that gave rise to the Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance section of the SA. They described the development and approval of LASD’s new Housing Non-Discrimination (HND) Policy and its revised Housing Authority Non-Criminal Investigations/Inspections (Field Operations Directive [FOD] 12-002). During this reporting period, the work of the MT and Parties focused on reviewing the ongoing Bias-Free Policing – The Fair Housing Act and Law Enforcement (Bias-Free/Fair Housing Act [FHA]) trainings and development of the new roll call training that also addresses Section 8 compliance issues. The MT also began the first stages of assessing the impact of these policies and trainings in the AV. This section will describe the steps that have been undertaken with these policies, trainings, and implementation.

1.

Activities in This Period

a. Housing Policy Implementation

The MT’s last semi-annual report described the approval process that the new policies had undergone that resulted in the MT, DOJ, and LASD approving the policies for publication and dissemination in February 2018. With final approval and publication of the two policies, LASD is in partial compliance with SA paragraphs 73, 74, and 76–80. The next step for LASD to achieve full compliance was for the Department to provide the MT the required documentation demonstrating that all appropriate deputies have received, understand, and agree to abide by the new policies. Although LASD has reported that the process to obtain all of the requisite deputy acknowledgments and associated roster verifications are underway, that documentation has not yet been provided to the MT, so the MT has not been able to do an independent verification.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

15

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 21 of 49 Page ID #:559
b. Review of Bias-Free Policing/FHA Training
As described in the Stops, Seizures, and Searches section of this report, a second round of BiasFree Policing/FHA training was conducted during this reporting period after a hiatus due to the unavailability of the instructor who had developed and conducted the initial training. The Parties were consulted in the selection of the new trainer and in the minor redesign of the curriculum to account for a different teaching style. Since the new trainer had not previously taught the FHA material, a representative from the DOJ Housing and Civil Enforcement Section and one from the MT consulted with the new trainer on the substance and delivery of the FHA portion of the curriculum.
Representatives from the Parties and the MT attended the July 12, 2018, Bias-Free/FHA training conducted by the new trainer. All the Parties and MT representatives observed that the Bias-Free Policing portion of the training went well. The trainer showed excellent command of the subject matter and presented confidently. He effectively communicated to the deputies that Bias-Free Policing is more than a SA requirement because it also flows from the deputies’ oaths of office and LASD policy.
The FHA part of the training was not as effective. During the debriefing following the training, the Parties’ representatives and MT representatives noted the problem with effectively delivering the FHA training is that the FHA and its implications are rarely encountered in policing; and without some context on why it was included in the AV training, the training only served to confuse and cause deputy skepticism. It was agreed that the only way for deputies to understand the reason for the FHA instruction and to grasp its implications for LASD personnel is for the training to include discussion on the original DOJ investigation3 that led to the SA housing provisions and to reference concrete examples from the investigation. During the July 13, 2018, site visit exit conference, the Parties and MT reiterated the vast difference in the effectiveness of the Bias-Free Policing portion of the training as compared to the FHA portion, and it was agreed future FHA training will reference the DOJ investigation and use examples of FHA violations from the housing investigation that involved LASD deputies.
Subsequent review of the FHA training slides by DOJ and MT representatives resulted in revisions to these materials that added language that described the DOJ housing investigation; eliminated some of the technical, verbatim language from the FHA; and revised scenarios that had been used by the trainer to demonstrate potential law enforcement involvement in FHA issues. It was noted that there has been a recent wave of videos involving police calls for service nationwide that implicate the FHA (e.g., police called to a neighborhood swimming pool or park). These videos demonstrated effective and ineffective police responses, and it was recommended that some of this video material be included in the revised FHA training material.

3See DOJ Letter of Findings (June 28, 2013) at http://www.antelopevalleysettlementmonitoring.info/

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

16

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 22 of 49 Page ID #:560

Subsequent to the FHA curriculum revisions, Bias-Free/FHA training for LASD personnel was conducted again in the third quarter, was attended by a MT representative, and was found to be more effective in addressing the importance and impact of the FHA on law enforcement.

c.

Quarterly Roll Call Training and Train-the-Trainers

As already discussed in the Stops, Seizures, and Searches and Bias-Free Policing sections of this report, in addition to the full-day trainings, the SA requires LASD conduct a series of shorter refresher Bias-Free Policing/FHA trainings, called “roll call” or in-service trainings. Proposed bias-free policing/FHA information for use in LASD Train-the-Trainer materials were reviewed by the MT and DOJ during this reporting period. The training included two FHA scenarios and FHA materials that discussed the HND and FOD 12-002 policies. The slides and scenarios were reviewed by a DOJ Housing and Civil Enforcement Section representative and MT representatives, both of whom discussed them with the trainer. The review and discussion resulted in modifications to the FHA portion of the lesson plan, training slides, and scenarios that were used in the delivery of LASD’s December 4–6, 2018, train-the-trainers and were approved for use in the roll call trainings.

d. MT Review of Policy and Training Outcomes
With the housing policies in place and verification pending, and with most AV deputies having been trained in HND and Section 8 issues, housing-related monitoring activity will now mainly consist of (1) tracking ongoing policy implementation and training; (2) assisting with the development and implementation of the roll call trainings; and (3) assessing outcomes related to these policies and training.
As with all of the sections of the SA, assessing outcomes will be the key to establishing if LASD is in full and final compliance with the FHA requirements. Outcomes to be assessed include (1) whether the concepts, requirements, and procedures expressed in the policies and trainings are successfully reflected in practice; (2) whether the intended impacts are being experienced in the AV community; and (3) if LASD supervisors and managers routinely monitor and evaluate compliance with these policies and trainings, track outcomes, and take appropriate corrective action when issues arise for individual deputies, units, or the Department.
The MT’s assessment of compliance will also include a review of any revisions to the trainings or changes in how they are conducted, which could become necessary based on audits and outcome analysis.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

17

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 23 of 49 Page ID #:561

MT FHA-related outcomes assessment activities began with a records and data review. To that end, the MT work on assessing outcomes related to the LASD HND Policy and Section 8 issues focused on the Palmdale Station’s Watch Commander Logs for the January 1, 2013 – September 1, 2018, period. The review was conducted November 8, 2018, and no relevant data related to LASD Section 8 activity or the FHA were found in the Palmdale Watch Commander Logs.

2.

Steps Toward Compliance

Publishing the new HND Policy and revisions to FOD 12-002 are major steps toward achieving compliance with this section (paragraphs 73, 76–80). As discussed above and in the Monitor’s Sixth Report, the next step is for LASD to demonstrate that all deputies subject to these policies have signed the HND Policy Acknowledgement Forms and the Supplemental Policy Acknowledgement Form and that any deputy questions related to the HND Policy have been answered in a timely manner by the Compliance Unit (paragraphs 74–75). Related training requirements (paragraphs 57, 70) are in compliance—with curricula being approved, trainings being conducted, and attendance verification showing that appropriate levels of deputies have received the course. The Bias-Free Policing roll call training (including FHA modules, paragraph 71) are in partial compliance, with curricula being approved and train-the-trainers having been delivered. MT work toward verifying LASD’s full compliance will include tracking the effective delivery of the required roll call trainings and the outcomes review described above, including the Department’s accountability practices related to these provisions.

Full compliance on FHA provisions will be achieved when each provision of the Housing section of the SA is met and the MT determines through onsite observations, records reviews, audits, and outcome analysis that the Department has met and remains in compliance with these requirements for at least one year, including evidence that the intentions of the SA as expressed in the new policies are thoroughly and consistently met in the field and that outcomes are reviewed by supervisors and managers, with appropriate corrective action taken as necessary.

3.

Next Steps

The following summarizes the expected MT activities in the next reporting period with regard to Section 8 housing.

a. HND Policy

•

The MT will sample and analyze policy dissemination documentation to

determine if all deputies have the requisite signed acknowledgments.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

18

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 24 of 49 Page ID #:562

•

The MT will review LASD complaints, administrative investigations, survey results,

Watch Commander Logs, and other relevant documents and resources for

LASD-AV deputy involvement in housing-related activities to determine whether

such activity was conducted; and if so, whether it was in accordance with the FHA

and the HND Policy.

•

The MT will conduct interviews of LASD personnel, community members, and

persons with information relevant to LASD-AV housing activities to determine

whether any such activity was conducted; and if so, whether it was in accordance

with the FHA and the HND Policy.

b. Accompaniment Policy (FOD 12-002)

•

The MT will review and analyze all stat code 787 data, including deputy

accompaniment of housing authority workers during voucher holder compliance

checks; LASD’s independent investigations for criminal fraud based on

voucher-holder compliance with the voucher contract; and deputy calls,

observations, or incidents involving voucher holders.

•

The MT will analyze LASD complaints, administrative investigations, Community

Survey results, Watch Commander Logs, and semi-annual analysis of data

containing stat code 787 and other relevant documents and resources for

LASD-AV deputy involvement in housing-related activities to determine whether

such activity was conducted in accordance with FOD 12-002.

•

The MT will conduct interviews of relevant LASD personnel, community members,

and persons with information potentially relevant to LASD-AV housing activities.

•

The MT will review LASD semi-annual analysis of data containing stat code 787

on a County-wide basis.

c.

Additional SA Provisions Regarding Compliance Assessment

The following SA paragraphs describe the SA required audits and analysis that address multiple SA provisions and that both the Department and MT will use to assess compliance with the housing-related elements of the SA.

•

LASD will conduct at least semi-annual analysis of, at a minimum, the following AV

data: . . . Voucher Holder compliance checks involving LASD personnel

(paragraph 82g).

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

19

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 25 of 49 Page ID #:563

•

In addition to compliance reviews and audits, the Monitor shall conduct qualitative

and quantitative outcome assessments to measure whether LASD's implementation

of this Agreement has eliminated practices that resulted in DOJ's finding a pattern

and practice of constitutional violations. These outcome assessments shall include

collection and analysis, both quantitative and qualitative, of . . . Section 8

Compliance Enforcement Measurements . . . (paragraph 153c).

The other required analyses are expected to begin in the next reporting period. Once implemented, final compliance will require the Department to meet the requirements for at least one year. The results of the Community Survey described in the Community Engagement section below will also be analyzed to address Section 8–related outcomes.

D. Community Engagement
The Community Engagement section of the SA states that “LASD agrees to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community, to engage constructively with the community to ensure collaborative problem-solving and bias-free policing, and to increase community confidence in the Department” (p. 20). The term “community engagement” primarily refers to the Department’s efforts to engage the community and thus build and maintain trust and confidence in the Department among all community members, per the goals of the SA. The MT’s role in the community-engagement process is to assess LASD’s efforts to interact with and improve its relations with the AV community. The MT may also provide advice and technical assistance as appropriate and requested.

1.

Activities This Period

a. Findings and Observations from Community Meetings

During this period, the MT made four onsite visits to the AV (in July, September, October, and December) for Community Engagement compliance monitoring. In addition to the onsite visits, the MT also reviewed community meeting and event reports provided by LASD, reviewed and approved the annual Community Engagement report, reviewed Community Policing training material, and reviewed various other reports and material relating to the Community Engagement section of the SA. These visits and reviews are detailed in this section.4

4For a more thorough accounting of the community engagement activities of the Department and the CACs, see their respective reports at http://www.la-sheriff.org/s2/page_render.aspx?pagename=avc_main.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

20

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 26 of 49 Page ID #:564

On July 11, the MT and officials from DOJ met with leaders of the AV League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and The Community Action League (TCAL). LASD personnel were not invited to this meeting, but the Department was provided a summary of community comments. The group discussed the current state of LASD–community relations in the AV. Most community members felt that progress was being made but also that there were areas of concern. While many of these community observations do not necessarily specifically speak to requirements of the SA, they are germane to the perception of some parts of the AV community—especially to some parts of the black and Latino communities—regarding LASD’s attempts at positive community engagement. The MT encourages the Department to consider methods of incorporating this feedback as part of their already significant ongoing outreach. This would likely involve opening dialog with community members on the specific concerns and recommendations expressed here; sharing perspectives; and considering solutions or next steps, including ways the community and Department might collaborate. Below is a summary of the sentiment expressed by some participants.

•

While Lancaster and Palmdale LASD station leadership and some line deputies

may be good at connecting with the community, this is not the case with all line

deputies.

•

LASD-AV conducts community outreach, but it sometimes does not reach the

heart of the African-American or Latino communities: “They are not getting to the

people most affected by negative policing.”

•

The mediation (conflict-resolution) option in complaints can be very effective and

should be pursued more frequently. Often the only resolution a community

member wants is an apology from a deputy whom they feel was rude or

discourteous.

•

Local leaders and organizations would like to play a part in training deputies in

the AV, perhaps by being given time during the training to present their

perspective on the impact of law enforcement practices, help problem-solve

regarding recurrent crime issues, and facilitate better community–Department

communication and cooperation.

•

Victims of crime may feel a sense of being further victimized when they perceive

that deputies may have been rude to them, treated them as though they were

criminals by searching them or handcuffing them, or failed to deal with them in a

respectful manner.

•

Perceived inequitable car impounding continues to be a topic of concern.

•

Deputies in the AV do not seem to represent the demographics of the AV,

especially black residents.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

21

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 27 of 49 Page ID #:565

b. Findings and Observations from Meetings with CACs

On July 10, 2018, the MT met with both CACs. The group discussed the development of the CACs and support from the MT.

•

Both CACs have adjusted their quarterly town hall meetings to be led more by

the CAC members/community than by LASD.

•

At the time of the meeting, the Palmdale CAC had requested data from the

station on complaints and did not feel the Department was responding to the

request in a timely manner. (The requested data have since been provided by the

Palmdale station.)

•

The Lancaster CAC is implementing a new community contact form they can use

to track issues/concerns brought by community members. The idea is for

community members to fill the forms out and submit to LASD. There is a deputy

assigned to scan the documents into a computer system at the station.

•

There was discussion among Lancaster CACs about the need to have more CAC

member input on the creation of CAC meeting agendas.

•

A number of CAC members in both cities said the demographics of the CACs do

not reflect the demographics of the AV, especially in regard to Latinos.

Palmdale CAC had restructured to have more impact and to be more productive, including the following.

•

They have implemented a new structure with a chairperson, co-chair, secretary,

and liaison to the MT.

•

In addition to regular CAC meetings with the station captain and other LASD

personnel, the Palmdale CAC is now having separate meetings with CAC

members only, without LASD present, to maintain some autonomy.

•

CAC members are now co-creating the CAC meeting agendas with LASD, and

they are taking and keeping minutes.

•

CAC and LASD made an agreement that CAC members can help recruit new CAC

members, who will then be vetted by LASD.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

22

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 28 of 49 Page ID #:566

The MT has recently received reports that the Lancaster CAC had made several of the same changes as Palmdale, including adding a chairperson, co-chair, secretary, and liaison structure; co-creating agendas with LASD; taking minutes; and helping recruit new members. The MT is encouraged by these reports and will assess if they have been implemented and are functioning as intended in the next reporting period.
On September 18, the MT attended the Lancaster CAC quarterly town hall meeting. The meeting was held at the Antelope Valley Partners for Health. The town hall was very well attended, with nearly 90 community members and approximately 15 LASD personnel for more than 100 total people in attendance. The crowd was also diverse. A new Lancaster CAC member is a professor at Antelope Valley College and gave her students extra credit for attending; several of her students were in the audience, accounting for some of the attendance.
After the CAC presentation of the MT semi-annual report, the captain of the Lancaster station spoke briefly, followed by an MT member. The last section of the meeting was open for questions and comments. There were very good questions asked and good exchange between community members, LASD, and the CACs.
On October 16, 2018, the LASD Lancaster Station hosted a Coffee with a Deputy event at the Antelope Valley Community College that the MT attended. The new Lancaster CAC member who is a professor at AV Community College coordinated the event and assigned her students to attend. The event was held in the student cafeteria and food was provided, which also contributed to the good turnout. Several Lancaster deputies and sergeants sat at tables throughout the cafeteria with groups of students; they engaged in discussion about policing and answered students’ questions. While some of the small groups were quick and students simply had their assignment forms filled out and left, many of the discussions were rich and in-depth. The student population was diverse. Overall, the event, which lasted several hours, appeared to be successful.
Also on October 16, members of the MT conducted ride-alongs with patrol deputies in the Lancaster Station to observe how deputies are interacting with members of the community and to assess if stops, searches, and other activities performed by deputies are in compliance with the SA. No particular observations were made in this case beyond information gathering about processes and deputy perspectives.

c.

MT Recommendations to CACs

The MT met with both CACs on October 15, 2018. The discussion centered primarily around the CAC annual reports, the CAC quarterly meetings, and filling vacancies on the CACs. The MT developed a series of recommendations for the CACs on how to improve the quarterly town hall meetings, which it provided to the CACs following the joint meeting. The MT suggested that the CAC public meetings have at least these four components incorporated into the meetings.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

23

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 29 of 49 Page ID #:567

1.

Brief overview (MT suggests not more than 10–15 minutes) of the MT’s most recent

report.

2.

Community feedback on how/if they think LASD is complying with the SA.

3.

Open forum for community to express issues, concerns, and appreciations of LASD as

well as ask questions (this should be the largest portion of the meeting).

4.

Community to hear from CACs, LASD, and sometimes the MT.

The above four components can be accomplished in a Days of Dialogue format; however, the MT does not suggest that every meeting be held in the Days of Dialogue format. The primary purpose of these quarterly meetings should be to hear from the community and provide information to the community.

The MT reviewed and made suggested edits to the CACs’ annual reports. The MT also sent both CACs a basic suggested outline for their annual reports.

d. LASD-AV Deputy Community Engagement Plan

On October 15, 2018, the MT and DOJ met with the LASD AV stations and Compliance Unit regarding compliance metrics of the Community Engagement section of the SA. The following are the highlights of the agreements made, which have since been documented by the Compliance Unit..

•

Since the agreement by the Parties that LASD-AV deputies can engage in

“self-initiated, positive community contacts” as a way of fulfilling some

community event participation requirements, LASD began the process of

implementing the new practice. LASD will document such activity through the use

of the Department’s 755 Stat Code to track compliance. The stat code cannot be

used to qualify for compliance with the SA if it is in relation to a Call for Service

(e.g., responding to a 911 call). LASD’s Compliance Unit sent out a Watch Briefing

via email to all personnel in Lancaster and Palmdale explaining the new practice

and presented the information during roll call briefings at the beginning of each

shift.

•

LASD-AV deputies have begun logging 755 stat code for “self-initiated, positive

community contacts.”

•

In Lancaster, deputies are instructed to print out their 755 logs at the end of a

shift when they have used it and place it in the community relations coordinator’s

inbox. Palmdale has recently begun the same process with the sergeant liaison to

the Compliance Unit.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

24

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 30 of 49 Page ID #:568

•

The 755 contacts are then recorded in the Community Engagement Tracker

where each deputy’s community engagement activity is compiled. The

Community Engagement Tracker is a spreadsheet with each deputy listed along

with how many 755s the deputy has logged and how many community events

the deputy has attended. There is also a link to detailed information about each

event.

•

The LASD Compliance Unit will continue to send the MT the Community

Engagement Tracker report on the 15th of each month covering activity for the

previous month.

•

The MT will verify that every deputy is attending the requisite number of

meetings and those meetings are legitimate/qualifying community meetings.

•

Additionally, the MT will observe deputies at community events to ensure they

are “meaningfully engaged” in the meeting, per the requirement of the SA.

•

The Compliance Unit completed and the Parties approved a Community

Engagement Work Plan as mandated by the SA that, among other things, lays

out the requirements and definitions related to community engagement

compliance.

e. Quarterly Roll Call Training and Train-the-Trainers
The SA requires LASD conduct a series of shorter refresher community policing and problem-oriented policing methods and skills trainings, called “roll call” or in-service trainings. These will be taught using the same approach as the constitutional policing, bias-free policing, and housing roll call trainings described in previous sections. New training curricula were designed and approved for piloting, which occurred December 3–7, 2018. The new curricula were designed to provide training to sergeants and lieutenants who will train deputies on a series of subjects required by paragraph 89 of the SA, which states the following.
LASD agrees to provide structured annual in-service training on community policing and problem-oriented policing methods and skills for all AV deputies, including station supervisors and unit commanders. 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;

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

25

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 31 of 49 Page ID #:569

c. leadership, ethics, and interpersonal skills;
d. community engagement techniques, including how to establish formal partnerships and actively engage community organizations, including youth, immigrant, and LGBT communities;
e. problem-oriented policing tactics;
f. conflict resolution and verbal de-escalation of conflict; and
g. cultural awareness and sensitivity training.
Although the training and its delivery were high quality, the subject matter did not adequately address items c – f in paragraph 89. Additionally, many trainees acknowledged having no prior training or knowledge regarding some of the community policing and problem-solving models presented in the training. Therefore, it would be very difficult if not impossible for them to then train deputies also unfamiliar with the material in a 25-minute briefing session. Also, the lack of an articulated community policing plan on the part of the AV stations will make it difficult for the deputies to apply the course content in their field practice. The Parties are discussing how the training may be augmented in order to ensure the sergeant and lieutenant trainers and the deputies have a foundational understanding of the topics being taught. (See the Stops, Seizures, and Searches and Bias-Free Policing sections of this report for a full description of these issues.)
The MT and DOJ have significant concerns with LASD’s current plans in relation to adhering to the provisions of paragraph 89 of the SA. The Parties will continue to address these issues until an agreement is finalized.

f.

Community Survey, Focus Groups, Deputy Survey

As mentioned in the previous six-month report, the first annual AV Community Survey was launched in February 2018 by an independent research team. The purpose of the survey is to assess community perceptions of the relationship between LASD and the AV community and to attempt to measure how, if at all, the SA reforms affect that relationship. The survey was made available for community members to complete both online and on paper. Several community-based organizations (CBOs) in the AV were engaged to help raise awareness of the survey and to distribute a link or hard copy. In addition to the general survey, an almost identical youth survey was administered at two AV high schools.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

26

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 32 of 49 Page ID #:570

The research team also collected qualitative data through a series of focus groups. Focus groups were used to provide the opportunity for more in-depth conversations about the relationship between LASD and the AV community and to provide further context for the survey responses. Focus group participants were recruited from four different CBOs that were recommended by the Parties. The pool of CBOs from which the research team recruited participants included AV’s National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), LULAC, TCAL, and South Bay Center for Counseling (SBCC).
The data gathered through the surveys and focus groups have been analyzed, and the findings are being summarized in report format. Currently, the Parties have approved the Community Survey report, but the focus group report has not yet been approved. Once approved, the reports will be made public and will also be available online.
As mentioned in previous semi-annual reports, the data gathered through this initial annual survey will be used as a baseline and will be compared with future survey data to assess changes in the relationship between LASD and the community over time.
In the next reporting period, the Parties will discuss how the survey, and focus groups findings will be used to inform compliance with the SA and the next annual survey process.
The Parties have also begun work on a survey to assess the attitudes of LASD-AV personnel toward various SA-related topics, as required by paragraph 99. The Compliance Unit adapted a law enforcement survey of department attitudes from another jurisdiction that has been approved by the Parties. This survey will be distributed to station personnel in the next reporting period. The MT will lead data analysis and reporting on this survey in collaboration with the Parties.

2.

Steps Toward Compliance

As reported here or in previous six-month reports, LASD is in compliance with several provisions of the SA.

1.

LASD sought the assistance of community advocates and widely disseminated to the

public, including on the website—in English and Spanish—an explanation of the SA

requirements, thus addressing the provisions of paragraph 92.

2.

LASD-AV consistently participates in local community meetings and has formally

established and memorialized the CACs in policy (paragraph 94).

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

27

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 33 of 49 Page ID #:571

3.

LASD has formally established CACs at both stations. LASD remains in compliance with

the requirement to provide the CACs with reasonable administrative support, including

meeting space, and needs to continue to respond to CAC requests for additional

operational consultation and assistance. In addition, LASD has facilitated the MT

providing advice and technical assistance to the CACs (paragraph 96).

4.

LASD takes steps to ensure that the CACs will not have access to any non-public

information regarding an individual deputy or allegation of misconduct or disciplinary

action. LASD is currently in compliance with this provision (paragraph 97).

5.

Develop a plan for all LASD sworn personnel to actively and regularly attend community

meetings and events based on the results of the annual community satisfaction surveys

and feedback from the civilian panel; take into account the need to enhance

relationships with particular groups within the community including, but not limited to,

youth and communities of color (paragraph 88).

The following areas of the SA are either not in compliance or are in partial compliance.

1.

Work with the community to develop diversion programs (paragraph 87). Progress has

been made on this provision. It appears that the County’s new diversion program, which

is being developed by the LA County Office of Diversion and Reentry (ODR), will bring

LASD into compliance. ODR has agreed to roll out the county’s diversion programs in the

AV first. The MT believes that when it receives written confirmation from ODR that

diversion will be implemented in the AV, LASD will be in compliance with this provision

of the SA.

2.

Provide structured annual in-service training on community policing and

problem-oriented policing methods and skills for all AV deputies, including station

supervisors and unit commanders (paragraph 89). The challenges with compliance with

paragraph 89 are discussed in detail in the Quarterly Roll Call Training and

Train-the-Trainers subsection above and in the Stops, Seizures, and Searches and

Bias-Free Policing sections earlier in this report.

3.

LASD’s monthly Crime Management Forum meetings and semi-annual Risk Management

Forum meetings must include discussion and analysis of trends in misconduct complaints

and community priorities to identify areas of concern and to better develop interventions

to address them (paragraph 90). These meetings are occurring regularly; but trends in

misconduct complaints are not being regularly discussed, and community priorities have

not been addressed in these meetings.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

28

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 34 of 49 Page ID #:572

3.

Next Steps

Although the MT is already determining compliance on certain provisions of the SA based on the agreement on compliance metrics for those provisions, the Parties to the SA have yet to finalize agreement on compliance metrics on the entire Community Engagement section. The Parties hope to finalize the compliance metrics during the next reporting period.

The MT intends to conduct regular monitoring of the Community Engagement section of the SA through:

•

Monthly reviews of LASD community engagement activity reports and all

Community Engagement–related reports;

•

Regular communication with AV community members and CAC members;

•

Observation of trainings required by the SA;

•

Hosting and observation of community meetings;

•

Attending Crime Management Forum and Risk Management Forum meetings;

and

•

Regular site visits to the AV, to include informal and formal interviews and

meetings and ride-alongs.

In the next reporting period, LASD will publish and distribute publicly the results of the community satisfaction survey and focus groups. The Parties will then begin discussions on how the information gathered in the surveys will be used to inform Department practice. The survey of deputies assigned to the AV stations will also be a focus of work in the upcoming reporting period.

E. Use of Force
The introduction to the Use of Force section of the SA states:
LASD agrees to revise its force policies and practices to reflect its commitment to upholding the rights secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States, protecting human life and the dignity of every individual, and maintaining public safety. LASD agrees to ensure that its accountability measures are implemented appropriately so that Antelope Valley deputies use force only when objectively reasonable, and in a manner that avoids unnecessary injury to deputies and civilians; and to use force as a last resort and de-escalate the use of force at the earliest possible moment. Deputies and staff shall endeavor to use only that level of force necessary for the situation. To achieve these outcomes, LASD will implement the requirements below (pp. 24–29).

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

29

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 35 of 49 Page ID #:573

Those requirements include but are not limited to:

•

Continue to prohibit the use of force above compliant handcuffing to overcome

passive resistance (except where physical removal is permitted as necessary and

objectively reasonable) and of the use of retaliatory force (paragraphs 102 and

105);

•

The use of advisements, warnings, and verbal persuasion when possible before

resorting to force and to de-escalate force immediately as resistance decreases

(paragraph 103);

•

An assessment of threats prior to using force (whenever possible) and not using

force against individuals who are under control (paragraph 104);

•

Prohibition of using force to prevent someone from lawfully taking photographs

or video recordings (paragraph 106);

•

Continue to prohibit hard strikes to the head with an impact weapon unless

deadly force is justified (paragraph 107);

•

Continue to report all uses of force including any injuries or complaint of injuries

and any medical treatment provided (paragraphs 108 and 109);

•

Continue to notify a supervisor immediately following a use of force or upon

receipt of an allegation of unreasonable or unreported force (paragraph 110);

•

Thorough investigations of uses of force, forwarded through the chain of

command, reviewed for completeness, and adjudicated with the preponderance

of evidence standard (paragraphs 111–113);

•

Continue to require that the Executive Force Review Committee (EFRC) review

use-of-force incidents requiring the response of Internal Affairs Bureau

(paragraph 114);

•

Holding employees accountable for the use of force that may violate law or the

Department’s prohibited force policy and forward those cases to Internal Affairs

Bureau for investigation or review (paragraph 115);

•

Holding supervisors accountable for not adequately investigating or responding

to force that is unreasonable or otherwise contrary to LASD policy (paragraph

116);

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

30

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 36 of 49 Page ID #:574

•

Holding AV unit commanders accountable for identifying and reporting force

trends and for taking preventive steps to curb problematic trends (paragraph

117); and

•

Holding AV unit commanders accountable to review and track training and

tactical review findings to ensure that informal feedback does not replace formal

discipline (paragraph 118).

1.

Activities This Period

During this reporting period, the MT completed a comprehensive audit of the Department’s use-of-force investigation processes—how it investigates, reviews, and adjudicates the use of force and related community member complaints in the AV (paragraphs 148–151 and 153). Specifically, the MT conducted a detailed analysis of each investigation of use of force by deputies in the AV chain of command that was completed during the first quarter (January – March) of 2017 to assess:

•

Deputies’ use of force for consistency with Department policy and SA mandates;

•

Deputies’ de-escalation of force whenever possible;

•

Deputies’ required notification to supervision immediately following the use of

force;

•

Deputies’ completion of thorough and accurate use-of-force reports;

•

Supervisory use of force investigations for timelines, completeness, investigative

independence, and recordation in the Department’s Performance Recording and

Monitoring System (PRMS; formerly the Personnel Performance Index [PPI]);

•

Use-of-force investigations for allegations of misconduct by deputies and the

completeness of the Department’s investigation and adjudication of such

allegations;

•

Internal Affairs Bureau investigations and the EFRC review of all Category 3 uses

of force;5

5Category 3 uses of force include but are not limited to lethal uses of force, hospitalization of the suspect, skeletal fractures, canine bites, and any force that results in the response of the Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) as defined in the LASD Manual of Policy and Procedures (MPP) 3-10/130.00.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

31

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 37 of 49 Page ID #:575

•

Cases in which a manager—watch commander, unit captain, and/or division

commander or chief—directed that employees receive particular training to

determine if the directed training had been provided; and

•

If the Department complied with Government Code section 12525.2, which

requires all California law enforcement agencies to collect certain UOF incident

data and provide them to the California Department of Justice.

Preliminary findings of the UOF audit have been mostly positive and have been discussed with the Parties, but the audit is not finalized. As reported in the last semi-annual report, the Parties have been discussing whether UOF investigations involving embedded LASD unit personnel (that is, those who may work in the AV but who do not report directly to the AV commanders) should be included in the MT’s UOF audit. The Department believes those uses of force to be outside of the scope of the SA; they have offered to make those investigations available to MT auditors for a separate review but not for publication and not for the purposes of assessing SA compliance. DOJ and MT believe the unit of analysis in the audit should be all uses of force that occur in the AV, which would include UOFs involving deputies from the embedded units like the gang and narcotics units. When the Parties and MT resolve this issue, the MT will finalize its UOF audit and the associated report.

2.

Steps Toward Compliance

The MT audit will be used to inform the final compliance metrics that will be used for future evaluations of the Department’s quantitative and qualitative measurements of SA compliance related to the use and investigation of force.

3.

Next Steps

With resolution of the audit population issue and completion of the MT audit, the MT will formally submit its full report to the Department and discuss the audit evidence that supports its findings and recommendations. The MT will assist the Department in developing a plan to correct any deficiencies identified and to finalize the major revision to UOF policy that LASD has begun. Other parts of the plan may include revisions to training, investigative protocols, and accountability systems. Subsequent audits conducted by monitors will evaluate the Department’s implementation of any new policies and remediations.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

32

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 38 of 49 Page ID #:576

F. Personnel Complaint Review

The introduction to the SA’s Personnel Complaint Review section states:

County will ensure that all allegations of personnel misconduct are received and are fully and fairly investigated, and that all personnel who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent. To achieve these outcomes, LASD and the County agree to implement the requirements below. (p. 29)

Specifically, the SA requires that:

•

LASD continue to make personnel complaint forms and information readily

available to the public (paragraph 124);

•

LASD continue to accept all personnel complaints, including anonymous and

third-party complaints (paragraph 125); and

•

Personnel found to have committed misconduct be held accountable (Personnel

Complaint Review section, p. 29).

The SA also requires that the Department revise its policies to ensure that:

•

All complaints are classified accurately, and each allegation receives the

appropriate level of review (paragraph 127);

•

Personnel complaints are not misclassified as service complaints (paragraph 128);

•

Each allegation of misconduct is identified and investigated fully and fairly

(paragraph 130); and

•

It is clear which complaints may require discipline or should be handled as an

administrative investigation rather than as a service complaint (paragraphs

129–130).

The SA identifies minimum investigative standards (paragraphs 131–137) and training that must be provided to supervisors (paragraphs 138–139). It also requires that the Department perform an annual audit of community complaints (paragraph 140).

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

33

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 39 of 49 Page ID #:577

1.

Activities This Period

During this reporting period, the MT worked with the Department to implement corrective action for the deficiencies identified in the MT’s audit of public complaints published during the previous six-month reporting period.6 This work, described in more detail below, included the development of new policies (including new Unit Orders and revisions to some existing policies and procedures) and consultation on the complaint process, management oversight, LASD AAB audits related to the SA, and allegations of misconduct that arose during the MT’s use-of-force audit.

2.

Steps Toward Compliance

The MT’s audit of public complaints disclosed that the Department generally conducted adequate complaint investigations but fell short of SA standards in several areas and therefore was not in compliance with SA paragraphs 124–139. The specific deficiencies were:

1.

Personnel complaint forms and information were unavailable at some required locations,

and some Department personnel did not respond appropriately to citizens wanting to

make a personnel complaint (SA paragraphs 124, 125, and 126);

2.

Some investigations did not contain sufficient information to support reliable and

complete findings (SA paragraphs 131, 135, 136, and 137);

3.

Some allegations within a complaint were not identified as such and others were not

adjudicated based upon a preponderance of evidence (SA paragraphs 130, 131, 139);

and

4.

Department managers failed to recognize and address some risk-management issues

that arose during the investigations (paragraph 61).

To address these deficiencies, each AV command issued a Unit Order during this reporting period that established procedures and expectations to correct these deficiencies. These orders were reviewed and approved by the MT and DOJ. The MT suggested that training be provided to watch commanders and certain supervisors as a way to supplement and reinforce the directives, but the Department feels sufficient discussion has already occurred during each command’s review of the MT’s audit and during discussions at several supervisors’ meetings. The MT expects to conduct a follow-up audit of complaints investigated and adjudicated after the Unit Orders were issued to determine if AV public complaints are being handled in accordance with SA requirements.7

6The audit was released on January 12, 2018, and it is available in the Documents and Reports section of the AV Monitors’ website, http://antelopevalleysettlementmonitoring.info/.
7The Lancaster Unit Order was issued on July 10, 2018, and the Palmdale Unit Order was issued on June 21, 2018.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 40 of 49 Page ID #:578

In addition to the deficiencies identified in the audit that are within the direct purview of North Patrol Division, the Compliance Unit is also working with the appropriate Department commands responsible for addressing audit findings regarding:

•

Complaint data being entered into PRMS in a timely manner (paragraph 142);

and

•

Non-compliant audits being conducted by the Department’s AAB to assess

compliance with the SA provisions for the intake, investigation, and adjudication

of public complaints made in the AV (paragraph 140).

Based upon the audit’s findings and recommendations, the Department is in the process of significantly revising its policies and manuals to correct the issues that were identified and to ensure they are complete, clear, and consistent. The Service Complaint Review Handbook is in the process of being reviewed for revisions. Meanwhile, the MPP section on public complaints is being revised to reflect the necessary changes. The MT has reviewed several drafts of the extensive changes to the MPP chapter and provided the Department with feedback on those drafts. The MT recently received the newest version and is in the process of reviewing it for consistency with the SA.

It is important to note that revisions to the SCR Handbook and MPP affect the entire Department, not just the AV stations. Therefore, the changes require additional research and attention to ensure they will be effective and undertaken appropriately throughout the Department. While a Unit Order can be issued relatively quickly, a Department-wide directive takes much more time.

The Department continues to struggle with the requirement that it conduct regular compliance audits of the SA provisions. The AAB has yet to conduct an audit designed to assess SA compliance; some audits have referenced the SA, but none have used the methodology or provided the information necessary to thoroughly assess SA compliance. This has been a problem since the inception of the SA and one that the MT, Compliance Unit, and North Patrol Headquarters have so far been unsuccessful in trying to resolve. The MT is informed that the Compliance Unit and AAB have recently had several additional discussions in that regard and that the Compliance Unit is optimistic AAB can and will begin producing those required audits. The MT looks forward to progress in that area.

Finally, the MT’s Complaint Audit found that allegations of misconduct made during a use-of-force investigation were not being identified as such and, therefore, were not retrievable through the SCR or PRMS systems. Rather than hand-search every UOF investigation conducted during the complaint audit period, it was decided to review the cases identified for the UOF audit to determine how many contained a misconduct allegation and the degree to which those allegations were identified, investigated, and adjudicated based on a preponderance of evidence. Findings of the UOF audit, including allegations of misconduct that arose during those investigations, will be published in the next reporting period.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

35

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 41 of 49 Page ID #:579

3.

Next Steps

During the next reporting period, the MT will work with the Department to finalize the SCR Handbook and MPP chapter on personnel complaints. The MT will also review the Administrative Investigations Handbook to identify and suggest corrections for any portion that is inconsistent with the other documents.

This MT will also work to finalize the monitoring work plans for the complaint sections of the SA, particularly with respect to quantitative and qualitative measurements of compliance. The audit helped the MT identify those SA provisions that are critical and which will require a very high degree of compliance (e.g., investigations must always be sufficiently thorough to allow for reliable and complete findings [paragraph 131]) and those that may not require such a high degree of compliance (e.g., a reasonable percentage of minor data entry errors can be made as long as there is a system for checking and correcting errors and holding personnel responsible).

Finally, the MT will begin the process of conducting a follow-up audit to assess the Department’s compliance with the SA’s complaint requirements. That will include an assessment of the Unit Orders’ effectiveness in correcting the deficiencies identified in the MT audit and consideration of any additional training of deputies, supervisors, or managers that may be required under paragraphs 138–139.

G. Accountability
As indicated in the previous semi-annual report, the intent of the Accountability section and related provisions in the SA is to ensure that appropriate oversight is provided by management and supervisory staff through the ongoing observation and evaluation of both individual behaviors and the collective performance of employees.8 Effective accountability requires management’s capacity and willingness to scrutinize, identify, and remedy individual and systemic deficiencies. Consideration of every stage of personnel performance must be built into the fabric of operations at every level of the organization, and reliable and current information must be available to managerial leadership.
The MT’s role is to verify that these accountability operations are effectively conducted according to LASD policy and as required by the SA. For this Accountability section, monitoring activities primarily focus on paragraphs 141–145 and their requirements concerning data collection and evaluating personnel performance via the PRMS and the Performance Mentoring Program (PMP).

8Management staff includes the captains, operations lieutenants, and watch commanders at each AV station and the North Patrol Division chief and commander. The sergeants are supervisors rather than managers, but they support management in review functions and in ensuring effective oversight is provided in the field.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

36

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 42 of 49 Page ID #:580

Accountability systems—including electronic data systems and file storage, and the policies and procedures governing their use—provide permanent mechanisms for management to routinely review and evaluate operations and performance in real time, assess risk exposures, and ensure and verify that standards are being appropriately met. In this regard, paragraphs 141 and 142 require LASD to make several PRMS modifications; in particular, to give it the capacity to compare deputies and units and to be able to access and report additional data relevant to determining compliance with the SA.
As reported in the last semi-annual report, the PRMS is not capable of functioning as the sole repository of information and data needed for management to provide effective oversight of all the operational elements required by the SA. The SA provides that alternatives to a single data system may be used if together they meet the various requirements of the SA. LASD has several management processes and standalone information systems, some of which were developed as a response to the SA and others that predated the SA. Since cataloging those processes and systems and ascertaining how each one is used, the MT has worked with the Compliance Unit and AV stations to document how the they are or can be integrated into a documented, reliable, and effective central accountability process.

1.

Accountability Provisions in other SA sections

Management accountability requirements of the SA are far broader than just those identified in the Accountability section. In fact, they permeate every aspect of the SA. Each provision of the SA has several steps required to reach full compliance, one of which is that the Department adapts its accountability systems so that the implementation and impact of these changes are tracked, assessed, and corrected as necessary. This includes stations and deputies being held accountable for properly incorporating the change into their practices. It also includes supervisors and managers being held accountable for tracking deputy performance and establishing whether the change is having its intended effect. The MT will assess the accountability practices required for each section of the SA via the reviews and audits specific to those sections. This Accountability section will focus on the data systems, PMP, and overarching accountability processes specifically addressed in paragraphs 141–145.

2.

Activities in this Reporting Period

MT activity during this reporting period included primarily written and phone communications and onsite meetings with the Compliance Unit, focused on the Department’s need to develop an overarching plan to provide a framework not only for management accountability functions but also to establish clear guidelines for documenting accountability practices.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

37

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 43 of 49 Page ID #:581

In response to SA requirements for the need for a formalized plan or approach to integrate and consider information from the various information systems, the Compliance Unit has developed a proposed quarterly report process. This process is designed to provide LASD AV management the opportunity to evaluate reported information and data necessary to compare deputies and units, determine whether performance objectives and standards are being met, and identify potential trends in the operations. On November 8, 2018, the MT and DOJ met with the Compliance Unit to discuss managerial oversight of and responsibilities for implementing and tracking accountability processes and to review the draft quarterly report.
The MT believes this quarterly report approach, in which information from the various information and data collection systems is compiled and presented to management, is a reasonable approach to meeting the requirement in the SA for the development of a plan to periodically review how the AV stations analyze information and respond to concerns unique to their stations. The draft report represents thoughtful and diligent work toward meeting the SA accountability requirements. The Parties agree that further development of the quarterly report and the processes surrounding it will be necessary before implementation and long-term use. This is discussed below in Steps Toward Compliance.

3.

Steps Toward Compliance

While the MT views the quarterly report concept as an appropriate approach to facilitate management oversight and accountability, it will be necessary to formalize the protocols used in this process to provide standardization and consistency. As a follow-up to the November MT and Parties meeting, the Compliance Unit has agreed to develop written protocols, formalizing the quarterly report process. The document containing these protocols will include a management directive outlining the information to be collected/reported quarterly by the AV stations and a user guide establishing guidelines for how the information and data will be considered by managers reviewing the information.

The Parties also agreed to include information in the quarterly report that can be used to verify that the SA requirements regarding the PMP are being followed and met. This will enable management to determine if AV personnel are provided mentoring in the PMP within 30 days after the need for mentoring is identified, that appropriate procedures are in place for supervising deputies in the program, and there is appropriate coordination between the Department-wide PMP and the North Patrol Division PMP.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

38

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 44 of 49 Page ID #:582

The station command staff, including the Unit Commanders, will be responsible for reviewing quarterly reports and assessing the information presented to evaluate unit and individual deputy/supervisor performance, make comparisons, and identify potential trends. The MT intends to work closely with the Compliance Unit early in the next reporting period as they finalize the quarterly report content and format and develop the directives, protocols, and user guides necessary to complete the development of the quarterly report process.
The Parties have met to discuss compliance measures/metrics for establishing agreed-upon thresholds in determining compliance once the quarterly report process is completed and implemented. It is particularly difficult to establish percentages for compliance in the area of management accountability. Determining compliance in this arena will depend heavily on an outcome-based qualitative assessment rather than, for example, a quantitative assessment of how often managers review information in their efforts to provide management accountability. Compliance will need to be determined by examining both quantitative measures of the processes and reviews required by the quarterly report and how those reviews and processes affect performance and positive outcomes. Compliance measures/metrics will be established for SA accountability requirements once development of the quarterly report process is completed.

4.

Next Steps

To summarize, the MT has established that the Department has several accountability practices and various databases in place that use information and data from the PRMS and several other sources. Early in the next reporting period, the MT will work with the Compliance Unit as they develop and implement the necessary user guides, protocols, and directives for the proposed quarterly report process. Once these are completed and implemented, the MT will begin a formal review of the sufficiency and effectiveness of the quarterly report process in meeting the requirements for accountability as required in paragraphs 141–145. This review will be designed to assess not only the availability of data and textual information but also how the information is accessed, evaluated, acted upon, and documented by managers and how the quarterly report fits into other aspects of LASD’s accountability system. It is expected that the compliance metrics to be used by the MT in these formal reviews will be developed and agreed upon during the next reporting period.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

39

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 45 of 49 Page ID #:583
III. CONCLUSION
The Monitors have found the Department is continuing to display steady progress in their efforts to carry out the objectives of the SA. Various policies have been revised or are being updated and disseminated, related training in those policies and other SA requirements is being carried out in a timely manner, community outreach and engagement efforts are increasing, and the Department is drawing upon and engaging both internal and external resources (such as the Compliance Unit, the AAB, academic institutions, and external consultants) to assist the AV stations in meeting their responsibilities and commitments and in achieving the goals established by the SA. The MT looks forward to working with newly elected Sheriff Villanueva and are confident that the Sheriff’s stated priorities of community-based policing and leadership accountability will underscore the significant efforts of the Compliance Unit and AV stations.
As described throughout this report, there are also some important key issues and tasks that require (and that are currently receiving) increased attention in order to maintain the building momentum. Various examples were discussed in the preceding sections, but the MT wants to stress the importance of dealing with certain particular issues that the MT believes must be resolved in the near future so as to not impede or delay progress. Those topics or issues that the Parties need to focus on in the coming reporting period include (1) reaching agreement on the scope of populations to be audited when examining use-of-force incidents, (2) turning more attention to the community engagement efforts and focusing on the importance of developing and refining the understanding of community policing so that the public becomes more directly involved as a co-producer of public safety, and (3) finalizing agreement on the various performance metrics that have to be established to assess the Department’s compliance with and the outcomes achieved per the SA. The Parties and the MT intend to focus increased attention on these matters in the coming weeks.

AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

40

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 46 of 49 Page ID #:584
Appendix A: The Monitoring Team The court-appointed Monitors—Dr. Angie Wolf and Joseph Brann—have assembled an experienced group of team members with credentials and skills uniquely suited to the SA work. The membership of the MT was finalized in March 2016. The two Monitors and seven team members have extensive expertise and experience in monitoring and evaluation work in policing and corrections. Additionally, most of the MT members have served in law enforcement or continue to have distinguished careers in this field, several in the Los Angeles area. Several have served in leadership positions in law enforcement or corrections agencies during the implementation of the compliance period of a settlement agreement or consent decree and therefore understand the unique challenges that large organizations face in those circumstances. The MT members also have particular expertise in dealing with the diverse issues addressed in the SA, such as those related to use of force, training, the FHA, data collection and analysis, survey methods, and the complexities of community engagement. This constellation of team members was assembled to support the Monitors’ philosophy of collaborative reform; it is using the principles of evaluation and technical assistance to provide an actionable assessment of LASD’s progress toward implementation of the SA.
AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 47 of 49 Page ID #:585 Appendix B: Antelope Valley Monitoring Website
This website allows AV community members to learn more about the SA, the backgrounds of the MT members, and the monitoring activities; access documents related to the monitoring work, including each semi-annual report; follow links to LASD’s homepage and other relevant websites; and—importantly—submit questions and comments directly to the MT. The website’s URL is antelopevalleysettlementmonitoring.info
AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 48 of 49 Page ID #:586
Appendix C: How the Parties and Monitoring Team Work
To complete the work of the SA, the Parties (US DOJ, LASD, and the County of Los Angeles) and the MT are in daily communication through a variety of means. In each six-month period, the Parties and MT hold multiple meetings at LASD headquarters; at the offices of the Compliance Unit; at other administrative offices; at the Palmdale and Lancaster stations; and at various community centers, schools, and places of worship in the AV. The MT periodically meets in person with the captains of both AV stations and their staff and participates in multiple onsite meetings with LASD’s Compliance Unit, usually regarding specific issues such as policy or protocol review or data system discussion. The MT also holds meetings with particular units or leadership from other operations that are critical to this reform work, such as the AAB or the commander in charge of training. The MT typically observes the semi-annual LASD risk management meeting and the Crime Management Forum. Although some of these meetings and events are general in scope and pertain to several sections of the SA, most are related to specific sections or provisions of the SA. The Parties and MT also participate in several smalland larger-group community meetings in Palmdale and Lancaster—often with the CACs—where various topics are discussed, such as the MT semi-annual reports, LASD and CAC community engagement reports, community perceptions about LASD and its approach to policing, and other topics.
In addition to in-person meetings, there are a variety of conference calls each month along with daily email or telephone communication among representatives of the Parties and the MT. The MT and DOJ participate in a bimonthly call to address substantive issues and planning; a similar bimonthly call is held that involves the MT, DOJ, and the Compliance Unit; and the MT and Parties, including the Office of County Counsel and extended LASD command staff, participate in a monthly telephone conference call to discuss workflow, future events and meetings, and other salient topics. Several times per year, onsite meetings are held where most participants from the Parties and the MT spend several days together doing intensive work on various topics.
Videoconferencing is used whenever possible when all are not able to be physically present in meetings. Documents are shared extensively via email for the purposes of review and collaborative development of the various policies and procedures, training curricula, community engagement materials, audits, and other written elements of the SA. LASD shares departmental data in various formats with the MT via secure email and digital media.
AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 36 Filed 01/25/19 Page 49 of 49 Page ID #:587
Appendix D: Monitors’ Note on the Settlement Agreement, Constitutional Policing, and Organizational Change
As noted in previous reports, the MT understands and remains mindful of the many complexities encountered when a large organization undertakes broad policy changes as well as the challenges of implementing such changes. The Monitors also appreciate the considerations of LASD management in dealing with matters of this nature, such as whether the changes will be confined to the AV stations or affect the entire organization; the likelihood that other existing policies could be affected and therefore need to be revised; that evolving “best practices” and legal considerations also influence policies related to use of force, video recordings, and so on; and the need in many instances to consult with labor groups or legal resources before such policy changes can occur. Throughout the work to date, the Monitors have found the Parties to be strongly committed to ensuring that the requirements of the SA will not be weakened or overlooked because of these considerations. Based on the ongoing collaboration among the Parties, the MT believes the SA objectives can be achieved in a timely manner. Critical to successfully implementing and sustaining the SA reforms is a commitment to constitutional policing principles. LASD’s ability to meet these responsibilities is dependent on clear policies and effective training. Only when prepared with sufficient training and clarity about the purpose of the SA can deputies clearly understand what the Department expects from them in their community interactions. Only then can deputies honor Constitutional standards of policing. Department capacity is also affected by the need to have sufficient accountability systems in place to monitor and evaluate employee performance and management oversight practices.
AV Six-Month Report VII July – December 2018

 
 Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 1 of 56 Page ID #:588

1 MARY C. WICKHAM,County Counsel ROGER H,GRANBO Senior Assistant County Counsel
2(SBN 108372)_• rgran~io~counsel.lacounty.gov 648 Kenneth Hahn Hallo Administration
3 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles California 90012-2713
4 Telephone: 213)974-1609 •Fax:(213)626-2105

5 Attorneys for
b The County ofLos Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department
7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,WESTERN DIVISION

11

12 ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CASE NO.2:15-CV-03174-JFVV-FFM

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

SUBMISSION OF MOlvITORS' EIGHTH SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT

15 TIC COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND TIC LOS ANGELES COUNTY
16 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

17

Defendants.

18

19

On May 1,2015,the Court approved and entered the parties' Settlement

20 Agreement("Agreement")to resolve the United States' claims against the County of

21 Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department pursuant to

22 42 U.S.C. 14141 (re-codified at 34 U.S.C. § 12601)and the Fair Housing Act,42

23 ~ U.S.C.3601 etseq.

24

Paragraph 171 ofthe Agreement requires the Monitors to publically issue a

25 report every six months that details the Parties' progress in implementing the

26 Agreement and achieving compliance with the Agreement. The parties hereby

27 submitthe Monitors'eighth semi-annual report.

28
HOA.102583989.1
SUBMISSION OF MOI~]ITORS' ~ EIGHTH SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT

Z'15-CV-03174

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 2 of 56 Page ID #:589

1 DATED:
2

Z~ 20 C

MARY C. County Cc

3 ~ mil',

4 ROGE GRANBO

5

Senior ~tant Counsel Counsel

6

Attorneys for the County ofLos Angeles and

7

the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

HOA102583989.1

SUBMISSION OF MONITORS'

-2-

EIGHTH SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT

.~ 5-~'±V-n~ ~ 74

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 3 of 56 Page ID #:590
Antelope Valley Monotor~ng Team
Eighth Semi-Annual Report

_ si - .mi

1. ✓"^ •.)

4.

---
June 2019

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 4 of 56 Page ID #:591
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I NTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................1 A. A Note About Settlement Agreement Compliance .............................................................2
II. WORK TO DATE................................................................................................................................................4 A. Stops, Seizures, and Searches......................................................................................................5 B. Bias-Free Policing...........................................................................................................................11 C. Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance....................................................................................15 D. Community Engagement....................:........................................................................................22 E. Use of Force ......................................................................................................................................33 F. Personnel Complaint Review......................................................................................................40 G. Accountability...................................................................................................................................43
III. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................48
APPENDICES A. The Monitoring Team B. Antelope Valley Monitoring Website C. How the Parties and Monitoring Team Work D. Monitors` Note on the Settlement Agreement, Constitutional Policing, and
Organizational Change

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 5 of 56 Page ID #:592
I. INTRODUCTION
This is the eighth semi-annual report issued by the Monitoring Team (MT). It covers the monitoring activities that have taken place during this reporting period and in the months prior. This report provides an overview of both administrative and operational issues. It describes the MT's observations on progress of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department(LASD)in meeting the requirements of their Settlement Agreement(SA)' with the US Department of Justice(DOJ)for the Antelope Valley(AV). This report focuses primarily on work undertaken between January and June 2019.
Key activities of this reporting period included the MT and Parties working together to finalize and publish the reports for the AV-wide Community Survey and focus groups,finalize and i mplement the plan for ensuring AV deputies participate in regular and meaningful engagement activities with AV community members, and develop and formalize LASD's plan for documenting new station- and division-level accountability processes. The MT and Parties made significant progress toward final approval of the Department's revisions to public complaint policies and procedures based on SA requirements and the MT's complaints audit. The MT finalized end published its first use-of-force(UOF)audit and worked with the Parties on ensuring its findings are reflected in any necessary changes to LASD policy or practice. The MT continued to regularly i nteract with the AV Community Advisory Committees(CACs), receiving feedback and providing technical assistance. The MT also continued to track deputy attendance at LASD trainings, review LASD stops data, and review and comment on Department stops data entry procedures. This report covers progress in all these areas along with discussions of how this work fits into the broader context of achieving the SA's objectives.
The Monitors and members of the MT and DOJ were in Los Angeles at LASD offices and at various locations in the AV for multiday onsite work in February, March, and June 2019. Other onsite meetings were held with smaller groups through the six-month reporting period. The MT acknowledges that these site visits and meetings require a significant effort on the part of the Compliance Unit and station personnel, the CACs and other community members, and the LASD managers who participate. The MT appreciates the hospitality and cooperation they have experienced.
For more information about the composition of the MT and the processes by which the MT, DOJ, LASD, and community members work together to bring about the reforms required by the SA, see the appendices.
In the past six months, LASD continued to provide AV personnel with the full-day trainings on constitutional and bias-free policing; implemented new roll call training modules for constitutional policing, bias-free policing, and Fair Housing Act(FHA)enforcement; and worked with the Parties and MT on developing in-service training for community engagement and community policing. LASD continued work to improve deputy stops data collection; formalized
'Settlement Agreement, No.CV 15-03174, United States v. Los Angeles County et al.(D.C. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015).
AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 6 of 56 Page ID #:593

new Department accountability processes; and made significant progress addressing other SArequired activities such as the Community Survey and revisions to policies and procedures related to complaints, uses of force, and other areas. The MT acknowledges and appreciates these efforts, specially recognizing the committed and collaborative Compliance Unit personnel. The Compliance Unit, the AV station command staff and personnel, North Patrol Division management, and the Office of County Counsel continue to approach the SA requirements and related work with good-faith engagement and collaborative energy.The working relationship between the Department, DOJ team members, and the MT continues to be conducive to meeting the goals of the SA and making important improvements to law enforcement services in the AV.The MT also appreciates all of the AV community members who participate in meetings and in other forums; who completed and helped spread the word about the Community Survey; and who continue to hold the MT, DOJ, and LASD accountable for carrying out the mandates of the SA. In particular, the MT appreciates the continued efforts of the members of the CACs, which have both made considerable progress in meeting the expectations of the SA and representing the AV community.

The Antelope Valley Settlement Agreement:Summary'~~~~;~~ ~i r`mg ,, - ~~ ,~~+y~~~~~ ' ~~~~~ ~~ '; ~`;~~3 ~ a

'" Y..

'e

"A~°'. !~ y.

~ t;,f'E A µ

''t

.'~EL. A fr 4~ l;

,~~ ~~:~ t ~

~,' X~ T y°~; ;,~ & g ~, Y ~ i ^ f~

The Antelope Valley Settlement Agreement(SA)was established between the US Department of,Justice

(DOJ), Civil Rights Division;the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department(LASD); and the County of Los

Angeles and was filed with the US District Court for the Central District of California in April 2015.(DOJ,

LASD, and the County together are referred to as the Parties.) The purpose of the SA is to ensure that the residents of the AV have police services that are lawful and fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States and contemporary policing practices. The SA specifically identifies, as individual sections, a variety of reforms and objectives to be met by LASD in the AV related to: Stops, Seizures, and Searches; Bias-Free Policing; Enforcement of Section 8 compliance; Data Collection and Analysis; Community Engagement; Use of Force; Personnel Complaint Review; and Accountability. The SA also stipulates that a professional monitor be selected to track and assess LASD's progress in implementing and achieving compliance with the SA,work with the Parties to address obstacles to achieving

compliance, and report on the status of implementation to the Parties and the Court. As per Paragraph 171 of the SA between the Parties, the Monitor submits asemi-annual report(every six months);the

first of these was issued in December 2015,~~ 4 ~~,~, .~

x

-r~ ~ v

~ ~{

i Y'~~~

~V~;

'S4~ ~. h';, ~~' ~i ~r b`~< '}. ~`~ ~~~.'.~~_ ~ ~.~. ~ ~ tQl~'~'~~;al.—g

~~: ~ ~,.~~ y k r ~~. ~ ~ - ;' ~ ~y
4 Vrr 9 * ~i'g'A ~ ~ ;c''y,'j~ .,i ~ia .°' ~ r ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pa

1''~~ ~~~, M :e

C. ~,

. ~ ~ f ~r

~~,~.. 1 .~

~~ ~ , t°'
~ ~ ~ F~ ~~.y ~ ~~ ~d~1'~'~}~a~ .

The AV lies in the northeast corner of the County of Los Angeles and includes two cities—Lancaster and Palmdale—and several unincorporated communities spread across hundreds of square miles. LASD provides law enforcement services in the unincorporated areas of the AV as well as via contracts with Palmdale and Lancaster. An LASD station serves each city, with law enforcement activities for the

surrounding areas roughly split between the two.

A. A Note About Settlement Agreement Compliance
M uch of the SA involves developing or revising policies, procedures, or training; putting into place various processes (such as a plan for ensuring new AV deputies receive training); and striving to more effectively engage community organizations and entities such as the CACs. This

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

2

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 7 of 56 Page ID #:594
work is usually done collaboratively among the Parties and the MT, with documentation of the change(new policy, revised training, etc.) eventually being formally submitted to the MT and DOJ for approval. Gaining that approval would seemingly indicate that the Department is now "in compliance" with that provision. However, while it does represent a crucial step forward, the Department at that stage may be considered only in partial compliance (or "policy compliance"). This is because, in most cases, there are more steps involved before the Department reaches full implementation (SA paragraph 20, see below) and,thus,full compliance.
An approved policy must be distributed to every deputy according to SA-required procedures and, as necessary, incorporated into training curricula. An approved training curriculum will require documentation that appropriate personnel have received the training. Most importantly, each of the established improvements—for instance, the policies and trainings—will need to be found to perform or work in the real world. That is, they are then assessed through such MT activities as reviews, audits, interviews, observation, and data analysis to establish whether they are successfully reflected in law enforcement practices and achieve the intended qualitative and quantitative impacts on the AV community.
Changes to policy and practice must also be incorporated into LASD-AV's accountability practices. The reviews, analyses, studies, and audits that the SA requires LASD to conduct must use appropriate methodologies; and, in turn, their findings must be used effectively to inform policies and practices.Z In some cases,the SA requires ongoing improvement in the delivery of services(SA paragraph 15). Finally, this level of performance must be sustained for one year to reach full and effective compliance and to satisfy the terms of the SA (paragraph 205).
This process of achieving compliance is laid out in various provisions of the SA,especially through the following paragraphs.
• Paragraph 20. Implementation is defined as "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 of that policy or procedure in actual practice." What is meant by "consistent and verified performance" is to be laid out in each SA section's compliance metrics.
• Paragraph 205. The terms of the SA will have been met when "the County has achieved full and effective compliance with the Agreement and maintained such compliance for no less than one year."

zParagraph 171 b gives a summary of the stepwise process toward compliance. Most provisions of the SA need to be "(1)incorporated into policy;(2)the subject of sufficient training for all relevant LASD deputies and employees; (3) reviewed or audited by the Monitor to determine whether they have been fully implemented in actual practice, i ncluding the date of the review or audit; and (4)found by the Monitor to have been fully implemented in practice."

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

3

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 8 of 56 Page ID #:595

• Para~ph 15. Full and effective compliance means "achieving both sustained compliance with all material requirements of this Agreement and sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing and public trust, as demonstrated pursuant to the Agreement's outcome m easures."
Compliance metrics or measures represent the specific quantitative and qualitative criteria by which the MT will assess full compliance with each SA provision.The written metrics mirror the language of the SA, but they also ensure the Parties and MT agree on how the SA language translates into workable and measurable standards for LASD-AV policy and practice and for assessing compliance.
During this reporting period, the MT and Parties continued work on finalizing compliance metrics associated with each section of the SA. Many of these metrics are straightforward and easily agreed upon. Others are more complex, and the Parties determine them using information gleaned from the ongoing audits, data and document reviews, interviews, and observations conducted by the Department and MT.
This report addresses SA provisions where the MT considers the Department to be in compliance or to have made substantial progress toward compliance. Also discussed are provisions that require additional work, with emphasis on those that will likely require substantial time and resources for the Department to come into compliance or for the MT to effectively assess levels of compliance. When possible, this report also summarizes the sequence of activities and steps the Department must take to achieve full compliance.
II. WORK TO DATE
This section of the report provides detailed descriptions of the work performed to date by LASD, DOJ, and the MT to ensure the requirements of the SA are fulfilled, concentrating primarily on those activities undertaken or completed during the past six months(January through J une 2019). The report discusses MT observations related to the goals,scope, and nature of the work; issues and obstacles that have arisen during the work; MT findings; and evaluative observations that have been discussed with the Department. LASD's progress toward compliance with each section of the SA is delineated along with steps toward compliance still to be addressed.
As in prior semi-annual reports, one major section of the SA—Data Collection and Analysis—is not addressed separately. The concepts and activities for data collection and analysis overlap significantly with those for the other sections of the SA, and the work done on this thus far is best understood within the context of those sections; therefore, these discussions are embedded as appropriate. Finally, some SA paragraphs are discussed in more than one section of this report because they address more than one area of AV policing. For example, paragraph 51 concerns constitutional stops and searches, Section 8 housing compliance, and bias-free

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

4

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 9 of 56 Page ID #:596
policing. Similarly,"accountability" is addressed throughout the SA, not only in the Accountability section.
A. Stops,Seizures,and Searches
The SA provisions describe the way in which LASD-AV deputies must conduct and document investigative stops, detentions, and searches.These provisions also detail many ofthe ways Department supervisors and managers must document,track, review,and assess these practices. The introduction to Stops, Seizures, and Searches summarizes the overall goals of this section.
LASD agrees to ensure that a(( investigatory stops, seizures, and searches are conducted in accordance with the rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or taws ofthe United States. LASD shat(ensure that investigatory stops and searches are part ofan effective overall crime prevention strategy, do not contribute to counter-productive divisions between LASD and the community, and are adequately documented for tracking and supervision purposes (SA page 7).
1. Activities in This Period
a. Constitutional Training
LASD continued to provide the Constitutional Policing training for LASD deputies assigned to the AV stations. This training is critical as it establishes a shared understanding of expectations and practice for all LASD-AV deputies as they provide law enforcement services to the AV community.This training was previously approved by the MT,DOJ,and LASD to meet SA training requirements for stops, seizures, and searches. It is taught by an outside expert with decades of experience in constitutional law and training. The Compliance Unit staffs the training classes with a representative from the unit to ensure the accuracy of the attendance roster and to collect the evaluations at the end of the course. At the time of the last semi-annual report, LASD-AV had reached compliance in this area based on the tentatively agreed-upon standard that requires at least 95% of currently assigned and available personnel be trained in constitutional policing practices. The bulk of AV deputies have already taken this full-day training; as of the last semi-annual report, 169from Palmdale and 184from Lancaster had. During this period,one session was offered on March 5, 2019, with 34 students in attendance, representing deputies newly assigned to the AV or previously unavailable for training. A review of the attendance percentages for this period is currently underway by the MT.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

5

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 10 of 56 Page ID #:597
b. Quorterly Rolf Calf Training
SA paragraph 71 states,"LASD-AV will conduct roll call trainings at least quarterly to emphasize the importance of preventing discriminatory policing. These roll call sessions will include scenario-based discussions of real and hypothetical situations." "Roll call" refers to the daily briefing deputies receive at the start of each of their shifts. These roll call trainings are important because knowledge of bias-free policing practices and related SA requirements to prevent discriminatory policing are widely regarded as perishable skills that require constant reinforcement as well as updates regarding any changes in case law or policy. In the previous reporting period,the MT and DOJ provided feedback to LASD and agreed on the final content of the trainings, which includes seven scenarios approved for the roll call training focusing on constitutional policing, bias-free policing, and fair housing policies. Train-the-Trainer courses took place December 3-7, 2018, with invited sergeants, lieutenants, and master field training officers who would then be teaching the roll call sessions to the deputies. Members of the MT and DOJ were present to observe the training for the first three days and gave feedback.The trainings were subsequently approved by the Parties and MT.
During the roll call sessions, deputies are presented with a scenario and respond to a series of written questions regarding the legality of taking action were those situations to arise in their work in the field. The facilitator then leads the deputies through a discussion to ensure the deputies understand which answers are correct.The roll call sessions will be offered on an annual basis according to the following schedule.
First Quarter(January —March)
Preventing Discriminatory Policing Exercise A: In this scenario, deputies conduct an enforcement stop on an individual matching the description of a person believed to be involved in a recent shooting.
Preventing Discriminatory Policing Fair Housing Act Exercise B: In this scenario, deputies are asked to increase enforcement intended to target African American families at an apartment complex who may be engaged in criminal activity in order to make room for"good families" on the waiting list.
Second Quarter(April —June)
Preventing Discriminatory Policing Exercise C: In this scenario, a deputy stops Hispanic males to investigate their presence in a "high-crime" area.
Preventing Discriminatory Policing Fair Housing Act Exercise D: In this scenario, deputies respond to a request to accompany a housing authority official to investigate the violation of a housing authority tenant agreement.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

6

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 11 of 56 Page ID #:598

Third Quarter (July —September)
Preventing Discriminatory Policing Exercise E: In this scenario, a deputy is observed by other deputies as citing only Hispanic drivers for vehicle code violations.
Preventing Discriminatory Policing Exercise F: In this scenario, a supervisor notices a deputy targets enforcement efforts on those who hire Hispanic day laborers. The supervisor then engages the deputy in a conversation regarding the activity.
Fourth Quarter(October —December)
Preventing Discriminatory Policing Exercise G: In this scenario, deputies receive a call from a concerned citizen regarding an African American male playing loud m usic in a car. There was also a recent rise in burglaries in this neighborhood.
LASD began the roll call training sessions on January 31, 2019. During this period, the MT observed four of these roll call training sessions(one at Palmdale Station,three at Lancaster Station). The training sessions were acceptable and delivered as agreed upon, but there were areas for improvement.3 For example,the correct answers for one of the scenarios are obvious and can be covered with the deputies quickly, while other scenarios do not readily generate sufficiently deep and applicable discussion about the important concepts. For future sessions, it would be helpful if all scenarios have challenges and circumstances more likely to generate discussion about possible multiple conclusions to the scenario.The MT will provide written recommendations for improvement to the Parties and discuss the further development of scenarios in the next reporting period.
The LASD Compliance Unit has recently provided the roll call training attendance rosters for the first quarter of 2019 for MT inspection similar to that conducted for the full-day trainings and reported in the last semi-annual report. This will be completed in the next reporting period.
c. MT Stops Data Review
MT activities continue to be focused on evaluating the integrity of the various data collected by deputies as they conduct their daily operations in the community. Deputies are required to record information chronicling each stop, call for service, citation or arrest; dispositions of the call; and short narratives in certain circumstances (paragraph 44). The MT`s validation process will identify the assumptions and limitations of the data, which is critical for moving forward with
3 During one of the roll call training sessions, a significant event took place in the community, and the roll call was stopped immediately to allow deputies to respond. None of the deputies received credit for that session. Given the emerging nature of events, it is sometimes necessary for supervisors to shorten the roll call and thus terminate the training session. This is not of concern to the MT as long as the deputies are provided the training in subsequent roll calls.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

7

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 12 of 56 Page ID #:599

the various SA-required reviews and analyses. It is essential that the data on which most of the various LASD and MT audits, analyses, and reviews are based are complete and reliable.
Over the last reporting period, the MT has compared independent lists of citation data to ensure the stops were correctly recorded in computer-aided dispatch(CAD)as required by the SA.To date,the findings are encouraging; and the MT will continue using various methods to verify all stops are captured as required by the SA.The last two years show strong evidence of continued i mprovement in data collection as required by the SA.The MT will further share its findings regarding data integrity and stops practices as they become available and in subsequent semiannual reports.
Also, the MT has had initial discussions with an outside consultant regarding the SA-required analysis of the data collected (paragraphs 82-86).This work will be a focus of the next reporting period.

The Importance of Stops Data ~~ '~ c ~ ~~` ~ x ~" ~~ ~ ~' ~ ~ n.~ '' ~ ~ r :'~Y~:~ ~" i~—~y"wr~i~r -~ t ~ y~'

t'..~T'G~-'-~.,~.,,,-o.f,~„R~,.,~.y.~,a~•p'~ .Y.-

K! ~„ 1

_

~r-

r.5 ~

Q

,y e

~ ~~.°v7 ~s~^4nr 7 ~ 1 ~ ~'! ~
rp~~ ti . ~ yft y

+{~+~r-~c.fit'`{ty`3J~'

~}

ii ~

F~.~ w~~

p ,~

-,,7 a . ~„ ~
b~<
F

. ! ' r.' y ,aa'

:i

'y;~. ~i~4 ~ _

i.y~ Y

t r}

~

~

~i,~1"~

s "R, d

N x r yk 4

•fir: ~`yp !': X S ~f

~kk

'tt T..:~r -

~~ ~v

y

-~1

'y

A key focus of the monitoring activity for this section of the SA are the various types of data collected

by deputies as they conduct their daily operations.They record extensive information chronicling nearly

every interaction with the public, including each stop or call for service; each search, detention, cita~t:.i.;o:n., or arrest; the dispositions of each call; and in some circumstances,short narratives. They also now ''~yY

record certain community engagement activities. It is essential that these data—which serve as the ~~

foundation for all audits, analyses, and reviews conducted by both the MT and by LASD--are accurate,

thorough, and reliable. When a deputy stops and detains someone, however briefly, the facts and

circumstances that led to that stop and detention and any subsequent action must be rigorously

documented and later reviewed in an effort to assess the deputy's decision making,the legality of the

deputy's actions, and compliance with LASD policy and the terms and conditions of the SA, a. ~?k~~~~} ; ~a_~ ~~
~~.

Data collection for stops requires entering one or more alpha or numerical codes associated with the primary actions of the stop. Deputies can consult codebooks for these. The codes determine the other fields that appear on the screen and that must be completed. Importantly, supervisors, managers, and auditors typically use these codes to retrieve information about each entry to properly supervise y~~'~~ deputies and units, conduct risk management assessment, and monitor activities. For example, a ~~~~ :,. supervisor may want to review all records from the past month for pedestrian stops, which use code:: 841. Such a request will retrieve only the stops recorded as pedestrian stops. Incorrectly coded stops will not appear in the search. With thousands of stops and other activities recorded in the database, it is of course very important that accurate codes are used to identify each type.

d. Compliance Unit Stops Dato Training
The Compliance Unit has provided stops data-entry training to LASD-AV deputies, and it monitors the completion of the information via the Deputy Daily Work Sheets(DDWS)form reviews. Based on their own observations,feedback from the Parties, and LASD Audit and

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

8

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 13 of 56 Page ID #:600

Accountability Bureau (AAB)findings, the training material is updated with the latest recommendations for improvement in the data collection. The Compliance Unit also continues to work directly with AV station supervisors and commanders in the proper review of stop forms for accuracy and completeness. This engagement with the stations by the Compliance Unit is valuable in ensuring relevant and timely training is received at the stations. Additionally, as each AV station undergoes normal movement and transfers, the Compliance Unit can help to ensure newly assigned personnel understand the requirements of data collection at the AV stations. It is also important, however,that station supervisors and management provide independent oversight of these important processes.
e. LASD AAB Audits
The Department continues to struggle with the requirement that it conduct regular compliance audits of the SA provisions for stops, complaints, uses of force, and other areas. The AAB has yet to publish an audit specifically designed to assess SA compliance;some audits have referenced the SA, but none have used the methodology or provided the information necessary to thoroughly assess SA compliance. This has been a problem since the inception of the SA and is one that the MT,Compliance Unit, and North Patrol Division have so far been unsuccessful in resolving. Recently,the MT has been informed that AAB has begun a dialogue with the Compliance Unit and is in the process of initiating an audit that will measure the AV's compliance with the Unit Orders issued to correct deficiencies in the handling of personnel complaints. Once again,the MT is encouraged by this news and looks forward to progress in this area.
Further, on March 26, 2019,the MT met with AAB auditors to discuss their methodology for conducting an audit of the required SA stop information. The AAB auditors described how the narratives were reviewed to determine if the deputies listed an adequate amount of information in the narratives to justify the lawful reasons for their actions. Additionally, the AAB reviewed supervisory documentation of SA-required DDWS reviews. To identify the sample population for their audit, the AAB gathers all CAD information for their audit period. The AAB then filters the information for the stop codes entered by the deputies and selects a sample from those stops. The MT found the auditors worked in a professional manner with appropriate methodology. This gave the MT additional confidence in the findings of the AAB audits. Still, previous AAB audit reports of stops and complaints focused on specific components of the SA and had a very limited scope.They also did not contain sufficient detail for the MT to effectively assess the audit's methods and conclusions. For compliance with the SA to be considered, there will need to be additional discussions regarding the scope of the audits; their assessments of probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and boilerplate language; and the nature of the audit reports. The reforms put in practice as required by the SA will be institutionalized only if the AAB provides methodologically sound and thoroughly reported audits specifically targeting SA requirements.
During the last reporting period,the MT was advised the AAB's new audit of stops information was forthcoming. The MT is still awaiting the release of this audit. Previous AAB audits showed

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

9

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 14 of 56 Page ID #:601
low levels of compliance with the SA requirements for stops data collection. These findings led to the DDWS training provided to the AV stations by the Compliance Unit described above.
f. MT Interviews, Observations, and Ride-A(ongs
During site visits and ride-alongs,the MT conducted observations and spoke to station commanders, supervisors, and deputies assigned to the AV stations. The MT observed deputies conducting stops in the field and subsequently entering the data into CAD as required by the SA. The MT also observed LASD deputies entering the data into a separate California staterequired database for stop information. Additionally, the MT observed a briefing document titled "Foot Pursuit/Illinois v Wardlow" was made available and placed on the tables in the roll call rooms.The document reviewed the LASD policy regarding engaging in a foot pursuit and reviewed case law regarding a foot pursuit. The MT recognizes this type of briefing as an excellent practice that should be done on a regular basis for a wide range of topics.
The MT observed deputies responding to a wide range of calls far service. During one, deputies responded to a call involving a mentally ill person locked in a house and threatening family members.The deputies patiently met with family members outside the house and engaged in conversation with the mentally ill family member. A supervisor responded to the scene and was actively involved in directing deputies throughout the incident. After a lengthy time applying deescalation techniques, deputies were able to talk the person out of the home and detain him. In another instance, a deputy responded to a call for medical assistance and began CPR on a community member who was not breathing. Paramedics arrived and took over the CPR from the deputy.The person was ultimately revived; the deputy's swift action kept the individual alive u ntil advanced life support arrived on scene.
g. SA Compliance Metrics
The MT worked with the Parties to complete compliance metrics for the SA provisions in this section. These metrics will be the standards—either numerical minimums or qualitative guidelines—for the MT to determine if the Department has reached compliance with each SA provision. There was general agreement on the principles and goals for the metrics; discussions to finalize specific thresholds and definitions of terms will occur in the upcoming reporting period.(See "A Note About Settlement Agreement Compliance"for more information about compliance metrics and the process for achieving SA compliance.)
I n these discussions,the MT shared specific methodologies related to analyzing concise narratives in CAD entries as required by the SA. There was also significant discussion regarding the data entry restrictions imposed by the CAD system upon entering and analyzing the concise narratives. Given these limitations, the MT outlined steps that will be used to review the narratives as a basis for refining the compliance metrics. The MT's ongoing verification of stops

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

10

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 15 of 56 Page ID #:602

data illuminates the real-life possibilities and limitations for data entry in the field and helps establish reachable and accurate goals for compliance metrics.
2. Steps Toward Compliance
As described in more detail above,some of the progress toward compliance on the Stops provisions that the Department has made in this reporting period includes the following.
LASD continues to offer the required Constitutional Policing training and was in compliance with the preliminary percentage requirements in the last reporting period (paragraph 57). LASD offered an additional Constitutional Policing training session during this reporting period, and the MT is in the process of conducting verification for compliance this period.
The Department also implemented the quarterly roll call trainings(paragraph 71), a major step forward for SA-required training provisions. The MT will verify deputy participation in the upcoming reporting period.
MT has not completed its own review of stops data, but previous audits by the AAB found that both the Lancaster and Palmdale stations fell short of the requirements for documenting the required SA stops information. The LASD Compliance Unit offers training to LASD AV station deputies and supervisors when requested, a process that seems to be moving the Department toward compliance with data collection provisions such as paragraph 44.
The MT and Parties began planning for a new effort at meeting the semi-annual analysis requirements of paragraphs 82-86.
3. Next Steps
I n the upcoming reporting period,the MT will determine if the LASD-AV deputies attended the required roll call training sessions. The MT will continue to process LASD stops data and provide the Parties with interim findings as soon as they become available. As the compliance metrics will likely be completed during this reporting period, the Parties and MT will move to an i mportant time for measurement of compliance with the SA requirements.
B. Bias-Free Policing
The primary goal of the Bias-Free Policing section of the SA is encapsulated in SA paragraph 64:
I n conducting its activities, LASD 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, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation, and in accordance with

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

11

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 16 of 56 Page ID #:603
the rights secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Deputies Shall not initiate stops or other field contacts because of an individual's actual or perceived immigration status.
1. Activities in This Period
a. Bias-Free Policing Training
LASD continued to provide the Bias-Free Policing training for LASD deputies assigned to the AV stations. This training is critical in order for all LASD AV deputies to ensure a shared understanding of bias-free policing practices in the AV.This training was previously approved by the MT and Parties to meet SA training requirements for paragraph 70. It is taught by the same expert presenter as the Constitutional Policing training and the Train-the-Trainer courses for the roll call trainings. The Compliance Unit staffs the training classes with a representative from the unit to ensure the accuraty ofthe attendance roster and to collect the evaluations at the end of the course. In the previous period, LASD has maintained compliance in this area based on the tentatively agreed-upon standard that requires at least 95% of available AV sworn personnel be trained. Most AV deputies have already taken this full-day training—as of the last semi-annual report, 171 from Palmdale and 186 from Lancaster had. Training is now provided to newly assigned LASD-AV deputies or deputies who were not available when the training was offered previously. During this reporting period,there was one session offered on March 4,2019, which 28 students attended. A review of the attendance percentages for this period is currently underway by the MT.
b. Quarterly RoII Catl Training
In this reporting period,the Department began the approved quarterly roll call trainings for preventing discriminatory policing, which include training on constitutional policing, bias-free policing, and fair housing (paragraph 71). See the Stops section above for a full description. In the upcoming reporting period,the MT will be discussing with the Parties suggestions for improving the ongoing trainings. The MT will also be verifying deputy attendance at the trainings.
c Bias-Free Policing Training Verification
In the previous period,the MT conducted training verification for the Bias-Free Policing course offered to AV deputies. During this period, LASD offered one training course for bias-free policing. In the next reporting period,the MT will provide training attendance review results.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

12

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 17 of 56 Page ID #:604
d. SA Compliance Metrics
The Parties and MT met in February 2019 and made progress in the completion of the compliance metrics for this section of the SA. The compliance metrics specifically detail the processes and measurements for each SA requirement, critical to ensuring full understanding of the expectations and requirements to reach compliance with the 5A. Bias-free practices and i mpacts are not always easy to measure; rather, they require careful and thoughtful analysis. Progress on completing the compliance metrics is an important step toward defining and i mplementing those practices and measuring their impact.(See "A Note About Settlement Agreement Compliance"for more information about compliance metrics and the process for achieving SA compliance.)
e. MT Interviews, Observations, and Ride-Alongs
While on ride-alongs, the MT observed deputies interacting with community members in a variety of productive ways, such as by engaging with children in the neighborhoods and having conversations with adults about any concerns they had. These interactions were not related to calls for service; rather, they were self-initiated by the deputy in anon-enforcement fashion.(See the Community Engagement section below for a discussion of the compliance metrics for AV deputy community engagement.)
The MT spoke to numerous deputies, supervisors, and managers at the LASD AV stations. There were a number of ways supervisors and managers focused the enforcement efforts of LASD patrol deputies. Criminal case and trend information is relayed via email, bulletins, verbal discussions at roll call sessions, and broadcasts. The MT observed that LASD AV deputies used this type of information to direct some of their efforts while on patrol. Patrol deputies are unaware of whether their efforts are part of an organized, written crime-reduction plan; they believe they respond to crime trends simply by providing additional presence and enforcement in the targeted areas. The patrol deputies also described being regularly overwhelmed by the amount of calls for service ("tags"), preventing any long-term work on crime trends.
The MT has encouraged the LASD AV stations to adopt and implement community policing and problem-solving strategies that are more in line with national best practices. The MT has also stressed that using methodologically sound and measurable approaches is critical for commanders when evaluating the constitutionality of policing efforts. These can serve as a unifying link between the Bias-Free Policing training, the roll call trainings, and the deputies' d aily field activities. Implementing sound community policing practices and effective problemsolving strategies is a staple of bias-free policing, as the principles require constant measurement of program effectiveness and impact in the community.(See the Community Engagement section below for further discussion of community policing and problem-solving activities.)

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

13

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 18 of 56 Page ID #:605

2. Steps Toward Compliance
As described in mare detail above,some of the progress toward compliance on bias-free policing that the Department has made in this reporting period includes the following.
LASD continues to offer the required Bias-Free Policing training and was in compliance with the tentative percentage requirements in the last reporting period (paragraph 70). LASD offered an additional session during this most recent reporting period, and the MT is in the process of conducting verification for compliance. Additionally, LASD continues to offer this training to LASD deputies outside the LASD-AV stations and offers compensation to reserve deputies assigned to the AV stations for training attendance. The MT recognizes this continued commitment to providing this training to LASD-AV deputies.
The Department also implemented the quarterly roll call trainings(paragraph 71), a major step forward for SA-required training provisions. The MT will verify deputy participation in the upcoming reporting period.
The MT and Parties began planning for a new effort at meeting the semi-annual data analysis requirements(paragraphs 82-86); had early discussion of methodologies for assessing Department programs and activities for bias (paragraph 68); and published the Community Survey and administered the organizational climate and culture study("Deputy Survey"), which are to be used to inform Bias-Free Policing training and practice(paragraphs 69 and 72).
The Department has engaged with outside experts such as the Museum of Tolerance to help guide AV personnel on Bias-Free Policing training and practice. Further discussions with the Parties and MT have been held on how to capitalize on these consultations {paragraph 65).
3. Next Steps
The MT and Parties preliminarily discussed a plan for LASD-AV to systematically "assess all programs,initiatives, and activities to determine the extent of any disparate impact" and to ensure that none unlawfully discriminate (paragraph 68). This important discussion, at the core of the SA, will be continued in the upcoming reporting period. Paragraph 64 states, "In conducting its activities, LASD agrees to ensure that members of the public receive equal protection of the law, without bias based on race, color, or sexual orientation, and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States...."
While LASD continues to assign LASD deputies to the Bias-Free Policing training sessions,the measure of compliance and effectiveness will rely on the actual practice of Bias-Free Policing and the results experienced in the AV communities. In the next reporting period,the MT will

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

14

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 19 of 56 Page ID #:606
conduct verification of attendance in the roll call training sessions. These ongoing training efforts are important, but the true measure of the effectiveness will be how it ensures Bias-Free Policing concepts are carried out in enforcement actions, community partnerships, and community policing efforts.
I n the last reporting period,the MT reported observations regarding inconsistent understanding of community policing principles among AV deputies. LASD has indicated they will take steps to bring about additional awareness of community policing principles at the LASD AV stations. The MT has recommended resources to LASD and will discuss next steps collaboratively with the Parties. The MT will continue to conduct observations in the field to measure compliance with the SA because this is where all the goals of the 5A intersect in actual practice.
Finally, as mentioned above,the Parties intend to complete the compliance metrics for these i mportant sections. The MT will continue to work closely with parties to move forward with this work.
C. Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance
LASD's new Housing Non-Discrimination(HND)Policy, Field Operations Directive(FOD)18-001, was issued February 23, 2018; and its revised Housing Authority Non-Criminal Investigations/Inspections Policy(FOD 12-002 or Accompaniment Policy) was issued March 14, 2018. The MT's focus during this reporting period was on working with the Parties to develop compliance metrics for both policies and reviewing documents and data related to the SArequired dissemination of these policies.
Regarding both the HND and Accompaniment Policies, SA paragraph 164 requires:
Within 30 days after issuing a policy or procedure pursuant to this Agreement, LASD shall ensure that all relevant LASD personnel assigned to AV have received, read and understand their responsibilities pursuant to the policy or procedure... LASD shall document that each relevant LASD deputy or other employee has received, read, and sufficiently understands policy.
SA paragraphs 74 and 75, as they relate to the HND Policy, require:
Afl relevant personnel acknowledge he/she "...has had the opportunity to have questions answered, and agrees to abide by the relevant provisions of this Order and relevant Housing Non-discrimination Policy"(SA paragraph 74).
"During the term ofthis Settlement Agreement, within 75 days after each new deputy is assigned to LASD-AV, LASD shall provide the individual with

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

15

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 20 of 56 Page ID #:607
a copy ofthe Housing Non-Discrimination Policy and shall secure the same signed acknowledgement"(SA paragraph 75). Pursuant to SA paragraph 164, LASD developed Policy Acknowledgement Forms for both the H ND Policy and the revised Accompaniment Policy. To implement the HND Policy SA paragraph 74 requirements, LASD developed a Supplemental Policy Acknowledgement Form.
1. Activities in This Period
a. SA Compliance Metrics
After ongoing discussions and exchanges of draft compliance metrics, the MT and Parties reached agreement on HND Policy and Accompaniment Policy compliance metrics.(See "A Note About Settlement Agreement Compliance"for more information about compliance metrics and the process for achieving 5A compliance.)
The salient provisions of these compliance metrics include the following.
For both policies, current and future AV personnel acknowledge they have received, understand, and agree to abide by the new housing policies in a timely m anner.
For the HND Policy(FOD 18-001), LASD will be deemed in outcome compliance based on a quantitative and/or qualitative assessment of implementation when all of the following apply.
LASD properly reports, investigates, and adjudicates complaints against Department members for allegations of potential violations of the FHA.
LASD employees are found not to have violated the FHA or HND Policy.
Any issues related to the HND Policy are identified, and appropriate action is taken via LASD's review and accountability processes. For the Accompaniment Policy(FOD 12-002), LASD will be deemed in substantial outcome compliance based on a quantitative and/or qualitative assessment of i mplementation when all of the following apply.
LASD personnel have properly assessed the need for accompaniment of housing authority workers; and when necessary, assigned the correct number of deputies.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

16

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 21 of 56 Page ID #:608
Allegations of fraud on the voucher program referred by the housing authority are properly evaluated, and required steps are taken pursuant to FOD 12-002.
LASD initiated investigations for criminal fraud based on compliance with the voucher contract are properly evaluated, and required steps are taken pursuant to FOD 12-002.
Names and addresses of Section 8 residents or occupants are not sought or shared in a manner inconsistent with FOD 12-002.
All required Section 8—related information and interactions(SA paragraphs 78-80)are properly documented by deputies using statistical (stat) code 787.
If LASD-AV deputies are found to do no accompaniment of Section 8 voucher compliance checks, LASD will be deemed in compliance with SA paragraphs 76 and 78.
If LASD-AV deputies are found to do no independent investigations of fraud based on housing voucher compliance, LASD will be deemed in compliance with SA paragraphs 77 and 79.
If LASD-AV deputies are not involved in incidents related to voucher holders and do not inquire into an individual`s Section 8 status during routine traffic enforcement activity, LASD will be deemed in compliance with SA paragraph 80.
Any issues related to the Accompaniment Policy are identified, and appropriate action is taken via LASD's review and accountability processes.
LASD reports that they have not accompanied housing authority workers on Section 8 compliance checks for several years, and the MT is not aware of any recent reports that indicate otherwise.
b. Verifying HND Policy and Accompaniment Policy Acknowledgements
During this reporting period,the MT reviewed LASD data and documents demonstrating the dissemination to sworn personnel and return of the HND Policy(SA paragraphs 74 and 75)and Accompaniment Policy(SA paragraph 164) Acknowledgement Forms.The documents included the HND Policy Acknowledgement Forms, Supplemental Policy Acknowledgement Forms, and Housing Authority Non-Criminal Investigations/Inspections FOD 12-002 Acknowledgement Forms for the Palmdale and Lancaster Stations.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

17

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 22 of 56 Page ID #:609
During the period covered by the MT review, 179 deputies were assigned to the Palmdale Station, 21 of whom were assigned after the issuance of the HND and Accompaniment Policies. The Lancaster Station had 210 deputies during the period covered by the MT review, 31 of whom were assigned after the issuance of the HND and Accompaniment Policies. Sworn personnel assigned to the station before issuance of the policies are subject to SA paragraphs 74 and 164; those assigned after are subject to paragraph 75.
The review determined that at least 95% of the deputies assigned to each station prior to the issuance of the HND and Accompaniment Policies received the policies. The stations regularly, but not always, met the 30-day timeframe for dissemination and return of the policies and the 15-day timeframe for new deputies assigned to the AV. Both stations seldom met the 30-day timeframe for dissemination and return of the Supplemental Policy Acknowledgement Forms. The Lancaster Station was substantially more consistent in meeting the 30-and 15-day timeframes than was the Palmdale Station.
Tables 1 and 2 show the percentage of AV deputies that has now completed each policy acknowledgement as well as the percentage that did so within the 30- or 15-day timeframe. Table 1 addresses receipt of policies by deputies who were already assigned to the AV when the policies were issued. Table 2 addresses deputies who were assigned to or returned to the AV after the issuance of the policies. Compliance is not necessarily dependent on adhering to the timeframe. When the timeframe is not met, the MT confers with the Compliance Unit to determine the reason for delays and makes ajudgment as to reasonableness.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

18

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 23 of 56 Page ID #:610

The MT's review of the deputies subject to these policies who have signed the HND Policy and Accompaniment Policy Acknowledgement Forms and the Supplemental Policy Acknowledgement Form,and confirmation that any deputy questions related to the HND Policy have been answered in a timely manner by the Compliance Unit, are substantial steps by LASD toward compliance. The delays indicated in tables 1 and 2 were not due to a lack of effort or intention on the part of the Department.The MT further has found no indication that the delays had any impact on enforcement activities. Although the time requirements were not always met, the MT has determined that LASD's performance of the compliance metrics for paragraph 74 and 75 was generally within a reasonable amount of time. Pending receipt ofsome additional information, especially regarding the ongoing distribution of policies to newly assigned or returned deputies(paragraph 75),the MT will determine if the Department is in compliance with SA paragraphs 74-76; and with regard to housing, 164. For future compliance, the MT will expect the stations take steps to improve their performance on meeting the timetables for policy distribution, especially to deputies newly assigned or returning to the AV.
Regarding paragraph 75, LASD must continue to provide the HND policy to each new deputy assigned to the AV and obtain the HND Policy Acknowledgement Form and Supplemental Policy Acknowledgement Form within 15 days of assignment. The MT will continue to monitor the dissemination of the HND Policy to new deputies to determine LASD reaches and remains in compliance with paragraph 75 for at least one year.
c. Palmdale Community Advisory Committee Meeting on June 10, 2019
The MT attended the June 10, 2019, Palmdale Community Advisory Committee meeting where the guest speaker was a representative of the Housing Assistance Division, Los Angeles County Development Authority (formerly the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles).
The representative explained the housing authority's role in providing information and support related to public housing, Section 8 housing choice voucher program, home ownership, and assistance to developers. She told attendees that the housing authority is also under a settlement agreement with DOJ that is separate from the LASD settlement agreement with DOJ

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

19

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 24 of 56 Page ID #:611

and that the housing authority`s investigation and enforcement unit that previously existed have been dissolved. The only ongoing relationship the housing authority has with LASD is a contract to perform criminal background checks of applicants seeking federally subsidized housing. The housing authority representative described how the Section 8 voucher program operates, including the eligibility requirements for voucher holders,the requirements for owners who rent Section 8 housing, and the housing authority's responsibilities in administering the program. In an open discussion period,the representative responded to the fallowing questions and concerns.
A real estate salesperson sought guidance on the proper steps in selling a home currently occupied by a voucher holder.
An owner of housing who rents to Section 8 voucher holders expressed concern that owners do not receive adequate supportfrom the housing authority or LASD when they face challenging voucher-holder issues.
Several persons described their difficulties navigating the process of obtaining housing.
The audience raised no questions or concerns related to any interaction between an occupant of housing in the AV and LASD.(See the Community Engagement section below for further information on this meeting.)
Z. Steps Toward Compliance
As described in more detail above,some of the progress toward compliance on Enforcement of Section 8 Housing that the Department has made to date includes the following.
The new HND Policy and revisions to FOD 12-002(paragraphs 73-80)were published, and the MT and Parties reached agreement on the compliance metrics for SA housing provisions. These are major steps toward achieving compliance.
The MT is finishing review of acknowledgement receipts for the new policies. At this point, it is likely the Department will be found in compliance with most aspects ofthat process(paragraphs 74-76;and, regarding housing,164). While most deputies eventually received the policies,the MT will expect for future compliance that the stations take steps to improve their performance on meeting the timetables for policy distribution, particularly regarding paragraph 75.
LASD continues to offer the required housing-related training (part of the BiasFree Policing training; paragraph 70)to deputies newly assigned or returning to the AV and to reserve deputies and deputies outside the LASD-AV stations. LASD offered an additional session during this reporting period, and the MT is in the

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

20

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 25 of 56 Page ID #:612

process of conducting verification for compliance this period as part of the verification for the stops and Bias-Free Policing trainings.
The Department implemented the quarterly roll call trainings that have a fair housing module(paragraph 71). The MT will verify deputy participation in the upcoming reporting period.
Full compliance will be achieved when each provision of the Housing section of the SA is met a nd the MT determines through onsite observations, records reviews, audits, and outcome analysis that the Department has met and remains in compliance with these requirements for at least one year, including evidence that the intentions of the SA as expressed in the new policies are thoroughly and consistently met in the field and that outcomes are reviewed by supervisors and managers, with appropriate corrective action taken as necessary.
3. Next Stegs
The following summarizes the expected MT activities in the next reporting period regarding Section 8 housing.
a. HND Policy
The MT will review LASD complaints, administrative investigations,survey results, Watch Commander Logs, and other relevant documents and resources for LASD-AV deputy involvement in housing-related activities to determine whether such activity was conducted; and if so, if it was in accordance with the FHA and the HND Policy.
The MT will conduct interviews of LASD personnel, community members,and persons with information relevant to LASD-AV housing activities to determine whether any such activity was conducted; and if so, if it was in accordance with the FHA and the HND Policy.
b. Accompaniment Policy(FOD 12-002)
The MT will review and analyze all stat code 787 data, including deputy accompaniment of housing authority workers during voucher holder compliance checks; LASD's independent investigations for criminal fraud based on voucher holder compliance with the voucher contract; and deputy calls, observations, or incidents involving voucher holders.
The MT will analyze LASD complaints, administrative investigations, Community Survey results, Watch Commander Logs, and semi-annual analysis of data

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

21

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 26 of 56 Page ID #:613

containing stat code 787 and other relevant documents and resources for LASD-AV deputy involvement in housing-related activities to determine whether such activity was conducted in accordance with FOD 12-002.
The MT will interview relevant LASD personnel, community members, and persons with information potentially relevant to LASD-AV housing activities.
The MT will review LASD semi-annual analysis of data containing stat code 787 on a county-wide basis.
c. Additional SA Provisions Regarding Compliance Assessment
The following 5A paragraphs describe the SA-required audits and analysis that address m ultiple SA provisions and that both the Department and MT will use to assess compliance with the housing-related elements of the SA.
LASD will conduct at leastsemi-annual analysis of, at a minimum, the following AV data:... Voucher Holder compliance checks involving LASD personnel(paragraph 82g).
In addition to compliance reviews and audits, the Monitor shall conduct qualitative and quantitotive outcome assessments to measure whether LASD's implementation of this Agreement has eliminated practices that resulted in DOJ's finding a pattern and practice of constitutional viofafions. These outcome assessments shall include collection and analysis, both quantitative and qualitative, of...Section 8 Compliance Enforcement Measurements...(paragraph 753c).
The Parties and MT have discussed conducting these additional analyses beginning in the next reporting period. The results of the Community Survey described in the Community Engagement section below will also be analyzed to address Section 8—related outcomes.
D. Community Engagement
The Community Engagement section of the SA states that "LASD agrees to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community, to engage constructively with the community to ensure collaborative problem-solving and bias-free policing, and to increase community confidence in the Department"(page 20). The term "community engagement" primarily refers to the Department's efforts to engage the community and thus build and maintain trust and confidence in the Department among all community members, per the goals of the SA. The MT's role in the community-engagement process is to assess LASD's efforts to interact with and i mprove its relations with the AV community.The MT may also provide advice and technical assistance as appropriate and requested.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

22

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 27 of 56 Page ID #:614

1. Activities in This Period
During this period,the MT made three on5ite visits to the AV for Community Engagement compliance monitoring (in March, May, and June 2019), usually with a DOJ representative participating as well. In addition to the onsite visits, the MT also attended some community meetings and reviewed community event reports provided by LASD, reviewed Community Policing training material, and reviewed various other reports and material relating to the Community Engagement section of the SA. These visits and reviews are detailed in this section.
a. Onsite Visits and Observations
On March 11, 2019, members of the MT attended the Palmdale CAC meeting in the unincorporated community of Sun Village. The meeting provided an opportunity for community members to discuss their concerns about public safety and homelessness in the area. A member of the MT presented on the SA, monitoring, and LASD's compliance status. A representative from the City of Palmdale Neighborhood Services department presented on various services available to the homeless population.
On May 8, 2019, members of the MT and DOJ conducted ride-alongs with patrol deputies from the Palmdale Station to observe how deputies are interacting with members of the community and to assess if stops, searches, and other activities performed by deputies are incompliance with the SA.
b. LASD-AV Deputy Community Engagement Documentation
On May 9, 2019, members of the MT and DOJ met with members of the Compliance Unit and both AV stations regarding compliance with provisions of the Community Engagement section of the SA. Specifically, the MT reviewed and discussed LASD's documentation of "self-initiated, positive community contacts." As mentioned in the previous report, the Parties agreed that LASD-AV deputies can engage in "self-initiated, positive community contacts" as a way of fulfilling some community event participation requirements. LASD documents such activity through the use of the Department's 755 stat code to track compliance. The stat code cannot be used to qualify for compliance with the SA if it is in relation to a Call for Service (e.g., responding to a 911 call).
The MT reviewed numerous documents containing community engagement activity captured by the 755 stat code and community events attended by LASD-AV personnel. The MT provided feedback to LASD about which of the logged 755 contacts would and would not qualify for the purposes of compliance. Of course, LASD-AV deputies have numerous productive and meaningful contacts with community members throughout their shifts; the self-initiated 755 contacts are of a specific nature and focus. The MT sent LASD a follow-up memo that outlined criteria for qualifying contacts and provided examples of qualifying and non-qualifying contacts.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

23

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 28 of 56 Page ID #:615
The MT mostly focused its feedback on LASD's need to indicate how the contact with a resident is initiated and differentiating engaging in conversation with community residents from interactions like providing directions or assisting a resident with car trouble.
The review of the 755 logs revealed that LASD continues to struggle with describing selfinitiated community contacts and how they differ from their other community interactions. The June 2019 onsite visit included significant discussion of the information that needs to be in the narrative so that compliance can be assessed.These discussions suggested that the stations and deputies are certainly putting effort into the process but should focus less on the perceived burden of additional logging requirements and more on improving general commitment to making high-quality contact with community members.The MT's memo to LASD included the following guidance.
As agreed,the activity by sworn personnel captured under code 755 that is eligible for compliance with paragraph 88 of the SA should be self-initiated, positive engagement with residents of the AV.Such engagement should be deliberate and meaningful,of sufficient duration and significant to advance one or more of the principles outlined in the LASD Community Engagement Attendance Work Plan which was finalized in January 2019.
Also,the Department would benefitfrom addressing this area in consultations with the Museum of Tolerance or other experts(paragraph 65).
c. Community Survey
As mentioned in the previous six-month report, the first annual AV Community Survey was launched in February 2018 by an independent research team at University of California, Los Angeles.The purpose ofthe survey is to assess community perceptions of the relationship between LASD and the AV community and to attempt to measure how,if at all, the SA reforms affect that relationship. The survey was made available for community members to complete both online and on paper. Approximately three dozen community-based organizations(CBOs) in the AV were approached to help raise awareness of the survey and to distribute a link or hard copy; 13 participated. In addition to the general survey, an almost identical youth survey was administered. All AV high schools were approached for participation;two participated.
During this monitoring period,the results of the survey and an associated focus group study were published. The findings reports far both can be found on the MT website {http://www.antelopevalleysettlementmonitoring.info/), and much more extensive data tables can be found at http://bit.ly/AV-Public. Visitors to this data website can see how different groups(e.g., age, gender, race/ethnicity, Section 8 status, previous arrest status,zip code} responded differently to the survey items.

AV Six-Month Report Vlll January —June 2019

24

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 29 of 56 Page ID #:616

While a detailed analysis and summary can be found in the reports, some highlights and key themes of the survey findings include the following.
• The final sample was of 5,003 respondents.
• Of the respondents,44%were adults, and 56% were youth.
• Most (90°/o) survey responses were obtained online.
• Nearly all (97%)adult respondents indicated that they lived in the AV, and more than half(61%)also worked in the AV.
• The majority(58%)of survey respondents were female.
Tables 3-6 show, as a small set of findings from the survey, the responses to four important items for each race/ethnicity. "Black" includes those who indicated "black" and those who i ndicated more than one race/ethnicity including "black." "Multiracial" includes those who i ndicated more than one race/ethnicity not including "black." Participants who indicated "other" are included in the total but not tabulated separately.
..

All(N = 4,986) Hispanic (n=2,261) W hite (n=1,546) Black (n=633) M ultiracial (n=128) Asian/Pacific Islander(n=103) Native American(n=37)

~. ~. 62% 55% 78% 43% 75% 75% 52%

. .. r ..

26%

12~

33%

12%

15%

7%

34%

24%

13%

13%

19%

6%

24%

25%

Overall,62% of survey participants(78% of white participants, 55% of Hispanic participants, and 43% of black participants) agreed or strongly agreed that they have confidence in LASD deputies.
Conversely, 1Z% overall(7% of white participants, 12% of Hispanic participants, and 24% of black participants) disagreed or strongly disagreed with this sentiment.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

25

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 30 of 56 Page ID #:617

..

__ _ All(N = 4.986) Hispanic (n=2,261) W hite (n=1,546) Black (n=633) M ultiracial (n=128) Asian/Pacific Islander(n=103) Native American (n=37)

. _ _._

~. .
~. _ .- _
46°~ 38% 66% 29% 47% 49% 52%

38% 46% 26% 40% 36% 36% 19%

~ .. .
~ .. 16°~ 16% 8% 30% 16% 15% 29%

Overall,46%(66% of white participants,38% of Hispanic participants, and 29% of black participants) agreed or strongly agreed there was a good relationship between residents and LASD deputies in their neighborhood.
Conversely, 16% overall(8% of white participants, 16% of Hispanic participants, and 30% of black participants) disagreed or strongly disagreed with this sentiment.
.. -

All(N = 4,986) Hispanic (n=2,261) W hite (n=1,546) Black (n=633) Multiracial (n=128) Asian/Pacific Islander(n=103) Native American(n=37)

~. . ~.
539 ~ 47% 66% 41% 54% 60% 38%

3296 38% 2Z% 34% 30°/o 32% 27%

r .. . .
15% 14% 12°/a 25% 16% 8% 35%

Overall, 53%(66% of white participants,47% of Hispanic participants, and 41% of black participants} agreed or strongly agreed that the LASD deputies are responsive to the concerns of their neighborhoods.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

26

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 31 of 56 Page ID #:618
Conversely, 15%overall(12% of white participants, 14% of Hispanic participants, and 25% of black participants) disagreed or strongly disagreed with this sentiment.

Overall, 28%(41% of white participants, 21% of Hispanic participants, and 21% of black participants) agreed or strongly agreed that the LASD deputies take time to meet community members.
More participants overall felt the opposite way:37% overall(25% of white participants,43% of Hispanic participants, and 48% of black participants) disagreed or strongly disagreed with this sentiment.
Overall, the survey confirmed what the MT has heard from community members throughout the monitoring period:that while there has been improvement in the relationship between LASD and the community,there is still a lot of improvement to be made, particularly with the most disenfranchised community members.The MT noted that respondents who completed the survey through a link distributed by LASD represented the majority of total respondents in the adult survey. While this may correlate to an overall feeling of satisfaction with LASD,the MT did find it significant that people of color provided less favorable responses and were more critical of LASD.
Table 7 shows that, compared to racial and ethnic proportions in the general AV population,4 some groups were somewhat overrepresented in the final survey sample,such as Hispanics(46% of survey participants versus 42% of the AV population). Other groups were underrepresented, including whites(31% of survey participants versus 38% of the AV population)and African Americans(10% of survey participants versus 13% of the AV population). Regarding black participants, it is difficult to precisely align US census population groupings with the survey's;
4 According to US Census estimates(American Community Survey 2016)

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

27

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 32 of 56 Page ID #:619

but when the "black" and "multiracial including black" categories identified in the survey were combined,the representativeness was proportional(13% of survey participants versus 13% of the AV population). Also, racial and ethnic proportionality changed somewhat when the adult and youth surveys were analyzed separately. For example, while Hispanics overall were overrepresented, they made up a higher percentage of participants in youth surveys than in adult surveys. As a result, it is likely that Hispanic adults were underrepresented. Efforts to achieve representativeness among all groups is an important objective and an issue that the MT and the Parties are working toward improving in the second annual Community Survey.The Parties are strategizing on how to address underrepresentation going forward by recruiting the help of a wider range of AV community-based organizations and by distributing the survey at community events that underrepresented groups are likely to attend.
..

Black

10%

Black/Multiracial*

3%

White

31%

Hispanic

46%

Asian/Pacific Islander

2%

Native American

1%

M ultiracial(Non-Black)

3%

Other

4%

*Adult and youth study participants who completed the race/ethnicity item +All ages

~.. ~~ ~: _ __.__. 1396 -38% 42% 4% <1% 3% <1%

Unlike the Community Survey,the focus group study was not intended to be representative by race/ethnicity but was rather meant to gather additional qualitative data from a small group of community members regarding their perceptions of and experience with LASD-AV. The Parties and MT agreed to a methodology meant to recruit a variety of community members, yet the resulting participant group was predominantly people of color. The sentiments expressed in the focus groups did not reflect the same overall level of satisfaction with LASD that the survey responses did. Perspectives varied more, and there was more critique of LASD overall, than in the survey data.
A detailed analysis and summary of the focus group data can be found in the focus group report on the MT website (http://www.antelopevalleysettlementmonitoring.infon.Some highlights and key themes of the findings include the following.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

28

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 33 of 56 Page ID #:620

Five focus groups were conducted between July and September 201S,three with adult residents and two with youth residents.
The focus group participants were:
Predominantly(87%) people of color, Approximately two thirds adult and one third youth; and Halffrom Lancaster and halffrom Palmdale.
Adult focus group participants reported a "mix" in terms of their perceptions of the quality of deputies; overall,they expressed that LASD deputies do theirjob well.
Youth were more critical of LASD's work in their neighborhoods.
The MT hopes to see LASD use the survey and focus group data to inform a communityoriented policing strategy and to further encourage their commitment to community engagement with the entire AV community, as required by the SA.
In various discussions with the MT,DOJ,and community members,LASD Station leadership has emphasized that, regardless of representativeness of the survey or focus groups,the Department understands that attitudes and perspectives varied by race, ethnicity, and other characteristics. They have also emphasized that they intend to use that information to improve their community engagement and other policing activities. The MT will continue to work with the Parties to ensure these important statements are reflected in SA-related activities.
d. Community Survey Presentation
On May 8,2019,the MT hosted a community meeting at Antelope Valley College attended by more than 100 students and community members.The independent researcher who conducted the survey presented the findings of the AV Community Survey and focus groups as well as demonstrated how to use the online data visualization tools.There was a robust and productive discussion, with some community members expressing disappointment with the representativeness of the survey sample. Students and community members suggested greater participation throughout AV high schools and a larger number of African American and Latino respondents in the next survey.The MT engaged in a dialogue with CAC and community members about lessons learned from the first survey and how to broaden participation and improve representativeness in the second annual survey,and the MT took suggestions from them.For instance, because all high schools were contacted for the first survey but only two participated, community members suggested various strategies for increasing participation in the second survey.
The Parties and the research team have discussed the feedback from the community and are currently finalizing the survey methodology and developing a plan to distribute the second

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

29

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 34 of 56 Page ID #:621

annual Community Survey, which will formally launch in the summer of 2019. As mentioned in previous semi-annual reports, the data gathered through the initial annual survey will be used as a baseline and will be compared with future surrey data to assess changes in the relationship between LASD and the community over time.
e. Palmdale Community Advisory Committee Meeting on June 70, 2019
On June 10,2019,the MT and DOJ representatives attended the Palmdale CAC's quarterly community meeting in a housing complex that has several residents with Section 8 vouchers. The discussion focused primarily on housing issues in an effort to highlight the fair housing provisions ofthe SA. Approximately SO community members attended the meeting.The meeting provided an opportunity for community members to engage in a discussion with LASD and the housing authority about Section 8housing—related issues. After commentsfrom CAC members,the MT,and the Palmdale captain,there was a guestspeaker from the housing authority who provided information and resources regarding fair housing and safety. The MT also announced the second annual Community Surrey as well as administered surveys to participants.(See the Housing section above for further information on this meeting.}
LASD Organizational Climate Study
An organizational climate and culture study(aka"Deputy Survey")of the attitudes of LASD-AV personnel toward various SA-related topics was administered during this reporting period (paragraphs 59,72,and 99).The survey was distributed to all Lancaster and Palmdale station personnel.The MT is currently compiling findings.
g. Annual!n-Service Training
The Compliance Unit has put extensive effort into formulating a plan for meeting the in-service training requirement for community policing and problem-oriented policing methods and skills for all AV deputies,including station supervisors and unit commanders(paragraph 89). LASD originally planned to comply with this provision by providing a series of roll call trainings to deputies in Palmdale and Lancaster using a format similar to that used for the roll call trainings for constitutional policing, bias-free policing, and fair housing (see the Stops section above for more description). While those three trainings have been implemented,the MT and DOJ found significant shortcomings in the Train-the-Trainer course for the new roll call trainings addressing community engagement and community policing. The Department then proposed to train all deputies in acommunity-oriented policing training that had been encouraged by the MT. Personnel from LASD traveled to Virginia in May 2019 to participate in a multiday Train-theTrainercourse in order to come back to the AV to provide training to all LASD-AV sworn personnel. Although LASD no longer intends to implement this-plan,the MT commends the Compliance Unit for their diligence in seeking a solution to this SA requirement. The MT also

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

30

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 35 of 56 Page ID #:622

commends the Compliance Unit and Palmdale personnel who took the time to participate in the training. The Compliance Unit has recently proposed an alternative approach combining the originally planned roll call trainings with additional training in community policing for all personnel. The MT and Parties are reviewing the proposed plan and materials. The MT stresses that the training for community policing and problem-oriented policing needs to be linked to community engagement activities and to the Station captains` enforcement and crime prevention strategies. It is crucial, therefore, that the stations play a lead role in planning and implementing these items.
2. Steps Toward Compliance
As reported in previous semi-annual reports, LASD has been in compliance with several provisions of the SA,including dissemination of the SA(paragraph 92), participation in community meetings and establishing the CACs(paragraph 94), providing support to the CACs (paragraph 96), and ensuring the CACs do not receive non-public information (paragraph 97).
Progress has been made on developing diversion programs(paragraph 87). LA5D has agreed to implementthe County's new diversion program being developed by the Las Angeles County Office of Diversion and Reentry(ODR).ODR has also agreed to roll out the county's diversion programs in the AV first.
As discussed above,the Parties and MT are close to finalization of a plan for all AV personnel to actively and regularly attend community meetings and events, which is an important part of paragraph 88.Other elements related to the requirement are less developed, such as the Department`s plan for enhancing relationships with community groups such as youth and communities of color. Another to be further developed is use of the Community Survey and CAC feedback to inform these activities and link them to the Department's broader community engagement,community policing, and problem-oriented crime reduction efforts. Additionally, while the MT commends LASD on its progress and its significantly improved tracking of this issue,the MT continues to urge the Department to strive toward genuine community engagement as the goal, not simply technical compliance with this provision ofthe SA.This includes adopting and implementing a community policing strategy;seeking and receiving a diverse array of community input, including positive and negative feedback and ideas for problem-oriented policing; and making special effort to positively engage segments of the community where relations are more strained, especially with the African American, Latina, and youth populations.
The Department has taken steps to add AV-specific modules to their Risk Management Forums (RMF~ called "Trends in Misconduct Complaints" and "Risk Management Associated With Our Communities." The MT will review and assess the manner in which these reviews are conducted and considered by commanders responsible for the operations in the AV stations; and most importantly, how perFormance and outcomes are affected in the process. Additionally,the MT will assess how well the reviews address the SA requirement that the RMF includes "discussion

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

31

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 36 of 56 Page ID #:623

and analysis of trends in misconduct complaints and community priorities to identify areas of concern, and to better develop interventions to address them"(paragraph 90). Paragraph 90 also requires similar enhancements to the Crime Management Forum (CMF)and requires LASD to use techniques such as spatial mapping and scientific deployment analysis to enable the RMF to better support and measure community and problem-solving policing efforts. In discussions, LASD has reported that some of these techniques are being used in these meetings; the MT will observe upcoming CMFs and related materials to confirm the use of and assess these activities.
3. Next Steps
The MT is encouraged by LASD's decision to provide more detailed and meaningful training on community policing to its personnel in the AV. But the MT continues to caution LASD that public relations does not equate to community policing or genuine community engagement.
In addition to training, the MT continues to recommend that LASD adopt a community policing strategy, make it Department policy, and implement it in practice. The adoption of such a strategy may not bean explicit requirement of the SA, but compliance with many SA provisions related to bias-free policing, community engagement, and accountability are likely to require elements of community policing; and the most effective means to achieving those ends is a comprehensive plan or strategy.
Although the MT is already determining compliance on certain provisions of the SA based on preliminary agreement on compliance metrics for those provisions, the Parties have yet to finalize agreement on compliance metrics on the entire Community Engagement section. The Parties intend to finalize the compliance metrics during the next reporting period.(See "A Note About Settlement Agreement Compliance"for more information about compliance metrics and the process for achieving SA compliance.)
The MT will conduct ongoing assessments of the Community Engagement section of the SA through various activities, such as:
• Monthly reviews of LASD community engagement activity reports and all other Community Engagement—related reports;
• Regular communication with AV community members and CAC members;
• Observation of trainings required by the SA;
• Hosting and observation of community meetings;
• Attending CMF and RMF meetings; and
Regular site visits to the AV,to include informal and formal interviews, meetings, and ride-alongs.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

32

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 37 of 56 Page ID #:624

E. Use of Force

The SA includes numerous mandates associated with the use, investigation, and adjudication of force by LASD in the AV.Those mandates include the avoidance and de-escalation of force when possible, prompt reporting of UOF incidents, thorough and independent investigations, and adjudication processes based on the preponderance of evidence. The SA Use of Force section requires the MT to conduct compliance audits for those requirements, which include but are not limited to:

•

Continuing to prohibit the use of force above compliant handcuffing to

overcome passive resistance and of the use of retaliatory force (paragraphs 102

and 105);

•

Using advisements, warnings, and verbal persuasion when possible before

resorting to force and to de-escalate force immediately as resistance decreases

(paragraph 103);

Using force as a last resort, assessing threats prior to using force(whenever possible), and not using force against individuals who are under control(SA preface to Use of Force section, page 24; and paragraph 104);

Prohibiting using force to prevent someone from lawfully taking photographs or video recordings(paragraph 106);

Continuing to prohibit hard strikes to the head with an impact weapon unless deadly force isjustified (paragraph 107);

• Continuing to report all uses of force and any medical treatment provided (paragraphs 108 and 109);

•

Continuing to notify a supervisor immediately following a use of force or upon

receipt of an allegation of unreasonable or unreported force (paragraph 110);

•

Conducting thorough investigations of uses of force, forwarded through the

chain of command, reviewed for completeness, adjudicated with the

preponderance of evidence standard (paragraphs 111-113);

Continuing to require that the Executive Force Review Committee(EFRC) review UOF incidents requiring the response of Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB; paragraph 1 14);

•

Holding employees accountable for uses of force that may violate law or the

Department's prohibited force policy and forwarding those cases to IAB for

i nvestigation or review (paragraph 115);

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

33

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 38 of 56 Page ID #:625

Holding supervisors accountable for not adequately investigating or responding to force that is unreasonable or otherwise contrary to LASD policy (paragraph 1 16);
Holding AV unit commanders accountable for identifying and reporting force trends and for taking preventive steps to curb problematic trends(paragraph 1 17); and
Holding AV unit commanders accountable to review and track training and tactical review findings to ensure that informal feedback does not replace formal discipline (paragraph 118).
Some additional SA provisions critical to UOF investigation, adjudication, and accountability are in other sections of the SA,addressing such factors as allegations of misconduct (paragraphs 127, 130-133), assessment and response to any patterns of violations (paragraphs 143 and 153), and data recording (paragraph 142).
Activities in This Period
a. SA Compliance Metrics
During this reporting period, Monitors, DOJ, LASD executives, and County Counsel had several in-person and telephone meetings to finalize the compliance standards for the SA provisions associated with the use, investigation, and adjudication of force. The Parties and MT agree on most provisions. Results of those meetings are currently being formalized in written form;they are expected to be finalized and approved in the next reporting period.
b. LASD Use-Of-Force Policy
The MT has continued to work with LASD on the development of its updated UOF policy. While the policy is still a work in progress,the Department has proposed several significant i mprovements to the previous policy, including but not limited to an increased emphasis on deescalating evolving incidents; factors in determining objective reasonableness of the force used; and documentation and investigation of allegations of excessive force that are alleged or discovered during UOF investigations. The MT and the Parties are in tentative agreement with the provisions of the draft policy, which is under final review by the Department.
c. MT Use-of-Force Audit
During the reporting period,the MT finalized its first UOF audit of LASD's compliance with the SA's provisions governing the use, investigation, and adjudication of force by LASD in the

AV Six-Month Report Vlll January —June 2019

34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 39 of 56 Page ID #:626

AV (paragraphs 102-118) and other issues as they relate to uses of force including public complaints, audits, and management oversight and accountability.

The UOF audit included a detailed analysis of the investigation and adjudication of the UOF incidents that were completed during January —March 2017.5 The audit assessed the following critical areas:

• The objectively reasonable use of force(SA paragraphs 102, 104-107);

Avoiding force and de-escalation (SA preface to Use of Force section, page 24; and paragraph 103);

• Reporting and investigating uses of force(SA paragraphs 108-112); and

•

Management oversight, remedial training, and recording of data (SA paragraphs

1 12-116, 118, 127, 130-133, 143, 153, and 167).

i. Audit Scope and Scope Limitation
The audit did not assess uses of force that occurred in the AV that were investigated by non-AV commands.The Parties and MT continue to discuss whether the scope of MT UOF compliance audits should include investigations of force by LASD personnel from AV embedded units. Embedded units include those who may work in the AV but who do not report directly to the AV station captains, such as the gang unit, narcotics unit, and Community Partnerships Bureau.The Department believes those uses of force to be outside of the scope of the 5A. DOJ and the MT categorically disagree with that position and believe the analysis in UOF audits should include all uses of force that occur in the AV, regardless of where the LASD personnel involved are assigned. With that issue still not resolved, the MT cannot conclusively determine compliance with the audit's objectives. Therefore,the findings in the audit are to be considered preliminary.

ii. Preliminary Compliance Metrics
Once the Department, DOJ, and Monitors have finalized SA compliance metrics, those standards will be used to evaluate the Department's compliance with SA mandates. The MT's audit measured preliminary assessment of compliance based on the following standards.

5 This time period was selected to establish an initial baseline of LASD's progress in achieving compliance with the provisions of the SA.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

35

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 40 of 56 Page ID #:627

1. Out of compliance: The Department was not complying with an SA provision to the extent that it would not meet any reasonable qualitative and quantative standard that may be established in the final compliance metrics.
2. Unable to determine: Insufficient data were provided, or the Parties must resolve substantive issues regarding the compliance metrics.
3. In preliminary compliance: The Department was complying with an SA provision to the extent that it meets or exceeds reasonable qualitative and quantitative standards that may be established in the final compliance metrics; however, until the Parties and MT finalize compliance metrics and come to resolution on the scope of UOF audits, full compliance cannot be determined, nor can the 12month compliance period begin (SA paragraph 205).
Despite not having finalized metrics, the UOF audit provided the Department with valuable information regarding its progress toward meeting SA mandates. A summary of the MT UOF audit findings and preliminary compliance assessments follows.
iii. Objectively Reasonable Use ofForce6
The auditfound that all 49(100%)of the Department's uses of force that occurred d uring the audit period complied with the SA provisions requiring that uses offorce be objectively reasonable. Specifically, the audit evidence supported a finding that the Department is in preliminary compliance with the SA provisions that:
• Restrict the UOF to overcome passive resistance (paragraph 102);
• Prohibit the UOF when a person is exhibiting resistive behavior but is otherwise under control and poses no threat(paragraph 104);
• Prohibit the use of retaliatory force (paragraph 105);
Prohibit using force to prevent someone from recording the incident (paragraph 106);
Restrict the use of a hard strike to the head with any impact weapon (paragraph 107); and
• Require that the analysis and findings of LASD uses of force are supported by a preponderance of the evidence(paragraph 113).

6 Category 3 uses of force include but are not limited to lethal uses of force, hospitalization of the suspect, skeletal fractures, canine bites, and any force that results in the response of the IAB as defined in the LASD Manual of Policy and Procedures(MPP)3-10/130.00.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

36

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 41 of 56 Page ID #:628
iv. Avoidance and De-Escalation of Force
The auditfound that47(96%)of the Departments 49 uses offorce that occurred during the audit period complied with the SA provisions pertaining to the avoidance and de-escalation offarce. Specifically, auditors found the Departmentin preliminary compliance with the SA provisions that require:
• The use offorce as a last resort{SA preface to Use of Force section, page 24); • The use of advisements, warnings, and verbal persuasion whenever possible
before resorting to force(paragraph 103); and • De-escalation as resistance decreases (paragraph 103).
v. Reporting Uses ofForce
The audit found the Department in preliminary compliance with the SA requirements that all reportable uses of force must be immediately brought to a supervisor's attention and that the involved deputies must complete a thorough report. Specifically, the audit found the Department in preliminary compliance with the SA provisions that require:
• Deputies to reportforce immediately.and complete thorough reports (paragraph 108);
• Deputies to avoid the use of"boilerplate" language(paragraph 109); and • Witnessing deputies to ensure supervisory notification (paragraph 110).
vi. Investigations of Uses ofForce
Several key SA mandates are associated with supervisors` investigation of AV UOF incidents.The Department was found out of compliance with one mandate and in preliminary compliance with three. The Department was found in preliminary compliance with the SA requirements that:
A supervisor responds to the scene and conducts a thorough investigation (paragraph 111); The supervisor cflmpletes a thorough report(paragraph 112); and The supervisor submits the investigation for management review in a timely manner(paragraph 113).

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

37

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 42 of 56 Page ID #:629

The Department was not in compliance with the portion of SA paragraph 112 that requires that the supervisor's investigation must constitute an "independent review of the facts and circumstances of the incident." The auditfound that 12(260)ofthe 47 UOF investigations were completed by the sergeants who had directed deputies to use the force in the very incidents the sergeants were investigating. This is inconsistent with the requirement for an "independent" review and is an untenable conflict of interest.
The auditfound that of the 47 UOF investigations,six(13 0)contained an allegations) of misconduct.Only one(17%)ofthose six cases sufficiently investigated the allegation(s). In other words,83% of the investigations with allegations of misconduct were not sufficiently investigated. Therefore, the Department was found not in compliance with the SA requirements to:
Accurately classify all allegations(paragraph 127);
Thoroughly investigate every allegation of misconduct(paragraphs 130-132);and
Accurately capture complaint information in Performance Recording and Monitoring System(PRMS,formerly the Personnel Performance Index or PPI; paragraph 142).
vii. Management Oversight
The audit found the management review of the force used in each case to be generally timely,thorough,and complete. Each UOF investigation contained su~cient information to adjudicate the use offorce based on a preponderance of evidence. However,the management review for non-force issues,such as personnel complaints and risk-management issues, needs improvement. Nine(19%)of the 47 UOF investigations contained risk-management issues that were not identified or addressed during the management review process.Those concerns notwithstanding,the audit is unable to determine compliance in this area until the compliance metrics governing compliance with management oversight are established (paragraphs 113 and 115-117).
viii. Remedial Training
The audit found the Department in preliminary compliance with the requirement that supervisors include documentation of training and tactical concerns in their investigative report(paragraph 112).The audit identified eight UOF cases in which a reviewing unit and/or division commander directed that a total of 25 employees attend specified training. fn three cases,the three involved employees attended the directed training in a reasonable period oftime. However,in the other five cases,22 employees had not attended the training, which at the time of assessment was one and a half years after

AV Six-Month Report VIII January -June 2019

38

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 43 of 56 Page ID #:630
the uses of force occurred. Therefore, the Department is not in compliance with the SA requirement that AV unit commanders review and track training and ensure that training is completed, documented, and recorded (paragraphs 118, 153, and 167).
ix. Recording ofData
The MT was unable to determine compliance with the SA requirements for capturing and entering accurate data into the PRMS, paragraph 142.The UOF investigations were recorded accurately on the forms and in PRMS,and the Discovery Unit's data entry into PRMS was accurate. However,there were excessive delays of up to seven months for the Discovery Unit entering data on completed cases.
d. Fo(fow-Up Executive Force Review Committee Audit
There was only one Category 3 UOF case in the initial MT UOF audit sample.'That case was investigated by IAB and reviewed by the EFRC.The audit revealed deficiencies associated with the timeliness and completeness of the investigation and of EFRC review of that case. However, reliable conclusions about the EFRC process cannot be established with the review of a solitary case. So, a follow-up audit of Category 3 uses of force and the EFRC's reviews is underway (paragraph 114).
During this reporting period, Monitors and the Department agreed on a work plan for the follow-up audit of Category 3 uses of force. MT auditors conducted numerous interviews, identified and tested the audit population, and prepared assessment tools. The Department provided the audit sample in a timely manner. As of the submission of this semi-annual report, the majority of the investigations in the sample have been analyzed, and initial assessments have been completed; however, progress toward audit completion has been delayed because MT requests for additional documents have not been fulfilled. Specifically, the Department has not yet provided videos and other investigative documents necessary for the Monitors to complete their assessments of uses of force that resulted in significant injuries, including skeletal fracture and traumatic brain injury. One of those cases involved a deputy who was terminated for unreasonable use of force but who subsequently appealed and was rehired by the new LASD administration; the MT is awaiting video and audio files for that case.

~ Category 3 uses of force include but are not limited to lethal uses of force, hospitalization of the suspect, skeletal fractures, canine bites, and any force that results in the response of the IAB as defined in the LASD Manual of Policy and Procedures(MPP)3-10/130.00.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

39

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 44 of 56 Page ID #:631
Z. Steps Toward Compliance
As reported above, the MT audit found the Department in preliminary compliance with several provisions of the Use of Force section of the SA, while other provisions will require further attention. The MT's UOF and EFRC audits will be used to inform the final compliance standards that will be used for future evaluations of the Department's SA compliance. The MT will also evaluate the Department's updated UOF policy as soon as the Department submits it.(See "A Note About Settlement Agreement Compliance" for more information about compliance metrics and the process for achieving SA compliance.)
Next Steps
The next steps will include the finalization of the compliance standards to be used to evaluate the Department's compliance with the provisions of the 5A. The Parties and MT will further discuss the scope of the MT audits and how to address the embedded units. Once the ongoing EFRC audit has been finalized, the MT will assist the Department in developing a plan to correct any deficiencies identified. Subsequent audits conducted by Monitors will evaluate the Department's implementation of any new policies and remediations.
F. Personnel Complaint Review
The preface to the SA's Personnel Complaint Review section states:
County will ensure that all allegations ofpersonnel misconduct are received and are fully and fairly investigated, and that a!!personnel who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent. To achieve these outcomes, LASD and the County agree to implement the requirements below.(p. 29)
Specifically, the SA requires that:
LASD continue to make personnel complaint forms and information readily available to the public(paragraph 124);
LASD continue to accept all personnel complaints, including anonymous and third-party complaints(paragraph 125); and Personnel found to have committed misconduct be held accountable (preface to the Personnel Complaint Review section of the SA, page 29).
The SA also requires that the Department revise its policies to ensure that:

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

40

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 45 of 56 Page ID #:632

• All complaints are classified accurately, and each allegation receives the appropriate level of review (paragraph 127);
• Personnel complaints are not misclassified as service complaints(paragraph 128);
• Each allegation of misconduct, whether specifically articulated by the complainant or not, is identified and investigated fully and fairly(paragraph 130); a nd
• It is clear which complaints may require discipline or should be handled as an administrative investigation rather than as a service complaint(paragraphs 129130).
The SA identifies minimum investigative standards(paragraphs 131-137)and training that must be provided to supervisors(paragraphs 138-139). It also requires that the Department perform an annual audit of community complaints(paragraph 140).
1. Activities in This Period
I n this reporting period,the Department made progress in addressing certain deficiencies in its handling of public complaints identified by the MT's 201S complaints audit. This work included unit order implementation and policy manual revisions addressing, among other things,the availability of complaintforms, personnel response to citizens wanting to file a complaint, thorough investigations, and managers' response to risk-management issues.
a. Unit Orders
As reported in the last semi-annual report, each AV command issued a Unit Order, approved by the Parties and MT,that established procedures and expectations to correct these deficiencies.a The next MT audit of public complaints will determine if AV public complaints are now being handled in accordance with the Unit Orders and SA requirements and if any additional policy or training changes are required.
b. Policy Manua( Revisions
I n addition to the Unit Orders,the MT reached consensus with DOJ and the Compliance Unit on revisions to the LASD Manual of Policy and Procedures(MPP).Those revisions were necessary to address the issues identified in the MT's Complaint Audit and ensure those guiding documents are complete, clear, and consistent(SA paragraph 127). The revisions will also bring the Department's personnel complaint practices into compliance with state laws governing the
The Lancaster Unit Order was issued on July 10, 2018, and the Palmdale Unit Order was issued on June 21, 2018.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

41

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 46 of 56 Page ID #:633

reporting of public complaints. The revisions the Parties and MT agreed to have now been forwarded to the Department's Field Operations Support Services (F05S), which is responsible for maintaining many major Department directives and obtaining management approval for revisions to those documents. FOSS is reviewing the proposed changes to ensure the language is consistent with that used in Department directives; upon completion of that review, FOSS will circulate the proposed changes for approval by the Department's highest-ranking managers.
It is important to note that revisions to the MPP—and,in the future,the Service Complaint Review Handbook—affect the entire Department, notjust the AV stations. Therefore, the changes require special attention to ensure they will be effective and undertaken appropriately throughout the Department. While a Unit Order, which applies only to one unit or station, can be issued relatively quickly, Department-wide directives require much more time.
c. SA Compliance Metrics
With consensus achieved on the manual revisions, the MT turned its attention to finalizing the compliance metrics for the SA's complaint provisions. Compliance metrics are the standards that are used to determine whether the Department is in compliance with the various provisions in the Agreement. Compliance with each provision must be established via an audit or other review method and then must be maintained for at least a year.(See "A Note About Settlement Agreement Compliance"for more information about compliance metrics and the process for achieving SA compliance.)
During this reporting period,the MT held three in-person meetings and six conference calls to discuss the compliance metrics with the Parties. From those discussions, consensus was reached that the complaint provisions fall into eight categories.
1. Policy revision and alignment 2. Availability of complaint material 3. Intake of complaints 4. Investigation of complaints 5. Referral of designated complaints to IAB 6. Adjudication and oversight of complaints 7. Training 8. Department audits
At the June 2019 onsite visit, the Parties and MT discussed details regarding the numerical and/or qualitative levels that will be used to measure compliance on each provision within those categories. Taken into account is the fact that some provisions are very high risk and therefore require a high level of compliance, while other provisions are more ministerial in nature, meaning a lesser level of compliance is more appropriate. Verbal consensus was reached on all major aspects of the compliance metrics, which will now be formalized in writing. The MT expects final approval for these compliance metrics early in the next reporting period.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

42

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 47 of 56 Page ID #:634

2. Steps Toward Compliance
Since the MT's Complaints Audit,the Department has taken important steps toward SA compliance by formalizing changes in how it receives and investigates public complaints via Unit Orders and revisions to policies and procedures (e.g., paragraphs 124-126, 130-131, 135-137, 139).The ne~ct MT audit will assess the success ofthese activities' implementation.
3. New Stegs
During the next reporting period,the MT will formalize the compliance metrics for the SA's Personnel Complaint Review section that were agreed to at the June 2019 onsite visit. The MT will use these metrics to assess compliance in its follow-up audit of personnel complaints generated in the AV.
In the upcoming reporting period,the MT plans to initiate a second audit to assess the Department's compliance with the SA's complaint requirements.That will include an assessment ofthe Unit Orders'effectiveness in correcting the deficiencies identified in the MT audit and consideration of any additional training of deputies, supervisors, or managers that may be required under paragraphs 138-139. While the effectiveness of the Unit Order will be measured, it is likely that the changes to the MPP and Handbook will not be published in time for their impact to be measurable before a later audit.
G. Accountability
The intent for the Accountability section and related provisions in the SA is to ensure that appropriate oversight is provided by management and supervisory personnel through the ongoing observation and evaluation of both individual behaviors and employees'collective perFormance.9 Effective accountability requires management's capacity and willingness to scrutinize, identify, and remedy both individual and systemic deficiencies. Careful and consistent consideration of every stage of personnel perFormance must be built into the fabric of operations at every level of the organization, and reliable and current information must be available to managers.
The MT`s role is to verify that these accountability operations are effectively conducted according to LASD policy and as required by the SA. For this Accountability section, monitoring activities primarily focus on paragraphs 141-145 and their requirements concerning data

9 Management personnel includes the captains, operations lieutenants, and watch commanders at each AV station and the North Patrol Division chief and commander.The sergeants are supervisors rather than managers, but they support management in review functions and in ensuring effective oversight is provided in the field.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

43

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 48 of 56 Page ID #:635
collection and evaluating personnel performance via the PRMS,other data systems and related processes, and the Performance Mentoring Program (PMP). Accountability systems—including but not limited to electronic data systems, file storage, and the policies and procedures governing their use—provide permanent mechanisms for management to routinely review and evaluate operations and performance in real time, assess risk exposures, and ensure and verify that standards are being appropriately met. In this regard, SA paragraphs 141 and 142 require LASD to make several PRMS modifications—in particular, to give it the capacity to compare deputies and units, identify trends, and access and report additional data relevant to determining compliance with the SA.
As reported in previous semi-annual reports, PRMS is not capable of functioning as the sole repository of information and data needed for management to provide effective oversight of all the operational elements required by the SA.The SA provides that alternatives to a single data system may be used if together they meet the various requirements of the SA. LASD has several management processes and stand-alone information systems,some that were developed as a response to the SA and others that predate it. Since cataloging those processes and systems and ascertaining how each one is used,the MT has worked with the Compliance Unit and AV stations to document how they are or can be integrated into a documented, reliable, and effective central accountability process.
1. Accountability Provisions in Other SA Sections
The SA's management accountability requirements are far broader than those identified in the Accountability section. In fact, they permeate every aspect of the SA. Each provision of the SA has several steps required to reach full compliance,one of which is that the Department adapts its accountability systems so that the implementation and impact of these changes are tracked, assessed, and corrected as necessary. This includes stations and deputies being held accountable for properly incorporating the change into their practices. It also includes supervisors and managers being held accountable for tracking deputy performance and establishing whether the change is having its intended effect. The MT assesses the accountability practices required for each section of the SA via the reviews and audits specific to those sections.
2. Activities in This Period
MT activity during this reporting period once again primarily included written and telephone communications and onsite meetings with the Compliance Unit, focused on the Department's need to develop an overarching plan to not only provide a framework for management accountability functions but also to establish clear guidelines for documenting accountability practices.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

44

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 49 of 56 Page ID #:636
a. SA Compliance Metrics
At the February 6,2019, meeting between the Parties(and subsequent meetings with the MT and Compliance Unit), the compliance metrics to be used by the MT to determine compliance with the SA paragraphs 141-145 were discussed. At that time,there was one primary issue left unresolved,and that also related to the process for complying with SA paragraph 142, which states,"LASD-AV will ensure that PPI data is accurate and hold responsible Antelope Valley personnel accountable for inaccuracies in any data entered." Because the MT has agreed that the PRMS cannot contain all the information and data necessary to comply with all the requirements of SA paragraphs 141-145 or the accountability requirements laid out in other SA sections, using a variety of information and data systems is necessary. It is necessary to ensure that the data and information derived from these various data systems are accurate and up to date and that personnel are held accountable for errors in data entered so that management can depend on them for determining trends and making decisions regarding performance and outcomes.The discussions centered around the best way for LASD to ensure and verify that data systems contain accurate and up-to-date information when reports are constructed and when they are reviewed by management.(See"A Note About Settlement Agreement Compliance"for more information about compliance metrics and the process for achieving SA compliance.)
b. Employee Quarterly Review
As reported in the last semi-annual report, in response to the MT communications regarding the need for a formalized plan or approach to integrate and consider information from the various information systems,the Compliance Unit developed the Employee Quarterly Review (quarterly report). This process is designed to provide LASD AV management another tool for evaluating reported information and data necessary to compare deputies and units, determine whether performance objectives and standards are being met, and identify potential trends in the operations.
In November 2018,the MT and DOJ met with the Compliance Unit to review and discuss the proposed Employee Quarterly Review process. In this process, information from the various data collection systems is compiled and presented to management. In the early stages of development, it was the consensus that this is a reasonable approach to meeting the SA's requirement for developing a plan to periodically review how the AV stations analyze information and respond to concerns unique to their stations. On February 6,2019,the MT and DOJ met again with the Compliance Unit to discuss modifications to the proposed Employee Quarterly Review guidelines discussed last year and to review the latest draft in an effort to finalize the process and provide Parties and MT approval for implementation.
In the plan currently being prepared for final review and approval,the station operations lieutenants will be responsible for reviewing the data systems and collecting pertinent

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

45

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 50 of 56 Page ID #:637

information to populate the Employee Quarterly Reviews.10 If the process is to be efFective and conform to the SA,the operations lieutenants will also be responsible far having appropriately designated personnel review the various data systems to spot check the data, ensuring the information is accurate and up to date. Using this process, any errors in the information entered will be identified and rectified, and follow-up will be conducted with personnel as appropriate (paragraph 142).
As proposed,the unit commanders will be responsible for reviewing the quarterly reports and assessing the information presented to evaluate unit and individual deputy/supervisor performance, make comparisons,and identify potential issues and trends.These Employee Quarterly Reviews,including the unit commander's assessments, will be forwarded to the Compliance Unit far a quality assurance review and then to the North Patrol Division commander and the North Patrol Division chieffor review and final determination.The chief will respond to the unit commanders with any follow-up orders or directions based on the chief's review of the unit commander's assessment(s).
Following the discussions and meetings to finalize the Employee Quarterly Review process this reporting period,the MT made recommendationsfor revising the proposed Employee Quarterly Review to include the requirements of SA paragraph 142 so the information used to populate the Employee Quarterly Review is reliable and accurately represented in the Employee Quarterly Reviews.
At the June 2019 onsite visit, these data verification issues were discussed with the Parties, and the Parties and MT agreed on procedures for meeting the SA requirements. The procedures will be formalized in the Employee Quarterly Review guidelines at the start of the next reporting period. These will be the last steps before the MT begins assessments of compliance for SA paragraphs 141-145.
3. Steps Toward Compliance
a. Employee Quarterly Review
The final approval and implementation of the Employee Quarterly Review will represent a major step toward meeting SA accountability requirements(paragraphs 141-143). If implemented as designed, it will establish a formalized accountability process incorporating supervisor, unit commander,and division-level reviews. As stated in the last report,the MT believes the draft Employee Quarterly Review process represents thoughtful and diligent work toward meeting the SA accountability requirements. It will give management the tools to not only determine

t0 The data systems to be reviewed for populating the Quarterly Reviews include but are not limited to the Sheriff's 1 1,the obstruction aRest tracker,the performance log entries(PLE)tracker, the community engagement tracker, the DDWS logs, and the PRMS.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

46

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 51 of 56 Page ID #:638

individual performance but also to compare deputies and identify overall trends or performance patterns for the stations.
The Employee Quarterly Review process should provide the framework for conducting and documenting the systematic review of accountability processes as required by the SA. It will allow the MT to begin assessments of LASD's accountability structures from the standpoint of how consistently and uniformly they are applied and toward what ends and outcomes.The assessments will include reviewing the Employee Quarterly Review along with the unit commander's review and actions taken in response to the information provided in each report. The MT compliance assessments will include data validity reviews of the databases and i nformation sources used to populate the Employee Quarterly Reviews in order to assess the accuracy of the information used to prepare the reports. The MT will be particularly interested in and focus on the qualitative assessment of outcomes related to actions taken to address performance deficiencies and trends identified through this process.
b. Performance Mentoring
The Parties also agreed to include information in the Employee Quarterly Review that can be used to verify that the SA requirements regarding the PMP are being followed and met (paragraphs 144-145). This will enable management to determine if AV personnel are provided mentoring in the PMP within 30 days after the need for mentoring is identified; that appropriate procedures are in place for supervising deputies in the program; and there is appropriate coordination between the Department-wide PMP and the North Patrol Division PMP. Information that will enable this process has been appropriately entered into the proposed Employee Quarterly Review.
4. Next Steps
To summarize,the MT has established that the Department has several accountability practices and various databases in place that use information and data from the PRMS and several other sources. As discussed above,the quarterly report guidelines still need to be approved and i mplemented by the MT to provide a structure for periodic managerial review of information and data necessary to determine individual performance and trends in performance at the AV stations. The process, once approved, will provide for collecting and evaluating information from a variety of data sources. The MT will begin a formal review of the sufficiency and effectiveness of the Employee Quarterly Review process in meeting the requirements for accountability as required in paragraphs 141-145 once the Employee Quarterly Review guidelines are approved and implemented. This review will be designed to assess not only the availability of data and information but also how the information is accessed, evaluated, acted upon, and documented by managers and how the quarterly report fits into other aspects of LASD's accountability systems. More broadly, the MT will review how the various accountability requirements within other sections of the SA work independently as well as jointly to provide a gapless system of

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

47

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 52 of 56 Page ID #:639
documented review and oversight of all LASD activities. It is expected that the compliance m etrics to be used by the MT in these formal reviews will be discussed by the Parties and agreed u pon early in the next reporting period.
111. CONCLUSION
This report on the status of the implementation of the SA describes the progress the Monitors have observed to date,the state of the activities underway,and those areas that the Monitors believe require continuing attention and greater effort for LASD to ultimately achieve full compliance with the SA.
With the election of Sheriff Villanueva, the citizens of Los Angeles County have clearly communicated their concerns for holding the deputies policing their communities accountable and for improving relationships between LASD and the community,in particular among the most disenfranchised members of the community. As illustrated in this report, relationships with various constituencies, the Department's community engagement efforts, and community policing strategy are among those areas requiring greater attention and sustained commitment by both the Department and the community.The Monitors look forward to the sheriff prioritizing such needed engagement in the AV.
Similarly, as the sheriff has promised and the SA requires, continuous improvements in both organizational transparency and accountability practices are essential if the expectations and intended outcomes of the SA are to be achieved.This will require sustained rigor in pursuing the highest professional standards and performance by Department staff in carrying out their responsibilities related to the investigation of force, the documentation and investigation of public complaints,the effective use of data to identify problematic as well as exemplary behaviors by deputies and command staff, and other areas.
The Monitors would like to especially extend their appreciation and thanks to Lieutenant Eric Lasko for dedication to this effort. Lieutenant Lasko has led the work of the Compliance Unit from its inception. Much of the progress apparent in this and prior reports is directly attributable to him and his leadership of the unit. The Monitors wish him well in his new position and look forward to working with his successor. We are hopeful the momentum continues during this transitional period.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

48

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 53 of 56 Page ID #:640
Appendix A:The Monitoring Team
The court-appointed Monitors—Dr.Angie Wolf and Joseph Brann—have assembled an experienced team with credentials and skills uniquely suited to the SA work. The membership of the MT was finalized in March 2016. The two Monitors and seven team members have extensive expertise and experience in monitoring and evaluation work in policing and corrections. Additionally, most of the MT members have served in law enforcement or continue to have distinguished careers in this field, several in the Los Angeles area. Several have served in leadership positions in law enforcement or corrections agencies during the implementation of the compliance period of a settlement agreement or consent decree and therefore understand the unique challenges that large organizations face in those circumstances. The MT members also have particular expertise in dealing with the diverse issues addressed in the SA,such as those related to use of force, training, the FHA, data collection and analysis, survey methods, and the complexities of community engagement.
This constellation of team members was assembled to support the Monitors' philosophy of collaborative reform; it is using the principles of evaluation and technical assistance to provide an actionable assessment of LASD's progress toward implementation of the SA.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

A

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 54 of 56 Page ID #:641
Appendix B: Antelope Valley Monitoring Website
This website allows AV community members to learn more about the SA,the backgrounds of the MT members, and the monitoring activities; access documents related to the monitoring work, including each semi-annual report;follow links to LASD's homepage and other relevant websites; and—importantly—submit questions and comments directly to the MT. The website's URL is antelopevalleysettlementmonitoring.info

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

B

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 55 of 56 Page ID #:642
Appendix C: How the Parties and Monitoring Team Work
To complete the work of the SA,the Parties(US DOJ, LASD,and the County of Los Angeles)and the MT are in daily communication through a variety of means. In each six-month period, the Parties and MT hold multiple meetings at LASD headquarters; at the offices of the Compliance Unit; at other administrative offices; at the Palmdale and Lancaster stations; and at various community centers, schools, and places of worship in the AV. The MT periodically meets in person with the captains of both AV stations and their staff and participates in multiple onsite meetings with LASD's Compliance Unit, usually regarding specific issues such as policy or protocol review or data system discussion. The MT also holds meetings with particular units or leadership from other operations that are critical to this reform work,such as the AAB or the commander in charge of training. The MT typically observes the semi-annual LASD risk management meeting and the CMF.Although some of these meetings and events are general in scope and pertain to several sections of the SA, most are related to specific sections or provisions of the SA.The Parties and MT also participate in several small- and larger-group community meetings in Palmdale and Lancaster—often with the CACs—where various topics are discussed, such as the MT semi-annual reports, LASD and CAC community engagement reports, community perceptions about LASD and its approach to policing, and other topics.
In addition to in-person meetings, there are a variety of conference calls each month along with daily email or telephone communication among representatives of the Parties and the MT.The MT and DOJ participate in a bimonthly call to address substantive issues and planning; a similar bimonthly call is held that involves the MT, DOJ, and the Compliance Unit; and the MT and Parties, including the Office of County Counsel and extended LASD command staff, participate in a monthly telephone conference call to discuss workflow,future events and meetings, and other salient topics. Several times per year, onsite meetings are held where most participants from the Parties and the MT spend several days together doing intensive work on various topics.
Videoconferencing is used whenever possible when all are not able to be physically present in meetings. Documents are shared extensively via email for the purposes of review and collaborative development of the various policies and procedures, training curricula, community engagement materials, audits, and other written elements of the SA. LASD shares departmental data in various formats with the MT via secure email and digital media.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

C

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 37 Filed 07/25/19 Page 56 of 56 Page ID #:643
Appendix D: Monitors' Note on the Settlement Agreement, Constitutional Policing, and Organizational Change
As noted in previous reports, the MT understands and remains mindful of the many complexities encountered when a large organization undertakes broad policy changes as well as the challenges of implementing such changes.The Monitors also appreciate the considerations of LASD management in dealing with matters of this nature, such as whether the changes will be confined to the AV stations or affect the entire organization; the likelihood that other existing policies could be affected and therefore need to be revised; that evolving "best practices" and legal considerations also influence policies related to use offorce, video recordings, and so on; and the need in many instances to consult with labor groups or legal resources before such policy changes can occur. Throughout the work to date,the Monitors havefound the Parties to be strongly committed to ensuring that the. requirements of the SA will not be weakened or overlooked because of these considerations. Based on the ongoing collaboration among the Parties, the MT believes the SA objectives can be achieved in a timely manner.
Critical to successfully implementing and sustaining the SA reforms is a commitment to constitutional policing principles. LASD's ability to meet these responsibilities is dependent on clear policies and effective training. Only when prepared with sufficient training and clarity about the purpose of the SA can deputies clearly understand what the Department expects from them in their community interactions. Only then can deputies honor Constitutional standards of policing. Department capacity is also affected by the need to have sufficient accountability systems in place to monitor and evaluate employee performance and management oversight practices.

AV Six-Month Report VIII January —June 2019

D

 
 Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 66 Page ID #:644

1 MARY C. WICKHAM, County Counsel
ROGER H. GRANBOb Senior Assistant County Counsel 2 (SBN 108372) • rgr__ano(@counsel.lacounty.gov
648 Kenneth Hahn Hall or Administration 3 500 West Tem_pleStreet
Los Angeles, California 90012-2713 4 Telephone: (213) 974-1609 · Fax: (213) 626-2105

5 Attorneys for
6 The County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department
7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

11

12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-03174-JFW-FFM
SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' NINTH SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT

15 THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ANDTHELOSANGELESCOUNTY
16 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

17

Defendants.

18

19

On May 1, 2015, the Court approved and entered the parties' Settlement

20

Agreement

("Agreement

11 )

to

resolve

the

United

States'

claims

against

the

County

of

21 Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department pursuant to

22 42 U.S.C. 14141 (re-codified at 34 U.S.C. § 12601) and the Fair Housing Act, 42

23 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.

24

Paragraph 171 of the Agreement requires the Monitors to publically issue a

25 report every six months that details the Parties' progress in implementing the

26 Agreement and achieving compliance with the Agreement. The parties hereby

27 submit the Monitors' ninth semi-annual report.

28
HOA.I02766275.1
SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' NINTH SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT

2:J5-CV-03174

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 66 Page ID #:645

DA\T;½E7D2:~ 1

MARY C. WICKHAM

2

2o:WCounty 97sel

1

3
4

By (~ J~ ROG1-1. GRANBO

5

Senior Assistant Counsel Counsel

6

Attorneys for the County of Los Angeles and

7

the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

HOA.I02766275.1

SUBMISSION OF MONITORS'

-2-

NINTH SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT

2·] 5-C:V-03174

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 66 Page ID #:646
ATTACHMENT

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 66 Page ID #:647

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 66 Page ID #:648
CONTENTS

111.

WORK TO DATE.- ...~···~•~m"•·•n" mm..~•..mnn••u• •...........~.. ···-·~-·- ···--- ·-···-··- ···-,••m~~m••···.~.....ao......3

A.

Stops, Seizures, and Searches·•=•-;-;••·-··•~ ···~·••mro=mm~•···•L•n•••n•••- •co•co•- ..•muu,••~·-··-·· ·- ···- ·· 3

B.

Bias-Free Policing._·-~·-·"···~-·~·••m•m••-mnn•u.,,.,...a......~.~~·····~··· ··- ·-~,-•-"m - ,,," ....,,_.,nm18

C.

Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance......- ·--- ·-·-···~•M..~...n••·· ..- .... .. ... ... .. ... m.. ......... ... ...22

D. Community Engagement ·~•·•n.•.·········-···-··-·-······-~-···---··-·-···--··•~m•..~"."··.•.an....2.6

E. Use of Forcemmmnm•~·~~··~·-····-··-•-•n,-•-···~-·-···~m• •....._. ,,.......m... ....... ._OLO••L-·.-L~·-·---· ···,36

F.

Personnel Complaint Review.. .....co••·- ···-·· •...u..._~.- ···- ···- -·- ·-·- ·- ·-····-~"'"· ··~.... ..,.a ..... u.•44

G.

Accountabi Iity •u=um- -• U••·--• "'=•n••·~~···~···~·..~·.... . ··- ·· ····..·•·•..... .. ... . .~.u•-··-- ·-· · ·-· -- ·-··~--,~ ..47

APPENDICES A. The Monitoring Team B. Antelope Valley Monitoring Website C. How the Parties and Monitoring Team Work D. Monitors' Note on the Settlement Agreement, Constitutional Policing, and
Organizational Change

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July- December 2019

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 6 of 66 Page ID #:649
I. INTRODUCTION
This is the ninth semi-annual report issued by the Monitoring Team (MT}. It covers the monitoring activities that took place during this reporting period and in the months prior. This report provides an overview of both administrative and operational issues. It describes the MT's observations on progress of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD or the Department} in meeting the requirements of their Settlement Agreement (SA)1 with the US Department of Justice (DOJ} for the Antelope Valley (AV}. This report focuses primarily on work undertaken between July and December 2019.
Key accomplishments of this reporting period included the MT and Parties working together to plan and conduct the second AV-wide Community Survey, further efforts to ensure AV deputies participate in regular and meaningful engagement activities with AV community members, and finalizing and implementing new station- and division-level Accountability processes. The MT conducted another use-of-force audit-one of the most serious, Category 3 use of force-and began work on a second audit of the Department's investigations of public complaints. The MT continued to regularly interact with the AV Community Advisory Committees (CACs},receiving feedback and providing technical assistance.The MT also continued to track deputy attendance at LASDtrainings and deputy receipt of SA-required policies. The MT provided the Department with results of the LASO-AV deputy survey conducted in the last reporting period and with the initial findings from its review of Department Stops data entry procedures and Stops data. The Parties also instigated comprehensive data analysis to be conducted by an independent researcher for the purpose of identifying and responding to any disparities in Stops and related outcomes. This report covers progress in these areas along with discussions of how this work fits into the broader context of achieving the SA's objectives.
During this reporting period, the MT and Parties fin~lized compliance metrics associated with another four sections of the SA. Some of these metrics are straightforward and are assessed by, for instance, tallying the number of deputies who received a training or checking to be sure complaint forms are available at various public locations. Others are more complex, requiring not only quantitative assessment but qualitative judgments about the nature, quality, and consistency of broad-based outcomes such as equity in law enforcement activity or the institutionalization of new attitudes and practices. The Parties assessthese metrics using information gleaned from multiple sources such as MT and LASD audits, data and document reviews, interviews, observations, and consultation with independent experts. This approach will need to facilitate patterns of practice that the SA anticipated would continue long past the termination of the SA while, in the meantime, not holding the Department to undue oversight and expense. While the Parties always try to minimize the burden of SA-required activities, the efforts on the part of all LASOpersonnel to meet and maintain SA compliance while continuing their regular daily work can be taxing and will require continued vigilance and encouragement from Department management and supervisors to succeed.

1Settlement Agreement, No. CV 15-03174, United Statesv. LosAngelesCounty et al. (D.C.Cal.Apr. 28, 2015).

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July- December 2019

1

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 7 of 66 Page ID #:650

In addition to the onsite in July 2019, the Monitors and members of the MT and DOJ were in Los Angeles at LASOoffices and at various locations in the AV for multiday onsite work in September 2019. Multiple other onsite meetings were held with smaller groups through the six-month reporting period. The MT acknowledges that these site visits and meetings require a significant effort on the part of the Compliance Unit and station personnel, the CACs and other community members, and LASOmanagers who participate. The MT appreciates the cooperation and hospitality they have experienced.
For more information about the composition of the MT and the processes by which the MT, DOJ, LASO,and community members work together to bring about the reforms required by the SA, see the appendices.
In the past six months, LASOcontinued to provide AV personnel with full-day trainings and roll call training modules for co'nstitutional policing, bias-free policing, and Fair Housing Act (FHA} enforcement. LASOalso continued work to improve deputy Stops data collection and started to implement new accountability processes. The Department participated in earnest in the administration of the deputy survey and the new community survey with expanded outreach. The Department and, in particular, the Compliance unit, also continued to work with the Parties and MT on developing in-service training for community engagement and community policing. The Compliance Unit also facilitated an encouraging meeting between the Monitors and the LASOAudit and Accountability Bureau (AAB) regarding the Department's SA-related audits.
The Monitor acknowledges the hard work of many individuals in the AV stations in supporting the reforms required by the SA. We understand that the staff serving in the AV are under particular scrutiny and have an expanded workload compared to their peers in other stations. We appreciate their progress as a collective and hope that, with the reform efforts implemented, AV stations will set the bar for the rest of the Department as an example of best policing in Los Angeles.
Further, a significant workload falls on personnel outside of the AV, most specifically the Compliance Unit. The MT appreciates their attention to detail and dedication to this effort. The Office of County Counsel continued involvement has also proven to be essential for progress, particularly with all the staffing changes in the Department. The working relationship between the Department, DOJ team members, and the MT continues to be conducive to meeting the goals of the SA and making important improvements to law enforcement services in the AV. These reforms are critical to strengthening relationships between law enforcement and citizens in the AV.
This work will not be sustainable without the tireless advocacy and information sharing from the community. The MT values the ongoing work of the members of the Palmdale and Lancaster CACs and the time and effort they give to their responsibilities as an important link between the Department and the broader AV community. Further, the MT appreciates all AV community members who participate in meetings despite their sometime-inconvenient times and locations, the individuals who lend their voices to the community survey and recruit their neighbors to participate, and all those who continue the critical effort of holding the MT, DOJ, and LASO accountable for carrying out the mandates of the SA.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July- December 2019

2

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 8 of 66 Page ID #:651

The Antelope Valley Settlement Agreement: Summary
The Antelope Valley Settlement Agreement (SA) was established between the US DOJ, Civil Rights Division; the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASO);and the County of Los Angeles and was filed with the US District Court for the Central District of California in April 2015. (DOJ, LASO,and the County together are referred to as the Parties.) The purpose of the SA is to ensure that residents of the AV have police services that are lawful and fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States and contemporary policing practices. The SA specifically identifies, as individual sections, a variety of reforms and objectives to be met by LASO in the AV related to: Stops, Seizures, and Searches; Bias-Free Policing; Enforcement of Section 8 Compliance; Data Collection and Analysis; Community Engagement; Use of Force; Personnel Complaint Review; and Accountability. The SA also stipulates that a professional monitor be selected to track and assessLASD's progress in implementing and achieving compliance with the SA,work with the Parties to address obstacles to achieving compliance, and report on the status of implementation to the Parties and the Court. As per Paragraph 171 of the SA between the Parties, the Monitor submits a semi-annual report (every six months); the first of these was issued in December 2015.
The AV lies in the northeast comer of the County of Los Angeles and includes two cities-Lancaster and Palmdale-and several unincorporated communities spread across hundreds of square miles. LASO provides law enforcement services in the unincorporated areas of the AV as well as via contracts with
Palmdale and Lancaster. An LASOstation serves each city,with law enforcement activities for the
surrounding areas roughly split between the two.
II. SETTLEMENATGREEMENCTOMPLIANCE
Much of the SAinvolvesdeveloping or revisingpolicies, procedures, or training; putting into place various processes (such as a plan for ensuring new AVdeputies receive training);and strivingto more effectivelyengage community organizations and entities such as the CACs.This work is usually done collaborativelyamong the Parties and the MT,with documentation of the change (new policy,revisedtraining, etc.) eventually being formallysubmitted to the MTand DOJfor approval. Gainingthat approval would seemingly indicate that the Department is now "in compliance" with that provision.However,while it does represent a crucialstep forward,the Department is at the stage that may be considered only in partialcompliance (or "policy compliance").This is because, in most cases, there are more steps involvedbefore the Department reaches full implementation (SAparagraph 20, see below)and, thus, full compliance.
An approved policy must be distributed to every deputy according to SA-required procedures and, as necessary, incorporated into training curricula.An approved training curriculumwill require documentation that appropriate personnel have received the training. Most importantly, each of the established improvements-for instance, the policiesand trainings-will need to be found to perform or work in the real world.That is,they are then assessed through such MT activitiesas reviews,audits, interviews,observation, and data analysisto establish whether they are successfullyreflected in law enforcement practices and achieve the intended qualitative and quantitative impacts on the AVcommunity.

AVSemi-AnnualReport IXJuly- December 2019

1

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 9 of 66 Page ID #:652

Changes to policy and practice must also be incorporated into LASD-AV's Accountability practices. The reviews, an~lyses,studies, and audits that the SA requires LASDto conduct must use appropriate methodologies; and, in turn, their findings must be used effectively to informpolicies and practices. 2 In some cases,the SA requires ongoing improvement in the delivery of services (SA paragraph 15). Finally, this level of performance must be sustained for one year to
reach full and effective compliance and to satisfy the terms of the SA (paragraph 205).

This process of achieving compliance is laid out in various provisions of the SA, especially through the following paragraphs.

•

.Paragraph 20. Implementation is defined as "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 of that

policy or procedure in actual practice." What is meant by "consistent and

verified performance" is to be laid out in each SA section's compliance

metrics.

•

Paragraph 205. The terms of the SA will have been met when "the County

has achieved full and effective compliance with the Agreement and

maintained such compliance for no less than one year."

•

Paragraph 15. Full and effective compliance means "achieving both

sustained compliance with all material requirements of this Agreement

and sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing and

public trust, as demonstrated pursuant to the Agreement's outcome

measures."

Compliance metrics or measures represent the specific quantitative and qualitative criteria by which the MT will assessfull compliance with each SA provision. The written metrics, most of which are now finalized, mirror the language of the SA, but they also ensure the Parties and MT agree on how the SA language translates into workable and measurable standards for LASO-AV policy and practice and for assessing compliance.

This report addresses SA provisions where the MT considers the Department to be in compliance or to have made substantial progress toward compliance. Also discussed are provisions that require additional work, with emphasis on those that will likely require substantial time and resources for the Department to come into compliance or for the MT to effectively assesslevels of compliance. When possible, this report also summarizes the sequence of activities and steps the Department must take to achieve full compliance.

2 Paragraph 171b gives a summary of the stepwise process toward compliance. Most provisions of the SA need to be "(1) incorporated into policy; (2) the subject of sufficient training for all relevant LASOdeputies and employees; (3) reviewed or audited by the Monitor to determine 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."

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July- December 2019

2

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 10 of 66 Page ID #:653
Ill. WORK TO DATE
This section of the report provides detailed descriptions of the work performed to date by LASD, DOJ,and the MTto ensure the requirements of the SA are fulfilled, concentrating primarily on those activities undertaken or completed during the past six months (Julythrough December 2019). The report discusses MT observations related to the goals, scope, and nature of the work; issues and obstacles that have arisen during the work; MTfindings; and evaluative observations that have been discussed with the Department. LASD'sprogress toward compliance with each section of the SA is delineated along with steps toward compliance still to be addressed.
As in prior semi-annual reports, one major section of the SA-Data Collection and Analysis-is not addressed separately. The concepts and activities for Data Collection and Analysis overlap significantly with those for the other sections of the SA, and the work done on this thus far is best understood within the context of those sections; therefore, these discussions are embedded as appropriate. Finally,some SA paragraphs are discussed in more than one section of this report because they address more than one area of AV policing. For example, paragraph 51 concerns constitutional Stops and Searches, Section 8 Compliance, and bias-free policing. Similarly, "accountability" is addressed throughout the SA, not only in the Accountability section.
A. Stops, Seizures, and Searches
The SA provisions describe the way in which LASD-AVdeputies must conduct and document investigative Stops, detentions, and Searches. These provisions also detail many of the ways Department supervisors and managers must document, track, review, and assess these practices. The introduction to Stops, Seizures, and Searches summarizes the overall goals of this section.
LASDagreesto ensurethat all investigatoryStops,Seizures,and Searchesare conductedin accordancewith the rights,privileges,orimmunitiessecuredor protectedby the Constitutionor lawsof the UnitedStates.LASDshallensurethat investigatoryStopsand Searchesarepart of an effectiveoverallcrimeprevention strategy,do not contributeto counter-productivedivisionsbetweenLASDand the community,and areadequatelydocumentedfor trackingand supervisionpurposes
(SA page 7).

AVSemi-Annual Report IXJuly - December 2019

3

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 11 of 66 Page ID #:654

The MT is encouraged that lASD-AV has indi:cated that it is adopting "the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)methodologies' ' and that it employs the "Scann ingi, Anal:ysis, Response,
Assessment (SARA) problem solving modet" 3 Implementing these articulated community polidngi plans and strategies are paramo unt to implementing reforms required in the SA,
espedaUy the Stops . Bias Free, Community Engagement, and AccountabHity sections. It is,
expected that these strategies and the ir methodologies will be refliecte.d in areas such as training, supervisio,nl Department and startiion mana9ement, CA( and community involvement, and the statiions ' overall ! crime prevent ion strategies. Effective applkation of these strategie ,s should be expected of all personneJ via their performance evaluations. LASOhas not yet integrated these strategies, but the · MITwillcontinue to support the Department in their efforts to embrace these approaches so that the effectiveness of its crime enforcement aind prevention activities in the AV, includiing Stops, Sealiches, and Seizures as well as Bias-Free Policing and Community Engagement, can be better measured.

1. Activities i1n This Period

a.

Constitutional Policing Training

LASD continued to provide the Co.nstitutional Policing, training for LASD deputies assigned to the AV stations. Thi1s training is critical as it establishes a shared understanding o.f expectations and practice for alllLASO-AVdeputie ,s as they provide law enforcement services to the AV community. This training was prev iously approved by the MT, DOJ, and LASD to meet SA traiining requirements for Stops, Se,izures, and Searches.

Training compliance percenta,giesaireme,as:ured cumulatively. At the time of the last semi'-annual report, ILASD-AVhad reached comp liance in this area based on the tentatively agrned - upon standard that requires at lleast 95% of alll currently assigned and available personnel be trained in constitutional policiing practiices. The bulk of AV deputies have already taken this full-day training; as of the llast semi-annual report ,.182 from Palmdale and 196 from Lancaster. The Department now provides the training to previously unavailable or newly assigned personnel on an ongoing basis. The training continues to be well attended and wel received by deputies, and' the,deputy's evaluation of the courses continue ,to be overwhelmingly positive .. Dming th is reporting period, one se.ssion of the Constitutional Policing Trainiin9 was offered, on Au9ust 23, 2019, with 41 students in attendance.

3 See LASOAntelopeValleyStations'CrimePrevention&C' ommunityEngagemrmSt trategies2018 Report,pages 13-14.

AV Semi-Annual Report IIX July- December 2019

4

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 12 of 66 Page ID #:655
Based on the MT's verification of training rosters, Palmdale was found to be in compliance as of the third quarter with 97.9% of their available deputies trained; Lancaster was found to be in compliance with 98.0% of their available deputies trained. 4 Per tentative compliance metrics agreed to by the Parties, LASOis required to offer the training twice per year. The next presentation of the course will take place in the first half of 2020.
b. QuarterlyRollCallTrainingfor ConstitutionaPl olicingB, ias-FreePolicinga, nd Housing
SA paragraph 71 states, J'LASD-AVwill conduct roll call trainings at least quarterly to emphasize the importance of preventing discriminatory policing. These roll call sessions will include scenario-based discussions of real and hypothetical situations." "Roll call" refers to the daily briefing deputies receive at the start of each of their shifts. As described in previous semi-annual reports, these roll call trainings are the primary way LASO reminds deputies of the key concepts and expectations covered in the full-day Constitution Policing and Bias-Free Policing Training sessions. These are important because knowledge of Bias-Free Policing practices, the FHA, and related SA requirements to prevent discriminatory policing are widely regarded as perishable skills that require constant reinforcement as well as updates regarding any changes in case law or policy.
Illustrating LASD's commitment to ensure adequate trainers are available for roll call training sessions, Train-the-Trainer courses took place November 7 and 8, 2019, with invited sergeants who would then teach the roll call sessions to the deputies. The train-the-trainer and deputy roll call training courses were approved previously by the Parties and MT.
During the roll call sessions, deputies are presented with a scenario followed by a series of written questions and discussion regarding the legality of taking action were those situations to arise in their work in the field. The sessions are facilitated by a trained sergeant or lieutenant, and the content for each roll call session was described in the Eighth Semi-Annual Report (June 2019). The roll call sessions are offered year-round with two scenarios having been presented in each of the first three quarters of the year, and one scenario in the fourth quarter.

4 Compliance percentages for full-day trainings are calculated by dividing the total number of currently assigned
deputies who have been trained by the total number of deputies assigned to the AV 2IlQ.available at the time of the
current training.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July - December 2019

5

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 13 of 66 Page ID #:656
LASOoffered the rollcall training sessions on a quarterly basis beginning January 31, 2019,and the MTwas able to observe several rollcall trainings at each station. The training sessions were acceptable and delivered as agreed upon by the Parties.When smaller numbers of deputies were present, the MTobserved, less interaction took place between the deputies and facilitator; some facilitatorswere more skilledat engaging deputies than others. Although not required for compliance,the MTrecommends LASOset a goal of four deputies minimumat each roll call training to encourage better participation.The facilitatorsshould ask open-ended questions and draw upon the experiences of the deputies to emphasize key concepts. Although not required, to avoid the rollcalltrainings becoming stale, MTencourages the Department to utilizefresh training vignettes to better engage the deputies on these topics. The MTalso recommends that LASOconsider creating additional questions for use in future sessions, especiallyquestions that ground the training as much as possible in both the history of the SAand current issues and trends. The MTsent LASOa memo outlining these opportunities for improvement and discussed them with the Compliance Unit.
The MTobserved one roll calltraining on ConstitutionalPolicingat LancasterStation on September 18,2019, as the afternoon shift started. Onlythree deputies attended the training. Thiswas understandable, given a large emergency callfor service earlier in the day to which many deputies immediately reported instead of attending the briefing.Also,many of the station's deputies had already receivedthe same training in previous rollcalls.The training covered a scenario addressing "Preventing DiscriminatoryPolicing"(ScenarioFof the ConstitutionalPolicingtraining}.Eventhough the deputies were not particularlyengaged, the Sergeant who conducted the training did well;his approach worked for the circumstances.The response from the deputies did not suggest they were familiarwith the material being presented, an observation that emphasizes the need for conducting these refresher trainings. This is important as these sessions have the potential to serve as effective reminders of the more detailed trainings that have been provided and help to emphasize thatjust as the deputies are about to commence their tour of duty.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July- December 2019

6

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 14 of 66 Page ID #:657

While each deputy attends the fulll-day training 1sjust once 1 the roll call trainings are provided on ,m ongoing basis.5' Table 1 shows that the Mrs . attendance verification of the roU call training
sessionsto 1date showed lASD met the training requirements for the first quarter and third
quarter of 20119, but failed to mee,t the required training percentages in the second quarter of
2019. l he shortfalls in the second quarter were concentrated at one station, with 58.9% of Palmdale deputies attending the Preventing Discriminatory Policing ExerciseCroll call training and 58.9% of Palmdale deputies attending 1the Preventing Discriminatory Policing ExerciseD roll call training. , In discussions with the Compllianc,e Unit, the MTwas informed that the lapse in compliance was the result of a transition of leadership at the Palmdale station tha1t resulted in the vacancy of the operations lieutenant. The Monitors underscore that station staffing vacancies are a si1gnificant barrier to compliance. LASO has indicated they anticipate this problem wOIIbe corrected in subsequent quarters. The MT also noted several shortcomings in the· Department's documentation of these trainings, including: (1) the training rosters appea1red to be completed by one person, lacking the signatures of each deputy, and (2) these were not provided to the MT in a time,ly manner. To maintain compliance, LASO must show they can adequa itely track training at the rroll cal! sessions; particularly at the Palmdale Station.
--
Table 1

AV STATION Lancaster Palmdale

Quarterly Roll Call Training Sessions

1st Quarter 2019

-

-

A-99.5%

B- 99.5%

A-97.1%

B-96 .5%

2nd Quarter 2019
C-97.6% D - 96.1% C-58.9% D - 58.9%

3rd Quarter 2019
E-97.5% F- 95.5% E-98.3% F-99.5%

c. MT Field Observations
On August 141 2019, the. MT observed an orientation to the Bias-FreeTraini1ng held at the City of Lancaster. The orienta ition was provided to the AV community by the Compliance Unit. It took place over the span of two hours and was attended by nine community members. Some community members received Spanish translation during the meeting. The Lancaster Stafon commander provided introductory comments, and a senior member of the Compli'ance Unit proviided the bulk of the training 1content. A community leader from the Lancaster CAC spoke
during the training and enc:ourage.d additional training for the community. Several participants described their previous interadions and observations of LASO-AV deputi:es. Some of those experiences cited were posi1tive while others questioned the lawfulness of the deputy's actions in
the community. Not alll explanations provided by LASDwere accepted by the commun ity members, but several of the community members expressed appreciation for the opportunity to e,ngag1e in the conversation.
5 Compliance · percentages for a given rol l calll training is calculated by dividing the total number of currently assigned deputies who receive the rol'I eall training by the total n1umber of deputies assigned to the AV and availabl e1 at the
time of the·traini ing.

AV Semi-Annual Repairt IX July- December 2.019

7

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 15 of 66 Page ID #:658

The conversations appeared to be limited due to the small numbers in attendance. This is not to say there were not excellent questions and conversations; rather, a larger attendance may have provided opportunities for even more perspectives to be shared and proved beneficial for both the deputies as well as the members of the community. At the conclusion of the training, those present did express concerns about the low number of community members present. This is the second offering of this community training by LASD in the AV. Future offerings of the training should look for additional ways to advertise the training and attract larger representation of stakeholders within the community.

d. Compliance Unit StopsData Training
Informed by their reviews and feedback from the prior AAB audits, the Compliance Unit continues to provide training at the AV stations to help LASDdeputies understand the
requirements to collect data for the SA. The Compliance Unit staff spend time in the AV stations
to provide training to the supervisors and commanders. The training is critical for the AV stations due to the large turnover and number of transfers among personnel. Although the Compliance Unit provides an excellent service to the AV stations, the long-term sustainability of the SA depends on the AV stations beginning to develop this same level of expertise and training capability currently provided by the Compliance Unit.

e. LASOAABAudit
In the last semi-annual report, the MT provided an overview of a meeting with the AAB to
discuss the methodologies used for SA-required LASDaudits. The LASDAAB has been providing audits at the request of the LASDCompliance Unit to review compliance with the SA. The audit reports provided to the MT in the past have not provided the level of detail necessary to determine compliance with the SA. The disconnect between the AAB audits and the SA was not reflective of a lack of cooperation between the AAB and MT; rather, it was reflective of the philosophy of the AAB that the unit requires independence from outside forces to maintain audit integrity and that it takes directions only from the Sheriff. The MT agrees that the AAB should prioritize this independence and integrity. However, the scope of their audit portfolio must include audits of the SA requirements for the Department to reach and maintain compliance. The transparency and rigor of the AAB is critical to the long-term sustainability of the reforms facilitated by the SA as the AAB should be a key provider of continued oversight
and Accountability after the close of the agreement.
In early December 2019, the Monitors met again with the MB unit. Under the leadership of a
new captain, highly qualified personnel with significant auditing training and experience have been assigned to the SA and will be dedicated to conducting audits as prescribed by the SA.
Collaboration with the AAB unit has significantly improved under the leadership of the new
captain. Further, there is an understanding that auditors will meet with the MT in the planning
stages of each audit to develop a shared understanding of the scope and levelof detail
required.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July - December 2019

8

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 16 of 66 Page ID #:659

The MT llooks forward to revi1ewing the soon-to-be-published AAB audit examining the required CAD stops information, which focuse ·s.0 n1 the key areas of backseat detentions, dea.rance codes, and supervisor reviews. Previous AAB audits and MT reviews found low levels of compliance in the required supervi isar reviews of deputy CAD data entry. These findings again sugg:est the need for the Department to increase to adequate levels the number of serge.aints and supervisors assigned to the AV and to prioriti rze SA mandates at the management level.

f

Stops Compliance Metrics

Significant progress was made toward finalizing compliance metrics for the SA provi 1sicms i:nthis
section. These metrics will be the standards-either numerical minimums or qualitative guidelines-for the MTto determine if the Department has reached compliance wi1th each SA provision. The mosit recent drafts will be circu lated with the Parties and fina,lized during the next
reporting period. (See, "A Note About Settlement Agreement Compliance" for more information about compliance metrics and the process. for achieving SA compliance.)

In de.ve,loping the compliance metrics for each of the SA sections, the MT and Parties work from an understanding that not every requirement of the SA can be· assessed in a quantitative ,way.It is often diffi'cult to determine , an appropriate ·q1uan,titative comp liance count or pe,rcentage. For example, it is not appropriate to discuss how much discrimination is a1n appropriate compliance objective since it is never legi1timate to engag1e in discrimination. Paragraph SOstates:

LASD-AVdeputiesshallnot use race,color,ethnicity,nationalorigin,religion gender, gender identity,disability,sexualorientation,orgenderidentityin exercisingdiscretionto conduct a 5,earc.he,xceptas part of an actualand credibledescriptionof a specificsuspect or suspectsin any criminalinvestigation.

For the qualitative assessments of this paragraph, it is critical for systems to be in pl!ace where
superv isors and commanders ca:ndiscover and address behaviors .violating this provision. If this
situation occurs,.the MTwrnassess the specific activity of the deputies and the response from
lASD station leadership to i1dentify and address discriminatory or unconst itutiona l actions.. The Parties identified areas that will be assessed in a qualitative way and inserted them into the , Stops and Bias-Free compliarnce metrics iln appropriate locati:ons.

AV Semi-AnnualReport IXJuly- December 2019

9

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 17 of 66 Page ID #:660

The Importance of Stops Data
A keyfocus of the monitoringactivityfor this section of the SAare the varioustypes of data collected by deputies as they conduct their dailyoperations.Theyrecord extensiveinformationchroniclingnearly everyinteractionwith the public,includingeach stop or callfor service;each search,detention, citation, or arrest;the dispositionsof each call;and in some circumstances,short narratives.Theyalso now record certain communityengagement activities.It is essential that these data-which serve as the foundation for all audits, analyses,and reviewsconducted by both the MTand by LASO-are accurate, thorough, and reliable.When a deputy stops and detains someone, howeverbriefly,the facts and circumstancesthat led to that Stop and detention and any subsequent action must be rigorously documented and later reviewedto assess the deputy's decision making,the legalityof the deputy's actions,and compliancewith LASDpolicyand the terms and conditionsof the SA.
Data collectionfor Stops requiresentering one or more alpha or numericalcodes associated withthe primaryactions of the stop. Deputiescan consult codebooks for these. The codes determine the other fieldsthat appear on the screen and must be completed. Importantly,supervisors,managers, and auditors typicallyuse these codes to retrieveinformationabout each entry to properlysupervise deputies and units,conduct riskmanagement assessment,and monitor activities.Forexample,a supervisormaywant to reviewall records from the past month for pedestrian Stops,whichuse code 841.Such a request willretrieveonlythe Stops recorded as pedestrian Stops. Incorrectlycoded Stops willnot appear in the search.Withthousands of Stops and other activitiesrecorded in the database, it is very important that accurate codes are used to identifyeach type.

g. MTStopsDataReviewReport

During this reporting period, the MT's work related to Stops data shifted focus from evaluating data integrity to data analysis. Moving forward this analysis will occur in six-month intervals, with regular MT Stops Data Review reports providing a snapshot of short- and long-term trends of enforcement activity in the AV. Findings from the initial review report have been presented to the Parties and are currently being finalized based on their questions and feedback. Those findings are summarized below with the purpose of introducing the scope, complexity, and basic characteristics of the data.

The purpose of this information is two-fold: (1) to assessdata entry compliance as required by the SA; and (2) to provide descriptive information and demographic comparisons of these Stops and resulting outcomes. This review is a key component for the MTs assessment of compliance for the Constitutional and Bias Free Policing sections of the SA. This information should also serve both the AV community and LASO.For LASDto shift from a response-driven culture to a culture that is driven by a community policing philosophy, Stops data should align with the stations' crime prevention strategies. Specifically, LASO needs the information to make decisions related to community safety and enforcement efforts and strategies, avoiding disparity while promoting fairness, equity of enforcement, and effectiveness. In the long term, LASD must be comfortable with the regular use of such data and information to better understand and gauge the positive and negative impacts of their efforts. It will be a crucial aid in the implementation and evaluation of the Department's implementation of COPS and SARA.CACsand the community can also use the information to better understand LASO-AV enforcement patterns and work with LASOto improve the effectiveness of their policing strategies and address any potentially unfair enforcement practices.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July- December 2019

10

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 18 of 66 Page ID #:661

L~

Important Note on MT Stops Data Review Findings

The MT Stops data review s,ummary consists of only descriptive statistics - counts and percentages-and is meant to prov ide a basic understanding of the number and types of Stops occurr ing in the AV, who is bein gi stopped, and what occurs dur ing those Stops
(e.g., Searches, Seizures , backseat de,tentions, citations, arrests). As described above , this descript ive daita is necessary in asses.sing outcomes of enforcement effort s. and in identifying area1s that warrant furthe ,r inspection by the Parties . Population demographics are provided to give a sense of how the proportions of Stops by race comp are to the
proportions a,f racial giroups in the population.

It is very important to understand that these descriptive statistics as presented are not intended a1nd, indeed, cannot be used in a simplistic manner to serve as proof of racial bias in the AV.Bias-free policing and, in particular, the analysis of Stops data for identifying any potent ial racia l disparitiies is a critical aspect of the SA and willbe addressed in a sepairate, part of the monitoring work. Specifically, that analiysis willl be performed by a pair of independent lfesearchers contracted by the Parties and MT to do the type of in -depth stati1stical anallysis required to draw conclusions about d isparities in the Stops data. That work has begun and is described in deta il below (s.ee "Independent Stops Analysis" in the Bias,~Free Polking section) .. The current MT Stops data review discussed here does not indude that level of statistical analysis and therefore should nio,t be used for that purpose ,.

The MT recognizes cri'me can be concentrated in specific areas or neighborhoods, which could le,ad to a higher rate of people from one race category being stopped than others. Other important cons iderations bes ide.s racial proportions in the loca l population and crime rates indude how ofteinLASOiis called on by the commu nity to respond t o crime in particular a,reasand any descrip tion s of the perpetrators provided to LASD by the community. The, stop daita analysis being undertaken by the independent researchers w ill in clude t hese types of factors. Also,. it is critical to do this type of review with an unde,rstand ing of the Department 's cdme prevention strategy, which guides the deput ies' actions.1nthe areas and neigihborhoods and to which outcomes can be compared and assesse1d. The MT looks forward to continu·n9 thi ;s conversation with LASD,to inform the MT's data revie.w and the forthcoming. analysis conducted by the independent expert.

AV Semi -Annua l Report IX July- December 2019

11

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 19 of 66 Page ID #:662
ii. MTStops Dota Review-Data EntryCompliance
The MT reviewed six montlns of Stops data (vehicle, pedestria1nr and bicycle Stops) from the second hailfrof 2018 t0i assessthe Department's compl:iance with SA-required changes to the data that deputies are required to record chronicling their patrol activity (see SA paragiraph44). This data is recorded in their Mobilie Di1gital Computer {MDC) patrol logs. There are two basic types of data entry: 1) filling: in fields {type of stop, reason for stoµr subject demographics. time of any backseat detention. etc.) a,nd 2) desie:ribingthe stop aindl9iving rationales for actions in short narratives. Compliance for the first type is primarHy determined by the existence of data in eac.h of the required data fields. The MT review of the data fields entry found that deputies documented the required information at lleast 98% of the time and with numerou !s categories at a level of 100%. The· MT review of the second type of data entry,.that is, the narratives, is not yet complete. Thiis cannot be done i'n an automated fashion as the thousands o.f narratives are freeform and require carreful interpretation and quality assessment. The assessment of these narratives will be reported in a future review by the MT.
iii. MTStops Dato Review-Summary of Stops Characteristics
Atotal of 16,5,54discretionaryStops (vehicle,pedestrian, and bkycle) were conducted between July and December 2018,;rangi:n9 between 2,455to 3.191Stops per month. The Stops involved 18,313individualls,.6•7
The !largest proportion of people stopped were Hispanic (43%), followed by black/African American (33%}, white (23%)1other (2%), and Asian (< 1%). The corresponding racial and ethnic proportions in the AV population are Hispanic (47%), bl!ack/Afrkan American (15%)1 white (31%), and Asian (4%) (see Table 2). Approximate ,ly two thiirds of all people stopped were male,and nearly half of those stopped were in the age rangie of 20-34 years..The folllowing resulrtsfocus on the three most prominent race groups of individuals stopped as re,wrded by deputies: Hispanic, black/African American, and white. Table 2 summarizes the demographrc characteristics of census tracts that predominantly overlap with LASDreporting diSitrkts ilnthe Antelope Valley.8

6 This includes any as.soc.iatedpatrol entry log1s created to,record additional irnformation ln the stop or detained individuals, aswe,11as any aissistingunit entries invol ived in the stop.
7 Some people were stepped multiple times aind thus ,are represented multiple times in the count. If individualswn 10 were stopped had the same name and diffelient dates.o,fbirth, they were counted sepa1rately.
8 U.S. Census Bmeau,2013- 2017 Amerkan Community Sl!Jlrve5y-Year Estimates;Dataset: "DPOSACS DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING ESTIMATE."S

AV Semi-Annual Report IXJuly- December 20119

12

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 20 of 66 Page ID #:663

Table 2

Demographic Characteristics of Antelope Valley Reporting Districts

Demographic Group

Lancaster
N = 188,599

Palmdale
N = 202,701

Total N = 391,300

n

Percent

n

Percent

n

Percent

Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino1, any rac.e

73,122 I 38.8% 110,9711 54.7% 184,093 47.0%

Nlot Hispaniicor Latino,.white a1llone
Nlot Hispainkor Latino,, black/African
American alone
Nlot Hispanic or Latino, Asi1an alone

65,721 36,176 7,070

34.8% 19.2% I 3.7%

I 56,835 21,450 7,494

28.0% 1'0.6% 3.7%

122,556
57,626
14,564

31.3% 1.4.7% 3.7%

Nlot Hispanic or Latino, other races* 6,510 I 3.5%

5,951

2.9% 12,461 3.2%

Sex

Male

93,900 49.8% 101,076 49.9% 194,976 49.8%

Female

94,.699 50.2% 101,625 S0.1i% 196,324 S,0.2%

Age

0- 19

58,649 31.1% 65,624 32.4% 124,2.73 31.8 ,%

20-24

112,5.53

6.7%

14,426

7.1% 26,979

6.9%

25-34 35-54

27,108 14.4% I
48,160 25.5%

26,1191 52,891

112.9% 26.1%

53,2 .99 101,051

13.6 %1
25.8%

55+

42,129 22.3% 43,569 21.5% 85,698 21.9%

* "Not His:panicor Latino,,other races"is a1sum o,f:American Indian and Alaska Native alone," "Native Hawai·ian and Other Pacific Islander alone/ "Some other race alone," and 'Two or more, races."

iv. Percentages by Cat'egory
Most Stops were vehicle Stops (8,7%), followed by pedestrian (10%) and bicycle (3%). At the Lancaster Station,. there is higher representati:on of bfack/African American individualls in all Stops (40%) compared to the Palmdal'e stati'.on(25%).Palmdale has a
higher percentage of Stops of H~spanic individuals (51%) compared to Lancaster (35%).
According, to data deri1ved from US Census estimates and presented in Table 2, Lancaster
reporting districts have populations thait are approximately 39% Hispanic, 19%
black/African American, and 35% white, while Palmdale's districts are approxtmately 55% Hiispanic, 11% black/African American, and 28% white.

AVSemi-Annual Report IX July- December 20119

13

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 21 of 66 Page ID #:664

The number of deputies involved in each Stop ranged from one P 1148,5; 69%) to nine (one stop). The dataset comprised 369 unique deputy names, with certain deputies accounting for more Stops than others. In addition to considering the data disag1gregated by various. groupings (demographics, geographic area, station, shift, etc.) it i1s important for LASOcommand staff as well as the MTto look at the work of individual deputies from severrallperspectives (such as those with the majority of Stops, those wirth repeated Stops of the same nature, and those focused on a certain area) to ensure their activities are consi1stent with LASD pol'icy and enforcement efforts or direction of the station commander. For instance, only four deputies (mainly assigned to traffic enforcement) participated in 25% of the Stops (three from Lancaster and one from Pa11mdarle). There are usually valid reasons for certain deputies to have significantlyhi1gher percentage.s of Stops as compared to others. For example, a deputy assigned specifically to addres.s.traffic rnncems will liikely have more Stops than a deputy assigned to answer calls for service or another type,of paitro,1A. lternativel iy, it woul:d be reasonable to question why deputies aissfgned to answer calls for service have a significantl ;y higher percentage of Stops as compared to others.

•

Reasonfor Stop-When entering CAD data, deputies may seliect from 12 different

reasons for the stop. The vast majority of Stops had Vehicle Code (85.6%) listed

aisthe reasonl and the second most common reason was Penal Code, (3.5%).

Reasonable Suspicion Stops represented 1.8% of the Stops.

•

Searchof Person-Approximately 22% of people stopped were searched1with the

most common reason being Inddent to Arrest (31% of people searched) followed

by Condition of Probation or Parole (22%), Consent Search (18%)i and Weapons

Patdown (17%),.Among peoplte stopped, black/AfricanAmeri:ca,nshad the highest

rate, o.f be,ing searched (26%),followed by Hispanks (22%), and white,s (20%).

•

VehicleSearch- Approxi imaitelly 15% of people stopped had a vehide searched.

Blarck/African Americans were most likely to have a vehicle search (17%), followed

by Hispanics . (15%), and whites (12%). The most common reason for conducting a

vehicle ·search was Condition of Parole/Probation (26% of people stopped and

vehide was searched) fol lowed by Inventory (18%),9 Consent Search (1.5%),and

Odloiro,f Contraband (10%).

9 Inventory searches aire usually pursuant to a vehicle seizure,

AV Semi-Annual Reµort IIX July- De,cember 2019

14

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 22 of 66 Page ID #:665

•

Contrnbond5eized 10-Among people who were searched (Person Search) and/or

involved in a stop with a vehicle search (Vehide Search), black/AfricanAmericans

were least likely to have contraband seized (16%), folfowed by whites (21%), and

Hispanics {23%). Conversely , b lack/African Americans are most likeliy to have any

kind of search (30%) compared to Hispanics (25%) and whites (23%).

•

BackseatDetention11-One out of every 11 peopl 1e stopped had a backseat

detention. Among each race group, black/African Ame.ricans and Hispanics had

higher pe1rcentages of backseat detentions than whites (10% for black/African

Americans and His.panics and 7% for whites).

•

Probation and Parole Status-B lack/AfricanAmericans were most likely to be

asked about their probation or parole status (46%) compared to 37% of Hispanics

and 34% of whi1tes. However ~whites were slightly more likely to respond ''yes"

(that they are on probation oir parole; 20%) compared to bllack/African Americans

(19%) and Hispanics (17%). Among, people who indicaited that they were on

probation or parole, black/Afrkan Ameri'cansand Hispanics were more likely to

have their person and/or vehicle searched as a condition of probation or parole

status compared to whites (66% of Hispanics,61% of bliack/African Americans,

and 55% of whites).12

•

VehiclelmpoundrmmtB-Fo,r this cate9ory, the MT re.ports vehkle impoundment

onlly for single,-person Stops be,cause it is the only way to accurately assign

vehiclle impoundment to the person's race. Among single-person ve,hide Stops,

approximately 4% of peopl le·were involved in a vehicle stop that resulted in ai

vehide being towed. Black/African Americans and Hispanics were more likely

than whites to h,we a vehicle towed (4% of black/African Americans,3% of

Hispanics, and 2% of whites).

10 Bo,th a personiand vehicle searchcamresult iinthe seizure of contraband. Contraband seized is a field that is populated by the stop, not specificto the pers.onstopped!.For example, if two people are stopped and only one person ha1s co11traibansdeized,tile fiel!d would be,populated for both people invoJVed.In incidents where both a person and a vehide search i1s conducted!, i1t is not clear W'i1ichtype of sear ch resulted in seizureof contraband. Additionally, where more than one person is stopped, it is not clear who was in possessi:on of the contraband.
1l Backse·at detentions wem quantified as any time a pers,cmhad a backseat detention leng1th of time greater tnan 0.
12 Racialdifferences in Searchesconducted due to proba1ti1on or parole status are more plionounced among vehicle Searches. Becausethe rea1s.onfor candluictingvehide Seairehesis the sameacross alli people stopped, looking at si1ng1fe-pers.on Stops helps provide a more direct comparison of vehicle search rates by race. Among individuals,who indicated that they were 011piroba1t~on or parole (when1asked),black/African Americans and Hispanicsare rnore likely to have a vehide searched (35% and 3.11%, respectively}a,sa condition of probation or parol'e compared to whites
(17%).
13 Vehicle llmpmmdment is a stop-bas,edlmeasure rnither than specifie to the person stopped. In the event of multipl1e
people being stopped, the impoundment code is the,same for everyone stopped. The fol!lowing results avefrom
vehicle Stops only {excludi119p1edle,strian and biq,cle Stops) and limited to single-person Stops for a more direct racial comparison of outcomes.

AV Semi-Annual ] Report IX July = December 2019

15

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 23 of 66 Page ID #:666

•

Arre,sts and Citations-A.cross all people stopped (induding, for instance,. vehi cle

passeingers), 25% were involved in a stop where at least one person was arrested;

54% were invo lved in a stoip where at least one person was cited. When multiple

people are iinvolved in a stop , the dataset does not disting,uishwhich outcomes

apply to which indi1vidlual..However, among singile-person Stops, black/African

Americans were most like,l!y to be arrested {26%) compared to Hispanics (20%)

a1nd whites (16%). Yet black/A Mc an Americans were least likely to be dted (51%)

compared to Hispanics (63%) and whites (62%) in single-person Stops.

v; limitationsof the Aw,lysisin the StopsDataReview

Again,. it is important to emphasize that with this review summary,.the Monitors are not passing judgment regarding 1the impkatians of the Stops data. In the coming months, the MT will work with the Department to evaluate the Stops data in the context of the Department's communi rty pol id ng and crime fig.htingi strarteg:ies,community engagiement activitiesi and the rigorous independent statistical analysis of Stops data designed to
answer questions regardi ing1bias in policing practices.

It is important to note that some outcomes are specific to the reasoning and
circumstances of the stopr whi :le others are spedfic to indiv idual s involved in the stop. Therefore, the perce,ntages presented here may have different denominators.
Additionally, where multiple peopl le are involved in a stop, making racial: comparisons of
stop -bas,ed outcomes becomes nuance,d because it is difficultto determine specific outcomes to specific persons in the ,stop.

Restricti'cms in the CAD data entry process result in several limitations to analyzing the data. Other key limitations include the following.

•

Only two people can be entered in any one-stop record; if more people are

stoppe,d then deputi1e,smust create a new incident and !link the incident using a

reference tag IID, which can llead to i.nconsistencies between the reference ,tags.

•

Some oiutcomes thait are specific to indivi 'duals are summar ized across the stop

when multiple people are list e,d in the stop, preventingi direct comparisons of

outcomes across race,groups.

•

Assisting unirt narratives and other data fields are often mi1ssin9 information , likely

becau:se the information ~s already recorded i.nthe original stop report.

•

Contraband sei1zure not tied to search method.

AV Semi- Annual Report IX July- December 2019

16

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 24 of 66 Page ID #:667

2. Steps Toward Compliance
a. ConstitutionaPl olicingTraining
As discussed in the previous section, LASD has continued to provide the required full-day Constitutional Policing training to LASDAV deputies at or above the 95% compliance level.

b. QuarterlyRollCallTraining
MT verification of the training records showed both AV stations in compliance with the quarterly training for the first quarter of 2019. Lancaster remained in compliance in the second quarter, but Palmdale did not. Both stations returned to compliance in the third quarter. The MT will continue to assesscompliance for attendance and proper record keeping at the quarterly sessions. While improvement is needed in some areas when tracking attendance, the regular training in the roll call sessions is a clear step forward by LASD.

3.

Next Steps

a. StopsDataReview

In the next reporting period, the MT will continue to work on its Stops data review, which is summarized above and was discussed previously with the Parties. It took a significant amount of time to understand the strengths and limitations of the data. Based on feedback and questions from the Parties, the MT has made enhancements to the draft report and will submit it in the next reporting period. The MT intends to provide these reports on a rolling six-month basis to compare periods and look for patterns of enforcement in the AV. The MT will assessif the enforcement patterns and outcomes comply with the SA.

b, Reportsand Documents
Following finalization of the compliance metrics, the MT will continue to communicate with LASOand conduct site visits to ensure the available documentation has been identified and made available for inspection to determine compliance. For example, LASDAV deputies are required to complete a CAD entry for each stop in the field and, in many cases,an accompanying traffic offense citation for the person during the stop. The hand-written citations are turned in for processing at the stations. Administrative staff at the AV stations use the hand-written citations to create a list for tracking purposes. The MT has used this list to verify that each citation has an entry in the CAD system as required by the SA. In the next period, the MT will ensure all available documents have been identified to ensure LASD captures all the data required by the SA. In the next reporting period, the MT will also look at a sample of crime and arrest reports to ensure the reports comply with the requirements of the SA. Crime and arrest reports are one of the primary ways LASDdocuments the act.ions of LASDdeputies during Stops.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July - December 2019

17

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 25 of 66 Page ID #:668

B. Bias-Free Policing
The primary goal of the Bias-Free Poli1dng section of the . SA is enc:apsulated in SA paragraph 64:
In conductingits activities, LASOagreesto ensure that members of the publicreceive,equal protectionof the lawiwithout bias based on race,color,ethnicity, notional origin, religion, gender,gender identity,disabWty~or sexualorientation,and in accordancewith the rights securedor protectedby the Constitutionor laws of the UnitedStates.Deputiesshallnot initiateStops or other field contactsbecauseof an individual'sactualorperceived immlgrationstatus.

1.

Activi ities in This Pe,riod

a. Bios-FreePolicingTraining

LASD continued to provide the Bias- Free Policing full-day training for LASO deputies assigned to
the AVstat ions. llnis training and the rela1tedl monitoring work foll!ow the same process as the full-day Constitutional ! Policing training discussed in the Stops section above. Most AVdeputie s1 have allreadiy taken the Bias-Free Pollicing full-day t raining-as of the last semi1-annual report, 182 from Palmdale and 197 from Lancaster had. Training is now provided to newly assigned LASDRAV deputies or deputie,s who were. not available when the training was offered previously. During this reporti 1n9 period, one session was offered August 22, 2019, and attended by 42 students. A review of the attendance percentagies found bath AV stations in compliance, with Palmdale at 97.9% and Lancaster at 98,.5%of their deput ies tra ined.

b. Quarterly RollCallTraining
lln this reporting per iod, LASOprovided the approved qua,rterlly roll caHtrainings for preventingi discrim inatory polkinig, constitutional ! polk ingAbias-free policing, and hous ing. To reiterate 1 in
2019, Lancaster was.found in compliance for each of the three quarters the roll call trainingis
were offered. Palmdale was in compliance i1n the first and third quarters of 2019 with over 95%
of deputies attending 1. However, Palmdale was found to be out of compliance for Quarter 2 with onlly 58.9%attendance. In the upcoming reiport iing period, the MT wil!I discuss.with the Parties
sum;,estions for i1mpraving the , ongo ~ng1train ing to the outside · LASD trainer. See the Stops 5,ection above for a full descrip t ion.

AV Semi -Annual Report IX July - December 2019

18

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 26 of 66 Page ID #:669

c.

SA Compliance Metrics

In this period, the MT met wilth the Parties to discuss and finalize the work plans for Bias-Free Policing. The compliarncemetrics specificallydetail the processes and measurements for each SA
requirement critiical to ensurfngifull understanding of the expectations and requi1rements to
reach compliance with the SA.{See"A Nlote About Settlement Agreement CompJiance"for more information about compliancemetricsand the process for achieving.SAcompliiance.) Bias-free practices and impacts areinot always readily di1scernible or easy to measure; rather, they require
cairefuland thoughtful ! analysis.The precursor to the work in the Bias-FreePolicing section is
largely reliant on the anallysis of the Stops described in the Stops section, because the review of
Stops servesto identify are,asor issues requiring further inspection.

d

Independent Stops Ana'lysis

In this, reportingi periodt the Parties and MT identified a team of i1ndependent researcherswho will conduct an analysis of lASD-AVStops data to assesswhether law enforcement activity in the AVhaishad a disparate impact on any racial!or ethnic group and to identify any trends or issuesthat may compromise rnnstitutiona ,I poliicing or the effectiveness of LASDe,nforcement practice. Providing Biais-FreePolicing1in the AV is a staple of the SA and is a, requireme ,nt spanning all LASOprogirams and activities, so this analysiswilll be applicabl1e to several SA se'Ctions.

This work will address SA paragraphs 82-86 and is required to include regression,. an advanced s,tatistkal tesit tha.t will allow researchersto, draw reliabte conclusions about whether any racial or ethnic differences they identify are indeed due to race or ethnicity rather than secondary factors llikeother demogiraphics or crime rates..The two researchersare both experienced and respected in their field for this type of ana,lys1si . One has already worked with LASDdata previous.lyl . One is based in California and will be onsite in the AV as often as needed ta discuss datai issues, context, and methodology, ,and to present results with opportunities to answer qiues,tions.

The researchers'work will indude developing a research plan,. defining, ai sample size and date
range, data cleaning and prepa1ratian for analysis, multimodal stati:stical an1alysis to include
reg1ression modefi'ng and other appraachest and preparation of a final report ta include a detailed and thorough description of methodol logy, descriptive statistics, statistical test results, conclusions, and a discussion of study assumptions and limitations, including what can and cannot be concluded from the findiings. The MT and Parties will review the methodology,
analysis and reporting on ainongoing basis.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July- December 20119

19

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 27 of 66 Page ID #:670

et

Communfty Engagementand Community Policing

It is impairtant to emphasize that Bias- Free Policin9 and the Community Engagiement sections of the SA are closely interrelated. lASD should c::ont1ni ue to engage the CACs and the wider community. Although the ,community Bias-free Policing: orientation during this period was valuable, efforts sihould be made to incre·ase the number of prese,ntations and the number of community members . present and ta continue to consider effective ways of engaging the
community.

Inthe last reporting period, the MTreported observati:onsregarding inconsistent understanding of community poHdng pri1nciples among AV deputies. LASOhas indicated they will take steps to bring about adlditironal awareness of community policing principles at LASD-AVstations. This has been evident in the efforts by the Compliance Unit to impl ~ement community-oriented policing trainingi at the 1 stations. The MTis encouraged lbythe stations' pl;an to adopt COPSand SARA
strategies, which can provide a basis for iincreasingthe understanding of LASDRAV personnel
and incorpmating 1these practices into startion management and the regular deputy enforcement activities.The MThas a1lso recommended other resources to LASDand willdiscuss next steps colllaboratively with the Parties. The1 MTwill continue to conduct observations in the field to measure compliance with the SA because this is,where aUthe. goals of the SAintersect in actual
practice.

2.

Step Toward Compliance

As described in more detail above, the progress toward compliance on Bias-Free Polking 1that the Department made in this reporting period aind prior includes the following.

a. Bias-FreePolicing Training
As discussed above, LASDhas continued to provide the required full -day Bias-Free Policing training 1to LASD-AV deputies at or above the 95% compliance level.

b.

Quarterly R1oll Coll Training

As described above and in the Stops,sediion,,.the stations are also presenting the roll call training 1sessions with approved lASD trainers. MT verification of the trai 1ning records showed both AV stations in compliance with the quarterly trah1in9for the first and thiird quarters of 2019. Lancaster was in compliance in the s,e1cand quarter but Palmdal1e was not.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX Jlulyl - D'ecember 2019

20

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 28 of 66 Page ID #:671

c. Top- 1'0lis,ts
The MT provided LASD with a list of the top ~10 deputies for Stops in the key categodes for: (1) all people stopped, (2) backseat de tent ionst (3) persons searched,.(4) vehicles.searched, (5) any arrest and (6) any citati'o,n.,The, Depart ment indkated that these types of lists will be
helpful fo1r commanders and supervisors ,wh en lookin9 to understand the activity of their
deputies and determining1if activity is in line wit~ the 9oal1s of the station commanders. For example , LASD may use the Stops analys1is to,determine areas of concern reg1arding disparate
treatment towa rd a1rnce group aind then use,the enforcement activi1ty used by the, deput ies ident ified in the top-10 list as a starting po int to determine possib le reasons for the d isparity
and/or possiblle interventions. The MT will cont inue to consult with station capta ins in the use of
the top - 10 ii'sts. and the evalluat ion of this data in the context of the stations 1 policing strategies.

3.

Next St eps

o.

Review of CAD Stop Data

As discussed in the previous s,e,ctiion, the MT will create regular reports of the CAD Stop data in six-month intervals. The MT will review the activity to detect any indication of potential bias in
enforceme,nt activity that requ ires,add it ional analysis and review.In the next reporting per iodl the MTwilllallso loailkat a samp le of crime and arrest reports to ensure the reports comply with the , requ irements of the SA.

b. Training Outcomes As,sessment
Whi le LASD continues to assign LASO dep ut ies to the bias-free pol icing training sessions, the measure of complia nce and effectivemasswill rely on the actual prac:ticeof bias-free policing and
the resullts experienced in the AV commun it ies. In the next reporting period, the MT will conduc t verificatio n of attendance in the roll call train ing sessions. These ongo ing trai'ning efforts are
important, but the true measure of the effect iveness willi be how the Department ensures biasfree policing concepts are carried out in the course of enforcement actions, incorporati'ng
community partnerships and relying on com munity policing strateg ies.

AV Semi-An nual Report IIX Jul lly - December 2019

211

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 29 of 66 Page ID #:672

c. Programs,Strategies,and Activities
The SA requires an assessment of all lASD programs, initiatives, and activities. It states: "Withi 1n
one year of the Effective Date, and annually thereafter, LASD will assess all programs, initi 1aitives, and activities , invo,llving Antelope Valley Stations to determine the extent of any cHsparate impact and to ensure that no1progiram, initiative, or aietivity is applied or administered in a manner that unlawfu lly discriminates a,ga.inst lndi 1vi.dua~s on the base.s of race, color, ethnicity, national ori,gin, religion, gender, gende jr identity, disabillity, ar sexual orientation" (Paragraph 68). Further, the SA paragraph 65 requires the Department to ,continue to consult with experts such as the Museum
of Tolerance to identify ways in which bias may manifest in AV strategies, programs, and a1ctivities. This kind of consultation and prrogram review will explore potential ,ly biased practices.

d. R'eports and Documents
LASO AV stations use a wide ,array of reports to complete their work, such as crime reports, citaition logs, jail logs, CAD entries, and numerous others. With the compliance metrircs expected
to be finalized in the next reporting 1period, the MT will communicate wi,th LASO and conduct
site·visits to ensure the available documemtation has been identified and made availab!le for
inspection to determine compliiance.

C. Enforc,ement of Section 8 Compiliance
With the Housing Non-Discrimination {HND) Policy FOD 18-001, Accompan iment of Section 8 Compliance Checks (Accompaniment) Policy FOO 12-002, and the compliance measures for both of these policies in place,, the work this reporting period focused on
applying the compliance measures to LASO housing-related activities.

1.

Activities This Period

a. Dissemination of Acknowl'edgmentForms

During this review period, LASOconttnued collection of executed HND and Accompaniment policies acknowledgment forms from AV deputies and implementation of the HND and Accompan iment policies. With the iniitial di1ssemination of the new polkies to current personnel comp lete, going forward LASD is required to ensure newly assigned personnel also receive the, policies.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX Jlulyl - D1ecember 20119

22

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 30 of 66 Page ID #:673
The MT reviewed Palmdale and Lancaster stations' second- and third-quarter rosters to identify
newly assigned deputies and to determine the timing for each station securing the deputiest signed HND Policy (including the Supplemental HND Policy) and Accompa,nime.nt Policy
acknowledgment forms. In the second quarter 2019, Palmdale reported 17 newly assi:gned deputies and Lancaster 12..ln the third quarter, Palmdale reported seven newly assigned deputies and Lancaster 11..14 As explained be,low, there are somewhat different requirements (and therefore different calcullations for policy receipt verification) for the HND Policy versus the Accompaniment Poliicy.
b. H'NDPolicyReceiptVerification
For the HND Policy! the stations need to meet the requirement that 95% of newly assigned
deputies receive the policy wirthin 115 days of their assignment to LASD-AVor within a rea1s01nable amount of time as determined by the MT(SAparagraph 75). For each quairter, the percentagie is calculated as the number of new deputies who have received the HND Policy di'vided by the number of alll new deputies.
In Palmdale in the second quarter, all 1i7 new deputies received the HND policy within 15 days of their assignment for a c.ompliance raite of 100%. In the third quarter, six of the s.even new deputies received the HIND policy within 15 days for a compliance rate of 86%. The s,eventh received the pol icy after 1B days,
In Lancaster in the second quarter, 11 of the 12 received the new H ND policy within 15 days, for a compliance rate of 92%. The, 12th deputy rece,ived the policy 25 days after assignment. In the third quairter, eight of the 111received the HNDpolicy within 115.days, for a compliance rate of 73%. One of the remaining deputies received the policy at 117 days and the other two at 31 days.
LASDwas asked to explain the drop in rnmplia 1nce from the. second to the third quarter,. and factors seem to include staffing short.ag1es among deputies and supervisors and a transition in unit command staff. Other more minor i1ssues related to documentati ion and communicati ron between the stati1ons and the compliance unit llikely play a role. The most serious, recurrent issue i;s that, after personnel are assigned but before they actually arri!veat the station, they usually spend between two and three weeks in various trainings (e.g., Field Operations Trainingi for deputies, and Field Operations Supervision Training for serg:eants). This pushes back the first opportunity for orientation to poilicies, sometimes beyond the 15-day limit

14 An eighth deµuty transferred to Palmda1el from the Lancaster Station and had previously executedthe acknowledgmentforms, which werreaccountedfar in the Monitor's EighthSemi-AnnualReport

AV Semi-Annual Report IIX Jully- December 2019

23

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 31 of 66 Page ID #:674

No deputies nietwlyass,i1gned to ei1ther station had questions about the HND Policy. While there was a significant dmp in the SA paragraph 75 compliance rate for the di1ssemination of the
hous ing ac.l<nowledgment forms for both stations from the second to the third quarte.r, the MT decided to apply the comp li,ance measure "within a reasonable amount of time as determined
by the MT" s.ince,allleventua1lly were verified and two were only one day past the 30-day requirement. Nevertheless, it is important that LASOwork to improve the timeliness and documentation of poliicy receipts in the ways they can control.

c.

Accompaniment Policy Receipt Verification

For the Accompa1niment Poliicy.,at any given time, 95% of all deputies need to have received the policy; new deputies need to receive the po licy within 30 days of their assignment or wi,thin a reasonable amount of time as determined by the MT (SA paragraph 164}.15 Compliance percentagies are cakullated oin a cumullative. basis. In the verification for Quarters 2 and 3,. all
current deputies at each station had already received the policy (Palmdale: 77 in Quarter 2 and 187 in Quarter 3; Lancaster: 202 in Quarter 2 and 200 in Quarter 3) for a cumulative ·comp liia.nce
percentage ·of 100%. Newly assigned deputies needed to receive the new po licies within 30 days,
in order to maintain compl iance. Compliance percentages are calculated as follows; alll deputies (current and newly assigned) who have received the Accompaniment Policy divided by a1II
available deputies (current and newly assigined).

In Palmdale in the second quarter, all 17 new deputies received the Accompan iment pol icy within 30 days,of their assignment, for a compliance rate of 100%. Similarly, In the third quarter, all seven new deputies rece,i1ved the policy within 30 days, for a compliance rate of 100%.

In Lancaster in the second quarter, 12 of 12 received the new HND policy within 30 days, for a comp!iance rate of 100%. In the thiird quarterr nine of the 11 received the HND policy within 30 days. Including the 200 current deputies,who had already received the policy ·, the third quairter compliiance rate was 209 divided by 211, or 99%. The other two new deputies received the pollky 31 days after their assignment

Both stations were in compliance for receipt of the Accompaniment Policy in both quarters.

15 Regarding both the HND ~mdAccompaniment pollicies1 SA paragraph 164 states: "Within 30 days after issuing a
r:ioHeym procedure,puirsuant to this Agreerment.,LASDshall ensure that all relevant LASOpersonnel assignedto AV have recei1ved, read, and undfmtandl the.ir responsibi1llities pursuant to the policy or procedure ... . LASDshall document that each relevant LA.SDdeputy oir other employee has received, read, and sufficiently undeFstandspoliicy."

AV Semi-Annua l Report IX July- Decembe,r 2.019

24

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 32 of 66 Page ID #:675

d.

Implementation of the HND and A,ccomponiment Policies

Besides verifying policy receipt by deputies as described above, the MT performed various
reviews to assess whether the HND and Accompaniment policies are reflected in LASO-AV deputy activities ,and are impacting the AV community as intended. During this reporting period, the MT submitted two , HND and Accompaniment policy document requests for LASD complaints, administrative investigations, . claims for damages and litigation, compl 1aints of
discriminati,on, aind other relevant documents and resources for LASD-AV deputy involvement in housing-related activities to determine whethe,r such activity was rnnduc:ted, and if so, was done in ac.cordance with the FHA and the HND Po~icy.LASD responded to one of the requests. Additionally, during the September 116- ·118, 2019, MT onsite visit, Watch Commander logis were reviiewed for both stations for the period beginning January 1, 201i6, through September 161 2019, and MT members met with Palmdaie CACmembers to discuss the SAhousing provisions.

Rega1rding the implementation of the Accompaniment Policy: In addition to the document requests, review of Watch Commander Logs, and attendance at the Palmdale CAC meeting
described above, the MT reviewed aind anallyze,d all stat code 787 data and LARCIS reports for
January 1, 20181through May 3t 2019. These various documents . and sources of infotrmati ion were assessed according to the approved compl iiance metrics for the hous.in91provisions,
especially those addressing deputy accompan ~ment of housing authority workers; LASD's independent iinvestigation1s or referrals for crimmnal prosecution for fraud based on voucher
hollder compliance with the voucher contract;'and deputy calls,, observations, or incidents
involving voucher holders (see llaist semii-ainnual report).

e.

Review oflASD Housing -R·el'oted Activities-HND Policy

In its reviews of the documentation provided~ the MT did not find LASD employees to take ainy actions that violated the FHA or the pmvis,ions of the HND Policy, and no audits of complaints found any violation of the . FHA or HND Policy . Pending receipt of the second document request, LASO is in compliance wirth SA paragiraph 73.

f

Review of lASD Housing-R ·e/ated Activities-Accompaniment Policy

The MT found that during this report ing period LASD di1d not conduct any accompaniment of Section 8 voucher compliance checks, did not refer any cases for criminal prosecution or
conduct any independent investigiations of fraud based on housing voucher compliance, was not involved in i1nddents related to voucher holders, and did not inquire into an individual's Section 8 status during routine law enforcement activity. Additionally, during the
September 16-18 1 2019,, onsite meeting w~th members of the Palmdale CAC, all community
members present ans,wered "no" whe ,n asked ff they were aware o,f LASD i1nvolvement in Section 8 Compliance check activi ity. Therefore, MITfound LASO in compliance with SA paragraphs 76, 77, 78,.791 aind80.

AV Semi-Annual! Report IX.July- Dec.embe,r 2019

ZS

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 33 of 66 Page ID #:676

2. Steps Toward Compliance
As described above, LASD's dissemination of the HND Policy Acknowledgement Forms and Accompaniment Policy Acknowledgement Form during this reporting period was inconsistent. During the second quarter both stations met the 15-day SA paragraph 75 dissemination requirement, however during the third quarter neither station met the 15-day requirement. Compliance fell significantly from the second quarter to the third quarter for SA paragraph 75 for the HND policy and 164 for the Accompaniment policy. The MT will work with LASDto maintain compliance and closely monitor paragraph 75 performance moving forward. In the meantime, the MT finds LASOin compliance with SA paragraphs 73, 74, and 75.
LASD did not conduct any accompaniment of Section 8 Compliance checks or other Section 8-related activity during this reporting period; therefore, it remains in compliance with
SA paragraphs 76, 77, 78, 79, and 80. Additionally, it is noted that audits of complaints did not
find any violations of the HND Policy or the Accompaniment Policy provisions.
LASD continued to offer the required housing-related training (part of the bias-free policing training) to deputies newly assigned or returning to the AV and is in compliance with
paragraph 70 regarding the housing provisions. (See the Stops section for details.)
The Department also offered the quarterly roll call trainings that have a fair housing module
and, except for the second quarter in Palmdale, has been in compliance with paragraph 71 regarding the housing provisions. {See the Stops section for details.)
3. Next Steps
In the next reporting period, the MT will continue to verify housing policy receipt and training rosters with the understanding that the lapses in performance described above will be remedied and compliance maintained. With the MT determination that the Department is largely in compliance on the housing-related provisions, next steps will be for the Parties and MT to ensure the Department remains in compliance.
D. Community Engagement
The Community Engagement section of the SAstates that "LASOagrees to promote and
strengthen partnerships within the community, to engage constructively with the community to ensure collaborative problem-solving and bias-free policing, and to increase community confidence in the Department" (page 20). The term "community engagement" primarily refers to the Department's efforts to engage the community and thus build and maintain trust and confidence in the Department among all community members, per the goals of the SA.The MT's role in the community-engagement process is to assessLASD'sefforts to interact with and improve its relations with the AV community. The MT may also provide advice and technical assistance to the Department, the CACs,or community groups, as appropriate and requested.

AV Semi-Annual Report IXJuly- December 2019

26

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 34 of 66 Page ID #:677

1. Activities in This Period
During this period, the MT made three onsite visits to the AV for community engagement compliance monitoring (in September, October, and November). The MT also reviewed community meeting and event reports provided by LASO,reviewed the 2018 LASD-AV Community Engagement report, and reviewed various other reports and material relating to the Community Engagement section of the SA. These visits and reviews are detailed in this section.

a.

Compliance Metrics

At a September 17 meeting with the MT and Parties, the compliance metrics for the Community Engagement section of the SA were finalized. Details of these metrics are described in relevant areas below.

b.

Crime Management Forum/Risk Management Forum Modifications

As a follow-up to the compliance metrics, the MT agreed to provide LASDwith a detailed memo on how the Department can come into compliance with paragraph 90 of the SA. The MT provided that memo to LASOon October 10. SA paragraph 90 states, in part, that: "LASO agrees to ensure that monthly Crime Management Forum [CMF] meetings with the Assistant Sheriff or his designee and semiannual Risk Management Forum [RMF] meetings include discussion and analysis of trends in misconduct complaints and community priorities to identify areas of concern, and to better develop interventions to address them."

The MT's detailed memo to LASOhighlighted the most important elements of Paragraph 90, which require that the CMF and/or RMF engage in actions to: 1) identify areas of concern regarding misconduct complaints and community priorities, 2) develop appropriate interventions to address these priorities, 3) utilize sound techniques that support these actions, and then 4) measure/evaluate community and problem-solving policing strategies.

To achieve these objectives, the CMF and RMF will need to:

1. Include discussion and analysis of trends in misconduct complaints;

2.

Include discussion and analysis of community priorities;

3.

Display how the use of techniques such as spatial mapping and scientific

deployment analysis are being carried out; and

4.

Determine and incorporate the use of appropriate performance metrics to

evaluate community policing and problem solving in the AV.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July- December 2019

27

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 35 of 66 Page ID #:678
c. Deputy Community EngagementActivities
At the Lancaster Station, the MT reviewed numerous documents containing community engagement activities of the two types approved in the compliance metrics, that is, self-initiated field engagement captured by the 755 State Code and community events attended by LASD-AV personnel. In general, the community engagement activities were of higher quality than the last review conducted by the MT; most of the documented activity would be considered qualifying.
The review of the community event and meeting logs found several events to be either questionable or not qualifying. For instance, a tour of the station given to a 9-year-old boy was logged as a community event. In general, non-structured activities that are not formal events or
meetings should not be categorized under community events/meetings. On the other hand,
some of them could have counted as 755s if they were self-initiated.
The MT provided feedback to LASD about which of the logged 755 contacts would qualify for the purposes of compliance versus those that would not be counted toward compliance. Regarding the 755, self-initiated, positive contacts with community members, an issue remains with deputies failing to document how someone was contacted to ensure it was a self-initiated
contact, not responding to being flagged down or approached.
The MT re-emphasized to LASD, as captured in a memo to the Department earlier in the year. "As agreed, the activity by sworn personnel captured under code 755 that is eligible for
compliance with paragraph 88 of the SA should be self-initiated, positive engagement with
residents of the AV. Such engagement should be deliberate and meaningful, of sufficient duration, and significant to advance one or more of the principles outlined in the LASD
Community Engagement Attendance Work Plan, which was finalized in January 2019."
d. Ride-Alongs
On September 9, members of the MT conducted ride-a longs with patrol deputies in the Palmdal_e Station to observe how deputies interact with members of the community and to
assess if Stops, Searches, and other activities performed by deputies are in compliance with the SA.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX .July- December 2019

28

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 36 of 66 Page ID #:679

e. CACs
The MT continues to be impressed by the work of the Lancaster and Palmdale CACs.CAC membership requires many hours of personal time, preparing for and participating in meetings, attending related community and Department events like the bias-free orientation, town halls, community survey planning and distribution events, and so forth. These gatherings are usually at the end of CAC members' already long days of work and represent time away from their families and other interests. Members spend additional time on interacting with the Department and MT, data requests, trainings, report writing, individual meetings, and hearing the concerns of the community and forwarding them to the Department. The members' hard work is paying off, as both CACshave made great strides toward meeting their mandates. Both have developed their own internal governance structures and processes for running meetings. They organize public meetings and thoughtfully choose formats for community meetings they feel will get the most interaction and involvement from participants, such as Days of Dialog and presentations followed by questions and discussion. The CACs also incorporate elements of the SA like bias-free training and community policing into these events. Their work is chronicled in each CAC's annual report, which can be found at the Compliance Unit website (http://www.lasheriff.org/s2/page_render.aspx?pagena me= avc_main).

f.

Community Meeting

On the evening of September 18, the MT and the DOJ met with a group of AV community
leaders and members of the LASO-AV CACs. In attendance was the main team of community leaders who initiated the community organizing and filing of a lawsuit against LASOthat led to the Settlement Agreement.

The three primary agenda items of the meeting were to:

•

Ensure the Palmdale CAC members understood that their Annual Report should

include recommendations;

•

Receive feedback from community members on their perspective on the current

status of LASO-community relations in the AV; and

•

Discuss any reports or knowledge of Section 8 housing discrimination or LASO

accompaniment on housing inspections.

The community members present made comments acknowledging progress as a result of the SA as well as some remaining concerns. The following comments had substantial agreement in tne room.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July- December 2019

29

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 37 of 66 Page ID #:680

•

One community leader opened the meeting with a comment about how much

progress, has been made. He mentioned 900d relati1ons with station leadership

but added that the community still has chaHenges with the rank and file deputies

saying, ''The rella1ti1anship has improved but it is still not good."

•

Another community leader and CAC member said, "The behavior of Sheriff

Deputies have changed for the better due to scrutiny and oversig1ht, not a change
in a mentality, so when the ove·rs,ight is gone, we are afraid the old behavior wrn

return."

•

Participants shared concerns about the lack of black/African American people in

!leadership positions, in LASD-AV.

•

There was a repeat request to get data on the total l number of complaints made

every year for the past few years to see the trend line. LASD has indicated they

have since shared this data and wi'IIcontinue to do so on an ongio,ing basis.

•

A unanimous request was made to have community members involved in

teaching portions of the train mngs to AV deputies.

•

Tine· perception of LASD by youth of color is negative.

•

There have been several compla ilnts about the response •to the fake shootingi

incident i'n Lancaster, including one where a black/African American woman was

reportedly removed from her apartment naked because she didn't respond to

sheritff deputy knacks because she was in the. shower. She lived in the building

that was evacuated aind believed to be where the shooting . came from . The

community lleaders also,expres5,edfrustration that LASD never issued an apology

regarding the fake shooting. {Tlnosepresent may not have viewed the televised

press conference o,n August 24 that included an apofogy ta the La,ncaster

community from an assi1stant sheriff.)

g.

Community Survey

The purpose of the SA-mandaited a1nnuailCommunity Survey is to assess community perceptions of the relattomhip between LAS.Oand the AV community and to attempt to mea,sure haw, if at a1lt the SA reforms affect that relationship. On September 18, the Parties discussed the second AV annual Community Survey . The Parties agreed to the folllowing four primary avenues of distribut ion and collection of surveys.

11. lASD and partner 0rr91anizati1nios will send out the online llin,kto the survey via email and sodal media .

AV Semi-Annual ! Report IX July - December 20119

30

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 38 of 66 Page ID #:681

2.

Members of CACsand a.dditia 1nal. community-based organizations trained to do

outreach will collect surve,y responses, and those community members will be

compensated for theiirtime.

3. A mailer with the survey'sonlline link printe .d on it will be mailled out via1USPSto 1 2,000 AV residents.

4.

With the approval of school administrators, formal distribution of the survey wi1II

take place on high schooill campuses and at Antelope Valley College.

During this monitoring period, the MT and the Parties finali.zed a data collection plan for the
second annual Community Survey with the same independent survey team that conducted the first surveyr incorporating feedback they received from the community. Representation of the blla1ck/African American and Latino communities in the first annual survey in relation to their population in the AVwas an area of siginificant concern to both community members and the Parties. During the Community Survey Presentation at Antelope Valley College in May 2019, as welll as in other meetings and discussicmswi:th community members, the MT engaged in dialogue about how to improve representativeness iin the second annual survey and took
sugg1estions from CAC and community members. The Parties then decided that in addition to the survey being available online, that a f"community-l !ed" data collection effort woul ld happen simultaineously where community members would collect survey data from other community members.

The MTaindthe independent survey team hasted an informational meeting about the second annual Community Survey in October 2019. The purpose of this meeting, which was open to the public, was to inform communi 1ty members that a communitypled data collection process would be incorporated into ,the second annual survey and to explain the process.through which
community members and organizations could apply to be compensated for data collecti :on. The,
process included submitting a proposal that describedwhere and how community membe,rs would collect data, particul1arly amongst underrepresented and hard to reach AV populations. While some community members expressed disappointment in the amount of funding dedicated to this aspect o.f data colllection, mo-stwere hopeful that this process would lead to ai more representative sample i1n the second year of the survey.

The MIT and independent survey team accepted all data collection propo,sa,ls it received and held a:data collection trainiing for communi1ty members in November 201'9. During the training, the
independent survey team provided an orientation to data collection and the MT explained the
process through which community members could be compensated for their time ·spent collecting data. Community-based orgiani'zaitions,students, and individual ! community members are currently collect.ing data in the cammunily and wil!Icontinue to do so at l,east through the end of the year. The Parties view this data collection process as somewhat of a pHo,t hat will continue to be adapted to1 ensure its effectiveness.

AVSemi-Annual Report IXJuliy- December 2019

31

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 39 of 66 Page ID #:682

The independent survey team i1s currently coordinating efforts w ith Antelope Valley College to admi nister the survey at the wl llegie in early 2020. The research team is also in discuss ions with the Antelope VallleyUnion High School Distri:ct to administer the youth survey in AV high schm:>lsin early 2020 as we ll.
The second annua l AV Community Survey was launched by the independent survey team in November 20119. Prioirto thait, in August 2019 t CAC members and Ml representatives helped distribute the Commun ity Survey at the Antelope Valley Fair. Nearly 200 surveys were co llected
over a four-day period. Survey data1collected at the fair will be incorporated into the general survey data aindfind ings report. lhe survey is available for community members to comp lete
both online and on paper. The survey is currently open and will remain open at least through January 2020. Once daita collection is complete, the results will be analyzed, and a findings . report wi ll be developed and published in 2020.
It should be noted that considerable outreach and survey administration efforts were added
during this survey coUe.ction period that were not utilized for the first survey. The findings reports for the first annua l survey cain be found on the MT website (http://www.antelopevalleysettlementmonitor ing.info/ ) and much more extensive data tables
can be found at http://bit.ly/AV-Public. The Parties, Monitor, and the community had concerns specifkal lly regarding the number of black/African American respondents partic'pating in the
first survey. Specifica lly, black/African Americans were underrepresented in the first survey. This is particu larlly concerning because many of the ·findings of the DOJ investigation were related to the department 's treatment of peop le of cofor,. particularly black/African American residents. The MT woul ld like to acknowledgie the support from the stations and the Compliance Unit in expa1ndi111tghe efforts and resources alllocated to the survey collection.
As mentioned in previous semi-annual reportsr the data: gathered through the initial annua l
survey willl be used as a baseline and wiill be compared with data from the second and future surveys to assess changes in the relationsh ip between LASD and the community over time. The
MT looks forward to working w ith LASO as the.station captains use the survey data to inform a
commun ity -oirientedl policing strategy and to further encourage their commitment to
commun ity engagement with the entire AV community as requi-red by the SA..

h.

Deputy Survey

An organization.a l climate and culiture study (aka "Deputy Survey") of the attitudes of LASO-AV personne l towa rd various SA-related topics was administered during thi 1s reporting peri1od (parag iraphs 69, 72, and 99- 101). The, purpose of the survey i-sto help the Department
understand the attitudes and percept ions of Palmdale and Lancaster Station personnel
regarding a range of subjects in sitxcategories~hiring and advancement; supervision; staffing1
and facilities,; managiement and culture; relationship with the community; and
community -oriented and problem-oriented polking. The stations' command staff will utilirze this dat a in their evaluation. of curre nt policing strategies and practices .

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July- Decembe r 2019

32

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 40 of 66 Page ID #:683
On September 18, the Partie,s reviewed t he surveyfindings and discussednext steps . It was agreed that the deputy surve,y woulld be conducted annualllywith detailed resul;ts fo r internal review. The MTwill summarize the resulits in its semi -annual report that is releasedfollowing the completion of the survey, beginn ing with tne current report.
The survey was adminiistered duringi two,weeks in March 2019, using a web-based format. All Lancaster and Palmdale station personnel ! were encouraged to respond. In total, 141 station personnel rangiing in rank from deputy through captain completed the survey.
The Management and Cult ure section showed most participants are proud to work for LASD and that they consider LASOa model among other departments. Most also feel the Stops, policies
prov ide them dear guidance and that t here are open lines of com munication within t hek chain
of command. less,than half of participan t s feell that the Department valued their opin ions (46%).
The Hiring and Advancement secti1on showed most participants feel·tha:t the Department offers adequate opportunity for advancement, but less than half feel1 that recruiitment and hiring, practices ensured the best applicants were hired or that the Department provided sufficient incent ives to encourage good job performance.
The Supervision section showed most partkipants feel that deputies are well trained, believe performance evaluatiions provide sufficient feedback, and trust their supervi:sor and feel he or she provides sufficient giuidance.
The Staffing and Fad lities section showed tha t just over half of participants f eel the Department prov ides adequate fadli1ties and sa1fety equip ment for deputies, . and even fewer - less than 20%-fee ,I the Department provides adequa te radio cars or that sworn staffing le,vels are adequate.
The Relationship with the Commu nity secti on showed that almost every partk:ipant believes
there are no deputies whose behavior or actions reflect bias or prejudice t oward minorities. Most pairtrcipants feel the Department has a good relationship with the community, understands
community needs, de,als with the co m munity fairly, provides appropriate language assistance
services,and fairly and thoroughly investigates public complaints. On other items that specifically dealt with minorities, around a quarter of participants feel tha,t minority groups view
the Department as di1fficult to deal with and t hat minorities try to avoid contact wi.th the
Department. Nearly hailf believe that crime, is d isproportionately concentrated in mi nori ty neighborhoods.

AV Semi-Annual Report IXJuly - Decem ber 2019

33

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 41 of 66 Page ID #:684

The Community Policing/Problem-Oriented Policing section showed most participants felt community policingi concepts are helpful and in regular use at the stations and that commanders provide useful ! crime analysis information to deputies, but far fewer participants, less than a thiird,folt that deput ies have suffiicient time for problem-solving activities. Most participants allso believed that deputi 1es spend most of their time on calls for service and that the LASD-AV workload is more demanding than that at other stations. Most part icipants believe the Department routinely provides crime trend iinformation to the commun ity, that there · is good communication 1betwe·en the Department aindthe community, and that Department leadership is. committed to meeting community needs.

2.

Steps Toward Compliance

As reported in previous semi -annual ! reports 1 lASD has been in compliance with several provisions of the SA induding dissemination of the SA (paragraph 92), pa1rtkipation in
communi 1ty meetings and establish ing the CACs (paragraph 94), providing : support to the CACs
(paragraph 96), and ensuring the CACs do not receive non-public information (paragraph 97).

LASO also ag reed to implement the County's new diversion program be ing developed by the
Los Angele ,s County Office of Di1version and Reentry (ODR), addressing the SA requirement to develop diversion programs (paragraph 87). ODR has also ag:reed to roll out the County 's
diversion programs in the AV first, but there was a delay in getting LASD'sfinal commitment with the program countywide that maiyaffect the AV. The MT believes that when the ODR diversion programs are implemented in the AV with the partnership of LASD, they will be in
compliance with th is prov ision of the SA.

The Departme ·nt has continued to work with the Parties to administer the a:nnual Community Survey as welll a1s the deputy suirvey.The MT ~sencouraged that the stations have scheduled meetings in the next report ing period to drscuss the results and potential usefu lness of the · deputy survey. The Department needs,to develop and implement a specific plan to make use,of the findings of the Community Survey. Ne ither survey is meant to serve as a performance "scorecard" or a compl iance assessment but rather as information for the Department to uti lize in its various efforts related to commun ity engagement,. constit ut ional and bias-free po licing, housing, and Accountability.

The Department's plan addressing 1paragraph 88 and the requirement that deputies participate in community eng1agement activities has been implemented, but some of the elements need
further discussion arnd development, such as the Department's plan for enhandng relationships w ith community groups, especiallly youth and communities of color, an,d its plan to use the Community Survey and CAC feedback to inform these activitie.s and link them to the
Department's broader rnmmuni 1ty e,nga1gement community pollicing, an.d problem-mie ,nted crime reduction efforts, including COPS and SARA (see the Stops section for more info rmation
on COPS and SARA). These activities shou ld inc lude seeking and receiving a diverse array of
community input , including ' pos.itive and neg1ative feedback, and ideas for problem-or iented
policing 1; aind making special effort to positively engage segments of the community where relatiions a.re more strained, especially with the black/African American, Latino, and youth populations.

AVSemi-Annual Report IX July- December 2019

34

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 42 of 66 Page ID #:685

The Department continued to offer quarterly rolil caU trainiings regarding Constitutional Policing, bias-free policing, and Housingt but ha1s not finalized its plan to meet the in-servke training requirement for community polidng and probl 1em-oriented polking methods and skillls for all AV deputies as well as AV station supervi isors and unit commanders (paragraph 89). After exploring severail optionsj the Department is working with the DOJ's Communi 1ty-Oriented Policing Services Office and Virginia Center for Police Innovation to develop a one-time
rnmmunity-oriente ,d policing training for all personnel fol:lowed by a series of ro ll call trainings , to deputies in Palmda1le and Lancaster using a format similar to that used for the , other roll call tra iningis (see the Stops secti1on above far detai ils). The MT and Parties will review the proposed plan and material ls. The MT stress,es that the training for community policing a:nd
probl lem -ariented policing needs to be !linked to community engagement activiti :es,f the station
captains' enforcement, and crime , preventi'on strategiies including COPS and SARA It is crucial, therefore, tha1t the sta1tions , not on ly the Compliance Unit, pl!ay a lead role in planning and
i1mplementing these irtems.
The Monitor would like,to,aclknowledge that the Compl iance Unit has been very thoughtful and creative in their efforts to pllan and implement a solid community; polidng training for alll AV deputies. The process seemed to s,low significantly when the process required input from
administrators above the compliance , untt Undoubtedly, the signiificant and ongo ,ing staffing transitions in the highest ranks of the Department account from some af this delay as it takes
time to onboard new ch iefs a1nd assist ant sher ~ffs to the SA who may have been lless familiiar wiith the practi 1ces of the ,Antelope ,Valley. However , to reach compliance, continuous attention and investme,nt from the leadership of the Department will be required.
LASD'smonthly CMFmeetings and sem i-annual l RMFmeetings must include discus,sion and analysis of trends in misconduct compiai'nts and community prio rities to identify areas of
concern and to better develop interventions to address them (paragraph 90). As discussed earlier in this report, ,the MT provided LASO w~th a detailed memo on October 10 regarding how
they can come1 into compl liance with this prov ilsion of the SA.
3. Next Steps
The MIT is encouraged by LASD's dedsion to provide more detailed and meaningiful training on community policing to its personne,I in the AV., But the MT continues to caution LASO that public
refations efforts alone do not equate to or serve as a substitute for community policing and genuine community engagement.
While there is wide agre,ement that lASD -AV has made signi Jficant prog :ress toward improving relations with the AV community, the MT cont inues to encourage the Department to lrsten
s.eriously to those who have compl laints and' not dismiss them or even try to simply convince
them to change their perspective. Instead,,the Department shoui:d take their concerns into rnnsiderati ion aind determi ine whether changies need to occur within the Department to bring about ongoing improvements in services.behavims, and attitudes.

AV Semi-Annual l Report IX July- December 2019

35

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 43 of 66 Page ID #:686

The MT intends to conduct regular monitoring of the Community Engagement section of the SA through:

•

Monthly reviews of LASDcommunity engagement activity reports and all

community engagement-related reports;

•

Regular communication with AV community members and CAC members;

•

Observation of trainings required by the SA;

•

Hosting and observation of community meetings;

•

Attending CMF and RMF meetings; and

•

Regular site visits to the AV, to include meetings, informal and formal interviews,

and ride-alongs.

E. Use of Force
The SA includes numerous mandates associated with the use, investigation, and adjudication of force by LASD in the AV. Those mandates include the avoidance and de-escalation of force when possible, prompt reporting of use-of-force incidents, thorough and independent investigations, and adjudication processes based on the preponderance of evidence.

1.

Activities This Period

a.

SA Compliance Metrics

During this reporting period, the Parties and MT had several in-person and telephone meetings and have finalized the compliance standards for the clear majority of SA provisions associated with use of force, the investigations of these incidents, and their adjudication. The qualitative and quantitative metrics detail the standards by which the MT determine compliance with each SA requirement related to use of force and the investigation and adjudication of use of force, including:

•

Continuing to prohibit use of force above compliant handcuffing to overcome

passive resistance and use of retaliatory force (paragraphs 102 and 105);

•

Using advisements, warnings, and verbal persuasion when possible before

resorting to force and to de-escalate force immediately as resistance decreases

(paragraph 103);

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July- December 2019

36

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 44 of 66 Page ID #:687

•

Usingi force aisa last resort, assessing threats prior to using force (whenever

passi1ble,), and not us,ingi force against individuals who are under control {SA

preface to Use,of Force sect ion, page 24; and paragraph 104);

•

Prohib it ing use of force to prevent someone from lawfuUy taki1ng photog raphs

or video recordingis {paragraph 106);

•

Continuing to 1 p rohibit ha1rd str ikes to the head with an impact weapon

unllessde,adly force isjust ified (paragraph 107);

•

Continuing to report all uses of force and any medical treatment provi1ded

(paraigraphs108 and 109);

•

Continuiingto notify a1supervisi oir immediately following use of force or upon

receipt of an allegiatEonof unreasonableor unreported force (paragraph 110);

.,

Conducting thorough iinvestigations of use of force, forwarded through the

chain of command, revi'ewed for completeness, and adjudicated with the

preponderance of evidence standard (paragraphs 111= 1' 13);

•

Continuing to require ,that the , ExecutiveForce ReviewCommitte ,e {EFRC)review

use~of-force incidents requiring 1the response of the Interna l Affairs Bureau

(IIAB;paragraph 114);

•

Holding employees accountablle for use of force that may violate law or the

Departmenfs prohibited force policy and forwarding those cas.e.s to IAB for

iinvestiga:tion or rnview (paragraph 115};

•

Holding supervisors accountable for not adequately investigat ing or responding

to force,that is unre,asonable o r otherwise contrary to LASD policy

(paragraph 116);

•

Holding AV unit commanders accountablefor idenffying and report ing force

trends and for taking preventive,steps to curb problemat ic trends

(paragraph 1117);aind

•

Ho ld ing AV uni1t commanders accountable to review and track training and

tactical review findings to ensure that informal feedback does not replace formalI

discipline {paragraph 11B).

Sorne additiional SA provi 1sions critical to use-of-force investigation, adjudication, and Accountabi :lity are found in other sect ioins of the SA, addressing such factors as allegations of misconduct (paragraphs 127, B0 - 133)1 assessment and response to any patterns of
violations (paragraphs 14!3and 153), and data recording {paragraph 142).

AV Sem1i-Annuall Report IIX July- December 2019

37

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 45 of 66 Page ID #:688

The Parties have not yet rnsol1ved the issue of whether the SA applies to non -AV commands that provide law enforcement s,ervices.in the AV, especially as it relatesto the use, investigation, and adjudlicaition of use of fo rce. That includes commands with personnel who aire:

•

Housed at either Lancaster or Palmdale stations, e.g:.,Gang:s,Narcotics, and

Community Partnerships Bureau;:

•

Regulady assigned at a1sheriff's,facility in the AV other than Lancaster or

Palmdale. staHo,ns, e.g., Court Services, County Buildings, and Transit; and

•

Occasiona lly d ispatched to provide specialized services in the AV, e.g., K-9 or

SWAT.

The Department believes uses of force that occur within the AV by those units to be outside of the scope of the SA. DOJ and the MT categorically disagree with that position and believe the UOF audits shou ld include all uses of force that occur in the AV, regardliess of where the LASD personnel invo ,lved are assigned. The MT and DOJ believe that not including those uses of force prevents a thorough understanding of LASD's law enforcement activity in the ·AV on the part of the MT. Parties andt iimportantly, community members. The MTand Parties are committed to
resolving1this issue in the next reporting period.

b.

lASD Use-of-Force Policy

The MThas continued to work w ith LASOon the development of its update .d use-of-force
policy. The MT and the Parties are in tentative agreement with the provisions of the draft policy,
which is under final review by the Departme nt. The MT Is concerned that further progress w ith regiard to UOF compli iance is being hindered by the fact that, although the draft was approved by the MT and DOJ in spring of 2019, the policy has still not been approved by Department managers.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX.July- Decembe r 201 9

38

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 46 of 66 Page ID #:689
c. MT ExecutiveForceReviewCommittee-Use-of-ForceAudit
In Octobe ,r 2018, Monitors submitted their initial audit of use of force in the AV.16 That audit
examined the way in which AV supervisors and managers investigated and a,djudicate ,d the significant but less s,erious Category 1 and Category 2 uses of force. 17 However, only one of the most serious Categieiry3 uses of force occurred in the three-month audit period, which was
insufficient to draw reliable condusfons on those high-risk incidents. Therefore, during thi 1s
reporting peri1od, Monitors completed a supplemental audit using a.nexpanded t ime period so
that sufficient Category 3 uses of force were audited. Specifically.,the supplemental audit
evaluated the LASD's IAB investigations and the EFRC's18 adjudication of Category 3 incidents to
assess comp iiance with the var ious use-of-force provisions including SA Parag:raph 1114:
TheExecutiveForceRe1view Committees.J1alrleviewuse-of~forceincidentsrequiring responseby the IABforce/Shootin9 ResponseTeam under currentpolicy,and to review the indde 'nts far any policy~training,or tacticalconcernsand/or violations.
This,summary provides a brief overview of the EFRCaudit's scope, populati:on, methodologiy, . and key findi 1ngs. A full understanding of the audit can only be obtained by thorough ly reading
the full report, , callled ltAudit of Uses of Force Adjudicated by the LASD Executive Force Review Committee." 19

16
http://antelo pevalleysettlementmo nita ring.info/conte n:t/documents/audits/ AV%20Use%20ofJ/o2OForce%20MT%20Au dit%20Report%20October%202018,.pdf
17 The Department separates uses c,f force into three categories based on the type of force used and the resulting injury sustained by the subjecto,f the force.The less,-serious Category 1 and 2 casesare investigated and adjudicated
at the,sta1tian a1nd Divisioin levelIs. The,most serious cases,Category 3, are investigated by the IAB and adjudiicated by
the EFRC.
18The EFRCevaluates everyshooting and farm i1ncident requiring activation of IAB's Force/Shooting ResponseTeam Homidde Bure.au also responds when the incident involives an in-custody death or a deputy~invotved shoot ing resulting in someone bei,ng shot. Homicide Bure,au's criminal investigation takes precedence so IAB's investigartian is usually held in abeyance while Homicide Bure,au c:o:ndm:tsits investigation. The EFRCis,compriised of three commanders, one of whom is des,ignate-das the chair. Membership is assigned by the Sheriff as a colll'ateralduty. The EFRCbasesits finding on: 1} tactics, i1ndudingi de-escalation if warranted; 2) whether the force itself was co.nsistent with Dep,artment policy; 3) whether a policy finding when a vehicular or foot pursuit was involved; and 4) any other pollicy viola1tions not related to the above,. The EFRCalso,makes a recommendation on,any allegation of misconduct that is rellated to the EFRC'srespo,nsibility. The rnmple ,ted casearong with a memo doc.umenti1ng the EFRC's recommendations al'iefoiliWal'idedto,the involved employee'sunit commander. The fHeis processed by the unit commandeirthen the division d1i.ef and is eventually returned to the Professional Standards, !Division.EFRCsta:ff forward the case,to the Discovery Unit for input into PRMS.
119 All MT audits and other reports are available at http://antelopevalleysettlementmonitoring.iinfo.

AV Semi -Annual Report IX July- December 2019

39

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 47 of 66 Page ID #:690

This EFRCaudit did not assessCategory 3 incidents that occurred in the AV but involved only deputies from non-AV commands. Since the Monitors and DOJ remain in disagreement with the Department as to whether the SA applies to deputies from non -AV commands, such as Gang and Narcotics Units, K-9, and SWAT, the MT cannot conclusively determine compliance on this audit's objectives. Therefore, the findings in this audit are to be considered preliminary.

i.

EFRCAudit Population and fvlethodology

Auditors selected an audit time period from January 1, 2015, through March 31, 2018. Twenty Category 3 uses of force involving AV deputies occurred during that period, 13 of which had been adjudicated by the EFRC2.0 All 13 of those caseswere audited, so sampling was not utilized. Each investigation was reviewed by at least two auditors to determine if:

•

The force used was necessary, proportional, objectively reasonable, and used in

response to behavior that posed a threat to the deputy or public safety

(paragraphs 102, 104-106-g);

•

Efforts were made whenever possible to use advisements, warnings, and

persuasion to defuse and de-escalate evolving situations and resolve them

without using force (paragraph 103);

•

The force involved a hard strike to the head with an impact weapon in an incident

that did not justify the need for deadly force (paragraph 107);

•

Force incidents were accurately reported to a supervisor in a timely manner

(paragraphs 108-110);

•

The use of force was thoroughly investigated (paragraphs 111-112);

•

Complaints of deputy misconduct were investigated and adjudicated (paragraphs

127, 130-13 1, 133, 142);

•

The findings and conclusions were supported by a preponderance of evidence

(paragraph 113);

•

Effective management oversight was occurring, including holding deputies

accountable for policy violations and supervisors accountable for not adequately

investigating force that was unreasonable or otherwise contrary to Department

policy and/or the law (paragraphs 115-118); and

20 Initially there were 14 cases, but during the audit it was determined that one case was actually part of another case; those two cases were combined resulting in 13 actual Category 3 incidents.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July- December 2019

40

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 48 of 66 Page ID #:691

•

Information was recorded correctly on the forms and in the Periormance

Re.cording and Monitor ing System (PRMS){paragraphs 141- 143).

il

Audit Findings

The Useof Force

The Department is i1n compliance with the SA paragraphs 106g (recording 11aw enforcement activity) and 1107 (head strikes with an impact weapon) .. No cases violated those provisions.

The Department is out of complliance with SApa.ragraphs102 (use of objectively reasonable force) and 104 (force used for resistive behavior). Two of the 13 cases violated those standards, resultiing in a compliance rate of 85%, which is below the 95% standard agreed upon by the MT and Parties.21

The Department is out otcompfiance with SA paragraph 105 (Department prohibits use of retaliatory force). In one case, the suspect clearly aHeg:ed the,deputy used retaliatory force but the Department did not address that al.legation. Whether or not the s.uspect's alleg1ation was true, it needs to be investigated as part of the requirement "exptidtly prohib it(ing) the use of retaliatory force" (SA paragraph 105).

Avoiding Force and De-Escalation
The Department is out of compliance w~th SA paragraph 103 regardrng de -escalation. In two cases, at least one deputy failed to utilize advisements, warnings, and verba1I persuasion when a,valial ble1 and in those same two cases at least one deputy fail!ed to decrease the use·of force as resistance decreased. This resulted in a compliance rate of 85%, which is below the 95% standard agreed upon by the MTand Parties.

ReportingUsesof Force
The Department is in ~omgliaincewith the requirements of SA paragraphs 108 (partia1I) and 110, which require timely notification to a supervisor whenever an employee is invo lved in or witness to a reportabl le use of force. In every case (100%),a field superviso,r was notified as soon as was practicail.

21 lnione of these cases,LASDiiniti1a1ted an interna l criminal and administrative investigation that concluded tile ,folirn
wa1s out of po licy aindthe deputy waisterminated . At a later date, he was re-hired by the Department.

AV Semi-Annual Report IXJuly- December 2019

411

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 49 of 66 Page ID #:692

Completionof Reports
The Department is out of compl liance with the requirements of SA paragraphs 108, (partial) and 109. The substantia l errors , in the reports prepared by deput ies in two cases were determined to be critically deficient because they rendered those reports unreliable. Those shortcomingis should have been addressed by Department managers, but the,y were noit. That resulited in a compliance rate of 85%~which is.below the 95% standard agreed upon by the Parties.

Use-of-Force Investigations
The Department is in compliance with SA paragraph 111a, which re.quires that a supervisor respond to the scene and ensure the subject received medica l care, and SA paragraph 111'b, c, and di,which requires that the investigator collect evidence,. canvas and interview witnesses, and colllect statements from witness deputies. The Department compli'ed with these requ irements in 100% of the cases audited.
The o ,epartment i1s out of comp Iiianee with the requirements of SA paragraph 1111e, which requires the investigator review aH deputy use-of-force statements for adequacy, accuracy, and completem,ss. In two cas,es, the deputy's report was inconsistent with the evidence ·, and neither deputy was confronted with that inconsistency. This resulted in a compliance , rate of 85%, below the 95% standard agreed upon by the MT and Parties.

Use'Sof Force With Atlege-dMisconduct
The Department i1s out of compliance with the requirements of SA paragraphs 1127, 130. 1311, 133, and 142, whkh require the intake, investigation, adjudication, and rec:ordation of alll personnel complai 1nts made by the public. Three use-of-force cases contained serious publ lic compl laints of misconduct that were not addressed by Internal Affairs investigating officers. Another case with allegations of misconduct was investi9aited. That
resulted in three cases with unaddrressed allegation(s) of misconduct for a comp liance
rate of 77%, well below any reasonable standard that may be established.

Management Oversight
The· Department is out of c:ompl1iance with SA paragraphs 113 (part :ial), 114, 115, and 116. In four cases the adjudication contained! Critical Defidencies for a1compliance rate of 69%, which is befow the agreed-upon compliance standard of 95% for Critkal Deficiencies. In three other cases, there were Non-Critical Deficiencies for a compliance rate of 77%, which is below the agreed-upon standard of 85%. Monitors were very concerned that one case in which the force was not objectively reasonable was never alleged and adjudicated by the Department.

AV Semi-Annual l Report IX Jully- O,e,cember 2019

42

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 50 of 66 Page ID #:693

Directed Training
For the purposes of this audit , the , Department is in limited c:ompliiance with SA paragiraphs 118, "'review and track train ing," and 167, 11record training i:n the
Depairtment'sLe,arningrManageme ,nt System(LMS).1O1ne case in which deputi:esdid not
re,ceive,the tra,ining as directed was, used in the Monitor's November 2018 use-of-forc .e
audit,. so it coulld not be used to assess, non-compliance in this audit. That left two cases in the current audit in wh iich the EFRC directed that deputies receive training, and it was provided in both cases. However, that finding is limited ta this audit only; the
out ~of -compHance finding in the Monitor's November 2018 audit remains the benchmark for determiningi the one -yea r compliance pedod required under SA paragraph 205.,

Recordationof Data
The Department is in compliance with SAparagraph 112 requiringi the invest igating
supervisor to accuraitely complete ,a Supervisor 's Re.port on Use of Force. That report was completed accurately for 12 of the cases. The 13th case mixed up which deputies used
whkh contro l holds; however, alll the ,involved deputies were accounted for using force
and the particular control holds were similar in nature,. so this error did not affect compliance.
The Department is not in compliance with SA paragraph 142 requiring accurate da:ta entry into PRMS. Half (SO%)of the ,Cate,gory 3 uses of force had not been entered into PRMS a,tthe ,time of the aud it

2.

Steps Toward Compliance

The EFRCaudit found the Department out of compliiance with over half of the relevant
use-of -force pmvi isians, under review. The, MT will work with the Department to addre,ssthe
defidencies identified in both use-of ~force aud~ts. Future audits will assess progress after
any changes in policy or practice are implemented and given time to take full effect.The lack of a resolution of the non-AV command i1ssue and the delay in approval of the,new UOFpolicy continue to be a hindrance to progress in this section.

3.

Next Steps

In the next reporting period, the MT will!work with the Parties to finalize the remaining compl iance metrics regarding non-AV comma n ds. The Parties and MT will further d iscuss the scope of the MT audrtsand haw to address t he embedded units. The MT wiUbe available to assist the Department in developing 1a plan to implement tne audit's recommendations, The MT will also evaluate the Department's updated use-of -force . policy as soon as the Department submits it.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX.Jully- Decembe r 2019

43

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 51 of 66 Page ID #:694

F. Personnel Complaint Review
The preface to, the SNs Personnel Compl :a1int Review section states:
The County will ensure that all allegotionsof personnelmisconductare receivedand are fully and fairly investigated,a, nd that all'personnel who commit misconductare held accountoble1 pursuant to a disciplinarysystem that is fair and consistent To achievethese outcomes,LASDand'the Countyagreeto implementthe requirementsbe'iow(p. 29).

1.

Activities This Period

a.

Compliance Metrics

In this repartingi period the MT and Parties came to agreement on the compliance metrics that
wirllbe used to assess compliance with the SNs. provisions for handl.ing1pe•rsonnel complaints made by membe·rs of the AVcommunity. Tho1se metri'cs can now be used to assess.compliance, iinthe next MT complaints audit. (The.first complaints audit gave interim compliance ,
assessments only, altho 1ugh most metrics were already tentatively e.stablished ait that time.) The
metrics include detailed descriptions of the activities and outcomes required to reach full and
complete compliance. In summary, the metrics address SA requirements that:

•

LASD continue to maike personnel complaint forms and information readily

available to the public (paragraph 124);

•

LASD rnnti inue to aiccept a.Il personnel complaints, including anonymous and

third-party complaints (paragraph 125);. and

•

Personnel found to have committed misconduct be held accountable (Preface,

p. 29).

The compliance metrks also address the SA requirement that the Department revise its policies to ensure that

•

All complaints are classmfiedaccurately, and each all!egation receives the

appropriate level of review (paragraph 127);

•

Personnel complaints are not misclassffied as service complaints (paragraph 128);

•

Eachalllegation of misconductf whe.ther specifically articulate,d by the

complainant or not~ is identmed and investigated fully and fairly (paragraph 130);
and

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July - December 2019

44

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 52 of 66 Page ID #:695

•

It is dear which complaints may require discipl ,ine or should be handled as an

aidministrative iinvestiigation rather than as a service complaint (paragraphs

129-1 130).

The SA establishes m inimum investigatilve standards including the identi 1fication of all allegations (whether or not the complainant specificallly allleges it), interviewing: all wi:tnesses with an emphasis on dleputi:es who were present but assert they did not witness the incident, and
collectingi a1IIavailable,physical evidence and using it to resol:ve inconsi'stent statements.
Essentially1 every investig 1ation must be sufficiently complete to support a. reliable aind complete
adjudication of the case. In that regard , the SA also requires that supervisors receive annual
training on SA requirements, co,ndluctiing thorough complaints investigations and updates to local, state,. and federal laws governing personnel , investigations .

b.

Second MT Complaints Audit

lln this reporting period, the MT planned and began work on a foUow-up audit to assess Department compliance with SA requirements for the intake, investigation, and adjudication of
public comp laints made in the AV. In accordance with SA paragraph 159, a formal audit plan was
submitted to the Pa1rties for their review s,0the audit can begin promptly i'n January 2020. The MT will a1udit alll AV community complaints regarding Lanca,ster and Palmdale personnel that were initiated duri1ng the first quarter of 2019. That audit perfod ensures supervisms and
managers were giiven ample time to fuUyimpl 1ement any new procedures foll lowingi the MT's iniitial l aud it (published in January 2018) and for complaints to have been fully investigated and adjudicated. We will also conduct a Directed and Purposeful sample of the cont iguous quarters (fourth quarter 20118 and se,condl quarter 2019) and selectively review compJaints initiated iin those quarters for indk ia of significant SA issues. Finally, we willreview all AV complaints iinitiated in the first quarter of 20119 regardi1ng1personnel assigned to non-AV commands to determine if any of those rnmpl laints involve ,AV personnel or an issue(s) falling under the SA's
pmvisions.

c,

LASDSCRHandbook and Policy Manual Revisions

Two important and extensive publi ications have been under revision by the Department fol llowing the MT's initial! audit of public complaints, the Service Complia,int Review {SCR) Handbook and the Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP).

AV Semi-Annual Repoirt IX July- December 20119

45

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 53 of 66 Page ID #:696

In 2017, numerous meetings were held to idenbfy and resolve i1ssuesin the SCR Handbook to ensure , it is complete , clear1 and consi'stent with the SA's provisions for hand ling publ lic compla1ints. On January 29, 2018,,,the Depairtment submitted a,draft that was critiqued and discussed extensive,ly at the Parties' February 28, 201,8, onsite meeting. Since then, the draft has been dormant despite numernus Ml requests to move forward with the revisions to this critical document. One of the major causes for this dlefay has been the changes to the Sheriff's upper management team indudingi the Chief of the Professional ; Standards and Training Divis ion, who is ultimate ly responsible for the SCR process. Recently (November 2019), the CompHance. Unit assigned responsibi lity for this project to1o ne of its members, and we are hopefol this can now
move forward.

In the preceding reporti ing per iod 1 the MT reached consensus with DOJ and the Compliance Unit on revisfons to the, MPP.Those, revisions ensure ,this key document is complete, clear, and
consi 1stent with the Settlement Agreement's provisions for handling; personnel compla ints. On
June, 13, 2019, a draft of the proposed revisions was sent to Department managers for approval !.
Unfortunately, that draft did not include two key revisions. Specifically, the draft that was
submitted for approva l proposes to:

11. Retain the Department's existing c.omplaint classification categories, 22 which are incompat ible wit h the compla int definitions in the California Penal Code; and

2.

Continue allowing perso 1nn1el com plaints to be addressed w ithin a use-of-force

investigat ion and never recorded as a compl 1aint in the deputy's work history or

PRMS2.3

The MT not ified the Department that these two omissions are critical and will prevent the Department from reach ing compliance with the SA until they are corrected.

While we c:ertainly would prefer to se1e both the MPP and SCR Handbook revis ions move more quicklly, we are mindful that these changies wrll affect the entirn Department, and changes of that
magnitude take much more t ime than changies affecting: one or two 9eograph ic units.

22 MPP Section 3-04/ 020.25 Adm inistrative Investigation lierminology 2.3 MPPSection 3~110/100 Use o,f ForceRepo1rtin9 Procedures

AV Sem i- Annual Report !IX Jully- December 2019

46

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 54 of 66 Page ID #:697

2.

Steps Toward Compl liaince

The Mrs audit of public complaints publi'shed in January 2018,24 identified several deficiencies in the Depairtmenfs handl ling of public complaints. In June and July 2018, each AV command issued a Unit Order that estab li,shed procedures and expectations to correct these deficiende.s. 25 Since,then , the Department has provided train ing to AV supervisors and managers to ensure ,
everyone understands and fol llows the new procedures. The MT's upcom ing sernnd complaints
audit will ass,ess ff the Department has maintained compliance for those provisions found to be in compliance in the first audit and if complliance has been achieved in the others. The newly final li1zed complaints compliance·metrics willl be used as the standard for these assessments.

3.

Next Stegs

During the next reporting pe,riod, the · MTwiUconduct the second audi 1t to assess current Department compliance with SA requirements for the intake, investigation, and a,djudication of public complaints made in the AV.

G1. Accountability
7ihe intent of the Accountability section and related provisions in the SA is to ensure that appropriate oversight is pro,vided by management and supervisory personnel throug:h the ongoing obse·rvation and evaluat ion o,f both individual behaviors and the coll'ective performance of empl ,oyees. 26' Careful and cons,istent consideration of every stage of personnel ! and system perlorma,nce must be built into ,the fabric of operations at every level of the organization, and reliable and cuirrent information must be available to the managerial leade.rship.

1. Activit ie.si1n This Period
MT activi:ty during this reporting period pri.marily involved written and telephonic
cornmunicaitions and onsiite meeti 1ngs w ith the Compliance Unit and AV station personnel. These communications and meeting1s focused on the Department's development a,nd implementation of ain over-archiing1plan to provide ·a framework for management Accountability functions and to, estaiblli1sh clear guidelines for documenting 1Accountability practices. This plan, including the
wm Emplloyee Quarterly Review proce ,ss, be discussed further below.
24 All MT audits and other reports are availableat http://www.antelopevalleysettlementmoinngit.oinrfo/
25 The LancasterUnit Order was,i1ssued on July 10, 20118, arndthe PalmdaleUnitOrder wasissuedo,nJune 21~, 2018.
26 Managiementpersoninelincludes,the captains and lieutenants at each AV station and the NPDchief and commander. The se.rgea11atsre supervi,so,rs rather than managers,but they support management in review fuinctions and in en5,ulrng effeetive oversight is i::irovidedin the field.

AV Semi-Annual ! Report IX July- D1ecember 2019

47

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 55 of 66 Page ID #:698

a.

SA Compliance Metrics

wm The compliance metrics that the MT us,e to determine the Department's compliance with the
Accountabi 1lity provisions were finallized in this reporting period. These metrics dellineate how the MT will assess SA paragraphs 141-1145 and their requirements concerning data colle,ction,
data integrityf and evaluating personnel perliormancevia the PRMS {formerly the Personnel
Performance Index or PPI);other data systems aind related processes;and the Performance Mentoring Program (PMP).

As reported in previous semi-annual re,ports1PRMS is not capable of functioning as the sole repository of information and data needed for management to provide effective oversight of all
the operational elements required by the SA (paragraphs 141'.and 142). The SA provides that alternatives to,a single data system may be us,ed if together they meet the ·various requirements of the,SA.To that end1LASOhas several! management processes and staind-alone information systems, some of which were developed as. a response to the SA and others that predated the SA. The compliance metrics make it dear that those al:temative processes need to reliablly fulfill the requirements that PRMShad been expected to meet in particular, to g.ivemanagers the capacity to compare deputies and units~ identify trends, and access and report additional data re,levant to determining compliance ,wi1th the Agreement.

b, EmployeeQuarterly R'evi'ew
In response to the. MT communications re.giardlingthe need for a formal lized plan or approach to integrate and consider information from the various information systems, the Compliance Unit developed the Employee Quarterly RevmewT,his process, required by paragraph 143 of the SA is
de,signed to provide LASD-AV management a tool for evaluating reported informaHon and data necessary to compare deputies and units, to determine whether performance objectives and standards are being met, and to identify pote ,ntial trends in the operations .. On September 16, 2,019, the MT met with the Compliance Unit and agreed on the final edits to the Quarterly
ReviewGuideliines.The Quarterly Review Guidelines Unit Order was signed by the North Patrol Division Chief on November 13, 2019,. and is currently being implemented with the first Quarterly Review due, in January 2020. It is regrettable that it took the Department some nine monthsr fmm Februairy to November 20119, to finalize the Quarterly Rev1iew Guidelines and sign the Chiefs Unit Ordlerfor implementation. The delay has extended the time it will take to determine compliance with the Accountability section.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July- De,cember 20119

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 56 of 66 Page ID #:699

In the final plan agreed upon by the Parties, the station operations liieutenants will be responsible for reviewing 1the ,data systems and collecting pertinent information to populate the Quarterl ly Reviews.27 The,y also will be responsible to have appropriately designated personnel review the various data systems to spot cheek the data to ensure the information is both accurate and up to date. Using this pmcesst any errors in the information entered will be identified and rectified, a1nd fol llow-up willl be,conducted with personnel as appropriate {paragraph 142)..
The unit commanders are responsibl le for reviewing the quarterly reviews and assessing the information pnmmted to evaluate unit a1nd individual deputy/supervisor performance, make comparisons., and identify po,tentiail issue,s and trends, These Quarterly Reviews, induding the
unit commander's assessments, wmbe forwarrded to the Compliance Unit for a quality assurance
review a,nd then to the No1rth Patrol Division (NPD) commander and the NPD chief for review and fina1l determination. The chief will respond to the unit commanders with any follow-up orders or directions based on his/her review of the unit commander's a,ssessment(s).

2. Steps Towa1rd Compl liance
a. EmployeeQuarterly Review
The. final approval and implementation of the Quarterly Review Guidelines represents a major step toward meeting SA Accountability requirements (paragraphs 1141-143). As implemented, it
establishes a farmalli'zed Accountability process incorporating reviews at the supervisor, unit
commainde.r, and divisioinlevels. As stated in the last report, the MT bel;ieves the Quarterly
Review process represents thoughtful and deligent work toward meetingi the SA Accountability
requirements.

b.

Performance ,Mentoring

The Parties ailso agreed to include informat~on in the Quarterly Review that can be utilized to verify that the SA requirements regarding the PMP are being met (paragraphs 144-145) .. This will enable manag Iement to determine: if AV personnel are pmvided mentoring in the PMPwithin 30 days after the, need for mentoring 1is identified, that appropriate proc :edures are in place for
supervising deputies in the progiram,. and whether there is appropriate coordination between
the Department PMP'and the NP'D PMP. Information that will!enable this process has been appropriately entered into the propc)s,ed Quarterly Review and will! be evaluated by the MT when
reviews and assessments are conducted.

27 The data systems to be reviiewed fer popu lating the·Quarterly Reviews include, bu1t are not limited to, the Sheriffs 11, the Obstruction Arrest Tracker,the P'lETrade,r, the Community Eng,agemenTt racker,the DDWSlogs, and the, PRMS.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July December 2019

49

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 57 of 66 Page ID #:700

c. Accountabilityin OtherSA Sections
Management Accountabilityrequirements of the SAare far broader than just those identified in this Accountabilitysection. In fact, they permeate every aspect of the SA.Eachprovisionof the SAhas several steps required to reach fullcompliance, one of which isthat the Department adapts its Accountabilitysystems as they relate to each SAsection so that the implementation and impact of these changes are tracked, assessed, and corrected as necessary. This includes deputies being held accountable for properly incorporating policyand training into their daily practices and station supervisors, commanders, and Department managers being held accountable for tracking personnel performance and establishing whether changes are having their intended effect.
The Quarterly Reviewprocess addresses many but not allAccountabilitystructures. Eachof the individualsections of the SAcontain their own Accountabilityprocesses that willbe assessed as part of MTreviewsspecificallyfor each of those sections. As compliancewithinthose sections is reached, the MTwillalso reviewthese processes from a systemic levelto ensure overarching Accountabilitystructures are in place. One such issue, discussed in this report, is the shortage of staff at the AVstations and how it has slowed progress on several sections of the SA,including Stops, Complaints,and uses of force. Another example isthe delay in finalizingthe Employee Quarterly Review.These are management issues that the Department has indicated are being addressed but, until they aret the impact on progress toward compliance willcontinue.

3. Next Steps
The Quarterly Reviewprocess provides the frameworkfor conducting and documenting the systematic reviewof Accountabilityprocesses for both the Department and the MT.Meetings with the stations and MThave been scheduled for early in the next reporting period to begin a formal reviewof the sufficiencyand effectivenessof the Quarterly Reviewprocess in meeting the requirements for Accountabilityas required in paragraphs 141-145. Thisreviewwillbe designed to not only assess the availabilityand accuracyof data and information,but also how the information is accessed, evaluated, acted upon, and documented by managers and how the quarterly report fits into other aspects of LASD'sAccountabilitysystems. The assessments will include reviewingthe Quarterly Review,the information contained therein, and the commanders' (the station commander and the NPDcommander chief)reviewand actions taken in response to the information provided in each report. 28 The MTcompliance assessments will include data validityreviewsof the databases and informationsources used to populate the Quarterly Reviewsin order to assess the accuracyof the informationused to prepare the reports. The MTwillbe particularlyinterested in and focus on the qualitative assessment of outcomes related to actions taken to address performance deficienciesand trends identified through this process. More broadly, now that the compliance metrics to use have been agreed upon, the MTwillreviewand assess how the various Accountabilityrequirements withinother sections of the SAwork independently, as well as jointly,to provide a gapless system of documented reviewand oversight of allAntelope ValleyStation activities.

28 The first Quarterly Reportis due to the ComplianceUnit 30 daysfollowing the end of the quarter being evaluated, which will beJanuary30, 2020.

AVSemi-AnnualReport IXJuly- December 2019

50

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 58 of 66 Page ID #:701
IV. CONCLUSION
This report on the status of the implementation of the SAdescribes the progress the Monitors have observed to date, the state of the activitiesunderway,and those areas that the Monitors believe require continuing attention and greater effort for LASOto ultimatelyachievefull compliancewith the SA.Asnoted throughout this report, whilethe Department continues to niake progress, there are several thematic roadblocksto compliance. Chiefamong those is the lackof attention and investment in achievingthe goals of the SAon the part of the highest levelsof the Department. Ongoing transitions at the level of chief of the NPDand above impair the progress of SArequirements (e.g.,complaints policiesand accompanying manuals,use-offorce policies,and the incorporation of community-oriented policing).The day-to day-work of the stations that is required under the SAis made infinitelymore difficultwith inadequate staffing at the deputy and sergeant levels.There are not enough sergeants to provide adequate levelsof supervision,training, and support for AVdeputies. And most importantly,inadequate staffing levelsare directlyrelated to the difficultlyin shifting from a reactive policingstrategy to one that is proactive, involvesthe community as partners, and is based on data and best practices.
There are increasing callsfrom the citizensof LosAngeles County for improved Accountability within LASDand investment in the relationships between the department and all citizens.As discussed throughout this report and prior reports, relationships with various constituencies,the Department's community engagement efforts,and community policingstrategy are among those areas requiring greater attention and sustained commitment by both the Department and the community.The Monitors look forwardto the Sheriffprioritizingsuch needed engagement in the AV.
Similarlya, s the Sheriffhas promised and the SArequires, continuous improvements in both organizationaltransparency and Accountabilitypractices are essential ifthe expectations and intended outcomes of the SAare to be achieved. Thiswill require sustained rigor in pursuing the highest professional standards and performance by Department staff in carrying out their responsibilitiesrelated to the investigation of force, the documentation and investigationof public complaints, the effective use of data to identify problematic as well as exemplary behaviors by deputies and command staff, and other areas.
The Monitorswould liketo thank the compliance unit for their continued investment in the required reform efforts. We also note the increasing investment from the station captains and their willingnessto have candid and sometimes difficultconversations.Thiskind of communication and troubleshooting willbe essential to the Parties and Monitorsworking together to support the reform efforts in the Antelope Valley.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July- December 2019

51

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 59 of 66 Page ID #:702
Appendix A The Monitoring Team
AV Semi Annual Report IX July- December 2019

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 60 of 66 Page ID #:703
The, court-appoi 1nted Monitors - Dr. Angiie Wol f and Joseph Brann- have assembl1ed an
expe ri enced team with credentials , and skills uniquely suited to the SAwork. The membership of
the MT was finalize .d in March 2016. The,two Monitors and seven team members have extensive experti 1se, and expe rience· in monitoring and evaluation work in policing and correcti ions. Additionally, most of the MT members have served in law enforcement or continue to have distinguished careers in this fielld, several! in the Los Angele ·s area. Several have served in
leadership positions in la1w enforcement or corrections agencies during the imp lem e,ntation of the compli 1ance period of a settl lement ag1reement or consent decree and therefore understand
the unique challenges that large. organizations face in those circumstances. The MT members
a1lso have experti1se in dealling with the diverse issues addressed in the SA, such as those related
to use of force, traiining, the FHA, Data Collection and Analysis, survey methods, and the
comple ·xiities of community engagiement.
This canstellatio n1 of team members was assembled to support the Monitors' ph ilosophy of collaborative reform; i1t is using the principles of evaluation and technical 1 assistance to provide
an actionable assessment of LASD's progiress toward implementation of the SA.

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July - December 2019

A1

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 61 of 66 Page ID #:704
A.ppendix B Antel!o,pe Valley Monitoring Website
AV Semi-Annual Report IX July- December 2019

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 62 of 66 Page ID #:705
This website allows AV community members to learn more about the SA, the backgrounds of MT members , aind the monitoring 1activities; , access documents related to the moni rtoring work, incliUding each semi-annual repo ,rt; follow links to LASD's homepage and other relevant websites; and-importantly - submit questions and comments directly to the MT.
The website's URl is antelopeva lleysett lementmonitoring.info

AV Semi-Annual Report IX July- December 2019

B1

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 63 of 66 Page ID #:706
Appendix C How the Parties and Monitoring Team Work
AV Semi-Annua1I Report IX July- December 2019

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 64 of 66 Page ID #:707
To complete the work of the SA, the Parties {US DOJ, LASO, and the County of Los Ange les) and the MT are in daily communication thmugh a variety of means. In each six-month period, the ,
Parties and MT holld multip le meetings at lASD headquarters; the offices of the Compliance Unit; other administrative offices; Palmdale and Lancaster stations; and various community centers , schoo ls, and places of wo,rship in the AV. The MT periodica lly meets in person with the captains of both AV stations and their staff and participates in multip e ons·te , meetings with lASD's Compliance Unit, usually regiarding specific issues such as policy or protocol review or data system discussion. The MITalso ho lds meetings with units or leadership from other operati iom that are critircal to this reform work, such as the AAB or the commander in charge of trainiingi. The Ml typically observes the semi-annual LASO risk management meeting and the CMF. Although some of these meetings and events are general in scope and pertain to several sections of the SA, most are related to spedftc sections or provisions of the SA. The, Parties and
MT also participate in several sma ll- and larger-group community meetings in Palmdale and Laincaister-often with the ,CACs-where ,various topics a.rediscussed, such as the MT semi-
annual ! reports, LASO and CAC community engagement reports, community perceptions about LASD and i1ts approach to polidngi 1 and other topics.
In addition to in- pers,on meetings, , a variiety of conference calls take place each month along
w ith daily email or telephone communication among representatives of the Parties and the MT.
The MT and DOJ participate iin a bimonthly call to address substantive issues and p-lianning; a similar bimonthly call invol lves the MT, DOJ,. and the Compliance Unit; and the MT and Parties, indudiing the Office of County Counsel and extended LASD command staff, participate i'n a monthly telle.phone conference call to discuss workflow, future events and meetings, and other sal'ient topics. Severall times per yeart onsite meetings are held where most participants from the Parties and the MT spend several days tog 1ether doing intensive work on various topics.
Videoconfe ,rencing is used whenever poss ilble when all are not able to be physica lly present in meetings. Documents are,shared extensively via email for the purposes of review and collaborative devel loipme,nt of the var ious pol icies and procedures, training curricul 1a, community engar9ement maiterial ls, a1udlits, and other written elements of the SA. LASO shares departmental data in various formats with the MT via secure email and digital medta.

AV Semi -Annua 1I Report IX July - December 2019

C1

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 65 of 66 Page ID #:708
Appendix D Monitors' Note , on the Settlement Agreement, . Constitutional ! Policing, and Organizational Change
AV Semi-Annual Report l1X July- December 20119

Case 2:15-cv-03174-JFW-FFM Document 38 Filed 01/24/20 Page 66 of 66 Page ID #:709
As noted in previous reports, the MT understands and remains mindful of the many complexities encountered when a large organization undlertaikesbroad policy changes as well!as the challenges of impllementi1n9 such changes..The Monitors also appreciate the considerations of LASDmanagement in dealing with matters of this nature, such as whether the changes willbe confined to the AVstations or affect the entire organizati ion; the !likelihood that other existing policies could be aiffecte,d and therefore need to be revised; that evolving "best practices" and legal considerations also infllue,nce polkie ,s rellaitedto use of force, video recordings,. and so on; and the m~ed in many instances to consu ~t wit h labor groups or legall resources before such policy c:hang1es can occur. Throughout the work to date, the Moniitors have found the Parties to be strongly commiitted to ensuriing that the requirements of the SA will not be weakened or overlooked becaiuse,of these considerat ions. Based on the ongoing co,llaboration amongi the , Parties, the MITbelieves the SA objectivescan be achieved in a timely manner .
Criticall to successfully implleme,nting and sustaining the SA reforms is a commitment to constitutional pollking pri1ndples. LASD(sabilitiy to meet these re,sponsibillities is dependent on clear policies and effectirve trainingi. Onlly when prepared with suffide -nt training, and clarity about the purpose of the SA can deput ies dearly understand what the Department expects from them
in their community interadions. Only then cain deputies honor Constitutional standards of policing. Department capacity is allso affected by the need to have sufficient Ac:countability systems in pllace to monitor and evarluarte employe.e performance and management oversight practices.

AV Semi-Annuall Report IIX Jluly- December 2019

D1

 
 u.s. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Assistant Attorney General 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW - RFK Washington, DC 20530
JUN 2 8 2013
VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL
Sheriff Leroy D. Baca Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department 4700 Ramona Boulevard Monterey Park, CA 91754
RE: Investigation of Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department Stations in Antelope Valley
Dear SheriffBaca:
The Civil Rights Division has concluded its investigation of the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department (LASD) regarding allegations of unconstitutional conduct by deputies at two stations located in the Antelope Valley cities of Lancaster and Palmdale, California.
LASD pledged complete cooperation throughout the investigation, and began taking immediate steps to proactively fix the deficiencies identified in the investigation. Since the conclusion of the investigation, LASD has additionally memorialized its commitment to implement further reform efforts by entering into a Statement of Intent, which broadly outlines remedies that will be negotiated in a final Settlement Agreement.
We found that LASD' s Antelope Valley stations have engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminatory and otherwise unlawful searches and seizures, including the use of unreasonable force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Title VI. We found also that deputies assigned to these stations have engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African Americans in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
The LASD policies we reviewed were, for the most part, consistent with constitutional policing. However, our investigation showed that these policies are not consistently followed, and that some types of policy violations are routinely tolerated. This tolerance for misconduct occurs in part because the accountability measures LASD has in place are not effectively implemented in the Antelope Valley. We found that LASD must do more to ensure that deputies adhere to policies, and that supervisors and commanders provide appropriate redirection, guidance, and accountability when errant conduct occurs.
We recognize the inherent challenges ofpolicing and the daily risks that deputies take to protect the communities they serve. LASD' s Core Values reflect that policing cannot be effective unless it is constitutional. LASD, through its commitment to Trust-Based Policing,

-2-
recognizes that "[ilt is incumbent upon law enforcement to recognize that without the full faith and cooperation of the public, the mission cifpublic safety is severely impaired."
LASD leadership's clear recognition that effective policing is undermined if deputies do not respect the rights of the individuals they serve, alongside the robust accountability infrastructure that LASD already has in place, including two forms of independent civilian oversight, is cause for optimism. We believe that this investigation and its resulting findings can serve as the foundation for more consistent adherence by all Antelope Valley deputies to LASD policies, and better implementation of LASD's accountability mechanisms. We have great confidence that we and LASD leadership share the same goals of reducing crime, ensuring respect for the Constitution, and building public confidence in LASD's policing in the Antelope Valley. We look forward to partnering with LASD and Antelope Valley leadership to devise sustainable and workable remedies in a final Settlement Agreement that will ensure that every Antelope Valley deputy shares LASD' s Core Values and carries out their law enforcement duties consistent with these values and the Constitution.
We thank all the members of LASD with whom we interacted, in particular, Sheriff Baca, Chief Anthony La Berge, former Chief Neal Tyler, Commander Bobby Denham, former Captain Robert Jonsen, the Office of the County Counsel, the Office ofIndependent Review, and the Office of Special Counsel, for the cooperation, transparency, diligence and professionalism demonstrated throughout our investigation. We look forward to continuing our collaborative relationship in crafting and implementing sustainable remedies to correct the problems our investigation revealed.
I. BACKGROUND
The Antelope Valley lies approximately 70 miles northeast of Los Angeles, California, and includes the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale along with unincorporated areas. LASD is the primary law enforcement agency for the Antelope Valley, and the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale contract with LASD to provide law enforcement services through two stations that are each independently operated by a captain. A total of approximately 400 sworn LASD deputies are assigned to these two stations. Historically, LASD's contracts with the cities have included the provision of patrol services. Between 2004 and 2011, LASD devoted extensive resources to policing Antelope Valley participants of the Housing Choice Voucher Program (commonly referred to as the Section 8 program), which is a rental assistance program that provides housing opportunities for low-income families.
Racial intolerance is an unfortunate part of the history of the Antelope Valley. As of 2010, the Antelope Valley had the highest rate of hate crimes of any region in Los Angeles County. In the 1960s, African-American families who wanted to live in Lancaster and Palmdale were directed to the historically minority neighboring connnunity of Sun Village because of discriminatory real estate practices throughout the Antelope Valley. In the 1980s, demographics in the Antelope Valley began to change as lower real estate prices attracted families from other parts of Los Angeles County, who were predominantly African-American and Latino. As the African-American and Latino populations increased, so did racial tensions. During the 1990s, there was a series of hate crimes in the Antelope Valley. In 1990, during Palmdale city elections,

-3-
an African-American female candidate's campaign sign was spray-painted, "vote white." In 1997, three white youths allegedly murdered a black man in Palmdale so that one of the youths could earn a white supremacist tattoo. In the last decade, hate crimes have continued to take place: two black men were allegedly stabbed by a white mayoral candidate's son, who was reciting "white power" slogans the night of the crime; two homes in Palmdale were vandalized with racially offensive words and a swastika; and in August 2010, a predominantly AfricanAmerican church in Palmdale was firebombed.
In recent decades, the racial demographics of the Antelope Valley have undergone a sizeable shift. According to the Census Bureau, between 1990 and 2010, the population of Lancaster grew from 97,291 to 156,633, while the proportion of whites in the total population decreased from 79% of the population to 49.6% of the population. During that time, the proportion of African Americans almost tripled, increasing from 7.4% of the population to 20.5% of the population; and the Latino/Hispanic population increased from 15% to 38% of the population. During the same 20-year time period, Palmdale's population grew from 68,917 to 152,750, while the percentage of whites in the total population fell from 76% to 49% of the population. Also during that time, the proportion of African Americans more than doubled, increasing from 6.4% of the population to 14.8% of the population; and the Latino/Hispanic population increased dramatically from 22% to 54.4% of the population. In addition, the number of African-American housing voucher holders in the Antelope Valley has increased in the last ten years. Between 2000 and 2008, the approximate number of African-American voucher holder families in Lancaster increased from 510 to 1,530, and in Palmdale, from 455 to 825. By 2010,73% of the voucher holder households in Lancaster and 69% in Palmdale were African American. By comparison, for that same time period in 2010, only 37% ofHACoLA's entire voucher holder population and approximately 40% of households on its wait list were black.
In Lancaster and Palmdale, some residents have been vocal about their opposition to the increase in the number of voucher holders, particularly the increase in the number of AfricanAmerican voucher holders. Residents' statements about this increase have included thinly veiled references to their Section 8 neighbors' race, including references to the neighborhood "growing darker" and "the creeping darkness." Social media sites and public message boards provided a platform for numerous community members to voice their opposition to the influx of AfricanAmerican Section 8 voucher holders in the Antelope Valley, including but not limited to a Facebook Page titled "I Hate Section 8." By way of example, on one such site, one citizen wrote, "My earlier prediction that the entire LA county section of the Antelope Valley is being 'ghettoized' has been confirmed by a tour of the area this week.... I see 'creeping darkness' even on the west side as well." On another site, a June 2012 post included racist lyrics from a song entitled, "Nigger, Nigger," which was written by a white supremacist in the mid-1960s in response to the civil rights movement. Sites like this one not only facilitated biased speech against African-American voucher holders, but also the targeting of specific voucher holders. In 2010, an LASD deputy took photographs of luxury vehicles in a home's garage during a Section 8 compliance check, and sent them to the administrator of the "I Hate Section 8" Facebook page. Subsequently, the family'S home was vandalized with the message, "I hate Section 8 you fucking niggers," scrawled on their garage door, and the family'S son had urine thrown on him as

-4-

the perpetrator yelled, "Dirty Section 8 nigger." The family relocated from Palmdale back to inner city Los Angeles for fear of further harassment. The "I Hate Section 8" Facebook page was removed immediately after this incident.
Some Lancaster and Palmdale city officials also repeatedly expressed hostility towards certain types of Section 8 voucher holders. While couching their opposition to Section 8 in terms of fraudulent voucher holders, Lancaster's Mayor Rex Parris and other City Council members made clear that their opposition to Section 8 extended even to legitimate Section 8 households. Mayor Parris, for example, stated that housing seniors and persons with disabilities is "the reason that [the Section 8] program" should exist. While vowing not to do anything that would in any way create obstacles for Section 8 housing for seniors or the disabled, Mayor Parris spoke of a "monster that comes with Section 8" and stated an intent to try to keep Section 8 voucher holders from outside the Antelope Valley from moving there. Mayor Parris also stated publicly his belief that it is "unfair" that African Americans receive a higher percentage of Section 8 program vouchers than their population share. Mayor Parris repeatedly said that Lancaster should be "waging a war" against the voucher program, arguing that the program is a "problem that is crushing [the Antelope Valley] community." On February 19,2009, during a Lancaster ~ection 8 Commission meeting, former Lancaster City Council Member Sherry Marquez' stated ,"Unfortunately, those that receive the vouchers do not stay in the City of Los Angeles; they migrate to the Antelope Valley. ... Lancaster soon will be inundated with another group." In Palmdale, the City Manager commented that the City needed to be "as vigilant as possible" with respect to enforcement of the voucher program rules, and a Palmdale Councilman stated that he wanted to make sure that voucher holders did not "swarm the valley."
In response to these hostilities, the NAACP and The Community Action League filed a lawsuit against Lancaster, Palmdale, the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles (HACoLA), and LASD, that resulted in agreements by both Cities to address the hostile messaging about voucher holders and the voucher program that have come from some city officials. 2 Both cities entered similar agreements with the plaintiffs in which they promised to, among other items, issue press releases announcing that the cities condemn discrimination and welcome people from diverse backgrounds, including participants in the voucher program, and to abide by all federal,' state, and local fair housing laws. At the announcement of the Lancaster agreement, Mayor Parris stated, "I'm looking forward to working with [TCAL and NAACP leaders], they're good men and bright men and we seem to want the same things." He went on to state, "Make no mistake about it, 97 percent of the people that are getting Section 8 are benefiting this community."

During her 2008 campaigu Sherry Marquez ran on an "anti-crime" platform that conflated the issue of crime and the voucher program. Her campaign materials stated Sherry Marquez was the "the best choice to fight crime and Section 8" and that she would "ensure that [the] city fights gangs and Section 8."

2

See agreements between plaintiffs and the cities of Palmdale and Lancaster resolving

civil complaints in The Cmty. Action League, et al. v. City ofPalmdale, et al., No. CV 11-4817

ODW (VBKx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8,2012). Neither city admitted to violations alleged in the civil

complaint.

-5-

Racial stereotypes evident in past statements by some within Lancaster and Palmdale leadership are also reflected within LASD ranks in the Antelope Valley. During our investigative tour, a sworn LASD supervisor offered an unsolicited opinion that all newly arrived African-American residents of the Antelope Valley were or are gang members. As early as 2004, the then Lancaster Sheriff Station Captain made statements to the press about voucher holders that included a similar conflation of race, crime, and the voucher program: "A lot ofthe
time [voucher holders are1trying to do a good thing: their nephew from South Central is getting
in trouble so they send him up here. He rewards them by continuing his gang activity." Between . 2010 and 20 11, civilians filed at least 25 complaints regarding deputies' discriminatory conduct, including at least two complaints alleging that deputies used racially derogatory language (with one of those remarks captured on a video recording). The allegations in these formally reported complaints of discrimination are consistent with the scores of unreported complaints of discrimination and harassment that were relayed to us during the course of our investigation.

II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Policing practices in the Antelope Valley reflect, and unfortunately contribute to, a harmful divide between some ofthe more long-standing, primarily white residents ofthe community, and newer, more often non-white arrivals to the Antelope Valley. Our investigation demonstrated reasonable cause to believe that LASD Antelope Valley deputies engage in a pattern or practice of misconduct in violation of the Constitution and federal law in a number of ways, including:
• Pedestrian and vehicle stops that violate the Fourth Amendment;
• Stops that appear motivated by racial bias, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statutory law;
• The use of unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and
• Discrimination against Antelope Valley residents on the basis of race by making housing unavailable, altering the terms and conditions of housing, and coercing, intimidating, and interfering with their housing rights, in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA).'
Our investigation also showed that LASD's accountability systems are not effectively detecting or preventing these patterns of unlawful conduct in the Antelope Valley. LASD's Antelope Valley stations do not properly consider and resolve complaints from community

3

Alongside these findings, we found that, while LASD had a past practice of violating

voucher holders' Fourth Amendment rights, this pattern of constitutional violations appears to

have been corrected, in part because LASD, with the assistance of its Office ofIndependent

Review, instituted new policies and practices that became effective in March 2012 (after our

investigation began) to prevent constitutionally impennissible searches of voucher holders'

homes.

-6-

members who allege mistreatment by deputies. LASD's early warning system does not adequately identify or effectively respond to Antelope Valley deputies with repeated complaints or other histories indicating a need for intervention to prevent further and perhaps more egregious violations ofLASD policy and the law.
Our analysis of stop and search activity in the Antelope Valley revealed biased law enforcement activity, as African Americans and, to a lesser extent, Latinos, are more likely to be stopped or searched than whites in the Antelope Valley. Despite the belief that more aggressive law enforcement practices are warranted due to recent fluctuations in crime rates in the area, there is no apparent public safety explanation to justify this pattern of racially disparate stops and searches. The higher rate of searching African-American pedestrians, for example, has not correlated to a higher discovery rate of contraband. In fact, in Lancaster, the contraband seizure rate is about 50% lower for African Americans than for whites.4 Additionally, even using regression analysis to control for a variety of factors, we found that for offenses where law enforcement discretion is especially high, African-American pedestrians in Lancaster are 25% more likely to be stopped than whites.
Consistent with the overall disproportionate effect of policing activity on communities of color in the Antelope Valley, our review of incident reports and interviews with community members revealed problematic and, at times, unconstitutional deputy interactions with individuals. Community members relayed consistent reports of deputies conducting inappropriate detentions, and our observations confirmed that these incidents were not aberrational. We found, for example, that Antelope Valley deputies, in violation of the law, routinely detain community members, including domestic violence victims and minor traffic offenders, in the backseats of patrol cars without any individualized assessment of danger or suspicion.
We found that deputies use unreasonable force against handcuffed detainees who do not pose threats to the deputies or to the public. Notably, the vast majority of the use offorce incidents that involved handcuffed subjects were against people of color. While most of these incidents appeared contrary to LASD policy, some LASD policies and practices appear to permit and even encourage deputies to use force that is out of proportion to the threat of harm presented.
We found that LASD's activities relating to homes occupied by voucher holders in Lancaster and Palmdale resulted in violations of the Fair Housing Act and, in some instances, the Fourth Amendment. At least from 2008 through mid-20l1, LASD participated in HACoLA's investigations of homes participating in the voucher program at disproportionate rates in the Antelope Valley compared to the remaining parts of the County where HACoLA's and LASD's jurisdictions overlap. Because the Antelope Valley's population of voucher holders has a significantly higher percentage of African Americans than voucher holders living in the rest of HACoLA's jurisdiction - 70% compared to 40% - LASD's practice of accompanying HACoLA on compliance checks in the Antelope Valley disproportionately impacted AfricanAmerican voucher holders.

4

We did not find a disproportionate contraband seizure rate in Palmdale.

-7-
LASD's Lancaster and Palmdale stations played a critical role in the campaign against voucher holders in the Antelope Valley, including by intimidating, harassing, and facilitating the termination of voucher holders from the program, both in conjunction with HACoLA investigators and independently. Our investigation showed that LASD's conduct targeted at African-American voucher holders violated the FHA. Despite the level of LASD's involvement with HACoLA's administrative checks in the Antelope Valley, LASD deputies involved in enforcement of the voucher program received no training on the program, the elements that constitute a violation ofthe voucher holder's contract, or the difference between conducting administrative and criminal investigations, until May 2012.
Though LASD's policies are generally consistent with constitutional policing, we found that systemic failures in the application of these policies and procedures in the Antelope Valley - especially those related to accountability - have allowed unconstitutional policing to persist and have fueled the distrust ofLASD by Antelope Valley's African-American and Latino communities. For example, despite LASD's comprehensive protocol for responding to, classifying, and reviewing civilian complaints, deputy violations of policy in civilian interactions rarely result in any meaningful response from LASD. Of all the 180 misconduct complaints, called "service comment reports," made by civilians over a one-year period in the Antelope Valley, only one was ever formally investigated as an administrative investigation. That case resulted in criminal charges being filed against the involved deputy. Among the other 179 complaints, handled as informal service reviews instead of formal investigations, were complaints of significant misconduct, including complaints of unreasonable force and discriminatory policing. The classification of these investigations as "service reviews" is significant. Only complaints that are elevated to a formal administrative investigation, as opposed to an informal service review, may result in discipline. This means that during this oneyear period, only one personnel complaint filed by a civilian was considered serious enough to be elevated to an administrative investigation (as serious misconduct must be investigated via administrative investigation rather than via service review) so that discipline was even possible. As discussed further below, LASD minimized the seriousness of discrimination complaints by failing to investigate any as a serious complaint that could potentially result in discipline.
The unlawful practices we identified undermine LASD's legitimacy and foster distrust within the community, especially with African-American and Latino residents. Such distrust perpetuates a divide between deputies and residents, making law enforcement efforts less effective and unnecessarily escalating daily encounters between deputies and community members. For example, routine questioning of community members about their probation and parole status, which our review indicated happens more with African-American and Latino community members, fosters distrust in the community. Although LASD increased its efforts at community engagement in the Antelope Valley after the initiation of our investigation, and these efforts have been well-received by many members of the community, these efforts do not displace the need to ensure that basic police functions, such as conducting stops and searches, are conducted constitutionally and in a manner that builds community trust.
Alongside the troubling patterns and practices we observed, we also found reasons to believe that LASD has the potential to more quickly resolve many of the problems we found than many other agencies. First, LASD has a uniquely independent and knowledgeable oversight

-8-
infrastructure. The Special Counsel to the Los Angeles COlmty Board of Supervisors, Merrick Bobb, in particular, has provided monitoring and recommendations to LASD since 1993 and reports directly to the Board of Supervisors. Special Counsel Bobb previously warned the department of the problems our investigation confirms. Additionally, LASD receives legal advice and operational input from the Office ofIndependent Review (OIR), a civilian oversight group created by the Board of Supervisors in 2001 and led by Michael Gennaco. We understand that Los Angeles County plans to create a new oversight position of Office of the Inspector General, which would be responsible for oversight and monitoring ofLASD. It does not appear that this entity need displace the Special Counselor OIR and, in any event, their deep knowledge of LASD and its systems would appear useful in addressing the concerns we raise.
In addition to our confidence in LASD's oversight mechanisms, our interactions with LASD leadership during the investigation also give us optimism about swiftly addressing the findings set out in this letter. Sheriff Baca has been clear in his commitment to ensuring that all LASD deputy officers comport their conduct to the agency's core values and the Constitution. Antelope Valley commanders, Chiefs Tyler and La Berge, were proactive in reaching out to the DOJ during the investigation, seeking information throughout the investigation to facilitate an immediate response to concerns we raised. Their initiative has led already to the implementation of many community outreach efforts, which have begun to repair relationships with many segments of the community in the Antelope Valley. This kind of proactive response from a law enforcement agency bodes well for remediation, and we commend LASD for embracing the investigation with this attitude.
III. GENERAL METHODOLOGY
On August 19,2011, we notified LASD of our investigation, which was brought pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,42 U.S.C. § 14141 (Section 14141), and Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000d (Title VI). These laws authorize the United States to file a legal action when it has reasonable cause to believe that a law enforcement agency engages in a pattern or practice of violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States. A pattern or practice may be fOlmd by examples representing typical conduct, as opposed to isolated instances. Int 'I Bhd. ofTeamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 336 n.16 (1977) (noting that the phrase "pattern or practice" "was not intended as a term of art," but should be interpreted according to its usual meaning "consistent with the understanding of the identical words" used in other federal civil rights statutes). For a court to find a pattern or
practice, it does not need to find a set number of incidents or acts. See United States v. w:
Peachtree Tenth Corp., 437 F.2d 221, 227 (5th Cir. 1971) ("The number of [violations) ... is not determinative .... In any event, no mathematical formula is workable, nor was any intended. Each case must turn on its own facts").
Our investigation was also brought pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968,42 U.S.c. §§ 3601-3631, as amended (FHA). The FHA prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, national origin, religion and other protected categories. More specifically, it is unlawful under the Act to make housing unavailable to any person on the basis of being a member of a protected class; to subject persons to different terms and conditions on the basis of being a member of a protected class; or to coerce, intimidate,

-9-
threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected under the Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a), 3604(b),3617.
The investigation was conducted by two Civil Rights Division sections: the Special Litigation Section and the Housing & Civil Enforcement Section. The investigation involved a review of over 35,000 LASD documents, including, but not limited to, policies, training materials, use of force reports, arrest reports, civilian complaint files, and operations plans. We also conducted a six-day long site visit to Palmdale and Lancaster, and interviewed numerous LASD command and line staff, rode with patrol deputies, toured the Antelope Valley stations and reporting districts, interviewed local government officials, and met with other relevant government agencies. While on-site, we held two community meetings that were attended by hundreds of community members, and conducted outreach efforts to interview additional community members. In total, over the course of the entire investigation, we interviewed approximately 400 community members in-person and by telephone. In reaching our findings, we worked closely with two police practices consultants with extensive experience in police practices and systems of accountability, as well as an expert who conducted statistical analyses of LASD's search and seizure data of nearly 49,000 pedestrian and vehicle contacts for the entire calendar year of2011.
Our review also included analyses of LASD files reflecting contact by deputies with voucher holders. LASD provided 157 files regarding voucher holders dated between March 2007 and August 2011, which do not capture every instance in which LASD accompanied HACoLA for an inspection. Nor do these files reflect every time that LASD conducted investigations of voucher holders without HACoLA present. Generally, LASD did not maintain records of the voucher holders it investigated unless a referral was made for termination of voucher program benefits or criminal prosecution.
IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Fourth Amendment
1. Searches and Seizures
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. CaNST. amend. IV. 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). Possessing reasonable suspicion requires an officer to be able to articulate more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' of criminal activity," but also "specific, articulable facts which, when considered with objective and reasonable inferences, form a basis for particularized suspicion." Id. at 27; United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (emphasis in original). Certain factors by themselves - including nervousness, suspicion of drug use, race, and presence in a high crime area - are insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. See, e.g., Moreno v.

-10-
Baca, 431 F.3d 633, 642 (9th Cir. 2005) (nervousness in a high crime area); United States v. Hernandez, 489 Fed. Appx. 157, 159 (9th Cir. 2012) (nervousness, "suspicion of drug use or a conclusory statement about officer safety do not provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct a search for weapons"); Miller v. City ofSimi Valley, 324 Fed. Appx. 681, 684 (9th Cir. 2009) ("persons of a particular racial or ethnic group may not be stopped and questioned because of such appearance") (quoting Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d at 1134 n.22).
Warrantless searches are "per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment - subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions," including searches incident to valid arrests. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967). Searches of vehicles are unreasonable when there is no officer safety reason for the search, such as when individuals are already handcuffed and the search is unlikely to uncover evidence of the offense underlying the arrest. Gant v. Arizona, 556 U.S. 332, 337-38 (2009) (vehicle search following arrest for suspended license unreasonable); United States v. Cervantes, 678 F.3d 798, 802 (9th Cir. 2012) ("police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained.") (quoting California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580 (1991».
LASD's searches of voucher holders' homes are subject to Fourth Amendment
restrictions, whether deemed "administrative" searches or otherwise. Camara v. Mun. Court 0/
City & Cnty. ofSan Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 540 (1967) (Fourth Amendment standards apply to administrative housing inspections). Administrative searches by law enforcement agents that exceed the authorized scope of their regulatory purpose are illegal. Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287, 294-95 (1984) (arson investigators authorized to conduct administrative search into cause of home fire violated Fourth Amendment when they continued to search home with primary purpose of gathering criminal evidence of the crime of arson).
Whether a nominally administrative search exceeds the authorized scope of its regulatory purpose, and thereby violates the Fourth Amendment, is detennined by looking at both the actual purpose of the search and how the search is conducted. See Alexander v. City & County ofSan Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355, 1360 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding Fourth Amendment violation where two police officers entered plaintiff's home with administrative warrant to inspect for violations of health and building codes, but for the true purpose of making an arrest); United States v.
u.s. McCarty, 648 F.3d 820, 831 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. $124,570 Currency,
873 F.2d 1240, 1246 n.5 (9th CiT. 1989» ("once a search is conducted for a criminal investigatory purpose, it can no longer be justified under an administrative search rationale"). The manoer and method in which an administrative inspection is carried out must be sufficiently tailored to the administrative goals of the regulatory scheme leading to the inspection. United States v. Bulacan, 156 F.3d 963, 967 (9th CiT. 1998). Administrative inspections conducted in a raid-like manner violate the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment. Gordon v. City o/Moreno Valley, 687 F. Supp. 2d 930, 944-52 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (unnecessarily extensive and intrusive manoer of warrantless health and safety inspections that included five police officers with bulletproof vests and firearms contravened reasonableness standard of Fourth Amendment because "they were more akin to those conducted during criminal sweeps").

-11-
Consent can make a warrantless criminal search constitutionally valid. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177,181 (1990); United States v. Graham, 480 Fed. Appx 453, 454 (9th Cir. 2012). However, valid consent to a search must be truly voluntary. Consent to searchcriminal or administrative - cannot be established by "mere acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority." United States v. Shaibu, 920 F.2d 1423, 1426 (9th Cir. 1990). This is particularly true where the overwhelming display of authority removes the ability to meaningfully consent. See United States v. Marshall, 488 F.2d 1169, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 1973) (finding consent not voluntary when resident answering door was confronted by several officers who rushed the door with drawn guns. Any indication of consent would have been "in response to an overwhelming display of authority under the compulsion of the badge and the guns.").
2. Use of Force
Excessive force claims in the context of an investigatory stop, arrest, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989); see also Davis v. City ofLas Vegas, 478 F.3d 1048,1054 (9th Cir. 2007) (considering the "quantum of force" used relative to the availability of less severe alternatives). To determine whether the force used is reasonable, "the nature and quality ofthe intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests" are balanced against the legitimate governmental interests at stake. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396; see also Blankenhorn v. City ofOrange, 485 F.3d 463, 477 (9th Cir. 2007).
In determining whether force is reasonable, courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including: "the severity of the crime at issue; whether the subject poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others; and whether [the subject] is actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396; Davis, 478 F.3d at 1054. The "most important" factor tmder Graham is whether the suspect objectively posed an "immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others." Smith v. City ofHemet, 394 F.3d 689, 702 (9th Cir. 2005). "A simple statement by an officer that he fears for his safety or the safety of others is not enough; there must be objective factors to justify such a concern." Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1281 (9th Cir. 2001). As the touchstone of Graham is whether the use offorce is reasonable, courts have considered a number offactors beyond those specifically articulated in Graham, which are not exclusive. Other factors may include, for example, "the availability of less intrusive alternatives to the force employed, whether proper warnings were given and whether it should have been apparent to officers that the person they used force against was emotionally disturbed." Glenn v. Washington Cnty., 673 F.3d 864,872 (9th Cir. 2011).
In the Ninth Circuit, "police tactic[s] that needlessly or unreasonably create[] a dangerous situation necessitating an escalation in the use of force" are "a course of action this circuit has expressly refused to endorse." Deorle, 272 F.3d at 1282 n. 20 (citing Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1291 n.23 (9th Cir. 2000». Other courts have similarly denounced unnecessary escalation of force and have held that each use of force during an incident must be justified and should be evaluated independently for reasonableness. See, e.g., Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143, 1150 (7th Cir. 1994) ("[W]e carve up the incident into segments and judge each on its own terms to see ifthe officer was reasonable at each stage"); Livermore v. Lubelan, 476 F.3d 397, 406 (6th Cir. 2007) (noting that "the proper approach under Sixth Circuit precedent is to view

-12-
excessive force claims in segments"); Wiegel v. Broad, 544 F.3d 1143, 1153 (10th Cir. 2008) ("[T]here is evidence that for three minutes the troopers subjected [the individual] to force that they knew was unnecessary to restrain him ....").
B. Fourteenth Amendment
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits selective or discriminatory enforcement of the law based on race. Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806,813 (1996). Discriminatory policing may arise from an explicit classification, or from a facially neutral policy or practice that is implemented or administered with discriminatory intent. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 457 (1996); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-41 (1976).
To assess discriminatory intent, courts consider direct and circumstantial evidence. Village ofArlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265-66 (1977). Sometimes intent may also be established when the effect of a state action leads to the existence of a "clear pattern, unexplainable on grounds other than race." Id. at 266. Additionally, proof of disproportionate impact may provide circumstantial evidence of invidious intent. Id. In some cases, "proof of discriminatory impact 'may for all practical purposes demonstrate unconstitutionality because in various circumstances the discrimination is very difficult to explain on nonracial grounds." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 345 (2003) (quoting Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 93 (1986». A law enforcement activity may violate the Equal Protection Clause where discriminatory intent was a contributing factor motivating the action or decision; the plaintiff need not show that "the challenged action rested solely on racially discriminatory purposes." Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 265 (emphasis added); see also Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 610 (1985) (discriminatory purpose implies that a decision maker selected course of action at least in part "because of' adverse effects on identifiable group). In Arlington Heights, the Supreme Court also suggested a "totality ofthe circumstances" approach by providing a non-exhaustive list of other types of circumstantial evidence for courts to consider when trying to determine whether discriminatory intent was a motivating factor, including: (1) the historical background of a local goverument's decision; (2) the specific sequence of events leading to a decision; (3) departures from nonnal procedural sequence; (4) substantive departures from a decisionmalcer's normal decisionmaking; and (5) legislative or administrative history, including contemporary statements by members of a decisionmaldng body. Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266-68.
c. Fair Housing Act
The Fair Housing Act prohibits a broad range of conduct that has the purpose or effect of discriminating on the basis of race, and the Act applies to the conduct of law enforcement agencies. See, e.g., Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City ofModesto, 583 F.3d 690, 711 (9th Cir. 2009) (fact issue precluded slUnmary judgment as to FHA claim regarding differing response times oflaw enforcement personnel in Latino neighborhoods as compared to white neighborhoods). Section 804(a) of the FHA makes it unlawful to "refuse to sell or rent ... or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race [or] color...." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) (emphasis added). Courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have broadly construed the "otherwise make unavailable" language

-13-
in section 3604(a), opining that it "appears 'to be as broad as Congress could have made it, and all practices which have the effect of denying dwellings on prohibited grounds are therefore unlawful." S. Calif. Housing Rights Ctr. v. Krug, 564 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 1150 (C.D. Cal. 2007); Housing Rights Ctr. v. Sterling, 404 F. Supp. 2d 1179,1190 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ("3604(a) also prohibits actions that make apartments effectively unavailable") (emphasis in original); see also United States v. City ofParma, 661 F.2d 562, 568 (6th Cir. 1981) (section 3604(a) claim in context of city's racially motivated opposition to public housing).
It is also unlawful under Section 804(b) of the FHA to "discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race [or] color ...." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) (emphasis added). Section 3604(b) applies "broadly" and "is not limited to those who are engaged in the 'sale or rental' of dwellings." The Cmty. Action League, et al. v. City of Palmdale, et al., No. CV 11-4817 ODW (VBK:x) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1,2012) (Order Denying Motions to Dismiss). This provision has been applied in the context of allegations of discriminatory policing, including enforcement policies and practices alleged to have been implemented in a racially discriminatory manner. See Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement, 583 F.3d at 713-14; Davis v. City ofNew York, No. 10 CV 0699, 2012 WL 4761494 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2012) (fact issue precluded summary judgment as to claim that the NYPD and the NYC Housing Authority'S trespass enforcement policies and practices, which were allegedly conducted in a racially discriminatory and unlawful manner, violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) by limiting public housing residents' ability to enter and exit their homes and their ability to receive guests).
Finally, Section 818 of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3617, makes it unlawful "to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected" by the FHA. This Section prohibits conduct designed to harass members of a protected class and drive them out of the neighborhood. The Ninth Circuit has held that the provision should be ''broadly applied 'to reach all practices which have the effect of interfering with the exercise of rights' under the federal fair housing laws, ... [ranging] from racially motivated firebombings to exclusionary zoning and insurance redlining." United States v. City ofHayward, 36 F.3d 832, 835 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted).
Proof that actions violate the FHA can be demonstrated under either a "disparate treatment" or a "disparate impact" theory. With respect to disparate treatroent claims, intent can be shown through direct evidence of discrimination, such as through open statements evincing discriminatory animus, or, as is more often the case, through circumstantial evidence, because ''municipal officials ... seldom, if ever, announce on the record that they are pursuing a course of action ... to discriminate." Smith v. Town ofClarkton, 682 F.2d 1064 (4th Cir. 1982); Contreras v. City ofChicago, 119 FJd 1280, 1291-92 (7th Cir. 1997). Moreover, a court is not limited to considering the motives of the official decision-makers themselves when considering whether an official action was taken for discriminatory reasons. Instead, public officials may be held liable for intentional discrimination if they talce official action in response to private citizens' discriminatory motivations. See United States v. Yonkers Bd. ofEduc., 837 F.2d 1181, 1224 (2d

-14-
Cir. 1987) ("[A) governmental body may not escape liability ... merely because its discriminatory action was undertaken in response to the desires of a majority of its citizens");
Town 0/Clarkton, 682 F.2d at 1066 (upholding municipal liability because there "can be no
doubt that the defendants knew that a significant portion of the public opposition was racially inspired, and their public acts were a direct response to that opposition"). As discussed in the Fourteenth Amendment section above, in Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266-68, the Supreme Court suggested some types of circumstantial evidence that courts should consider when determining whether discriminatory intent was a motivating factor in an official action by a local government.
A plaintiff can also establish a violation of the Fair Housing Act by showing a "disparate impact," which is to say a discriminatory effect without a showing of discriminatory intent. Gamble v. City a/Escondido, 104 F.3d 300, 306 (9th Cir. 1997); Keith v. Volpe 11,858 F.2d 467, 482 (9th Cir. 1988); 24 C.F.R. 100.500 ("Liability may be established under the [FHA) based on a practice's discriminatory effect . . . even if the practice was not motivated by a discriminatory intent.")'. Under the adverse impact theory, a facially neutral policy or decision has a "discriminatory effect" if it "actually or predictably results in racial discrimination." Keith II, 858 F.2d at 482. In addition to the adverse impact theory of disparate impact, the Central District of California has recognized "a second type of racially discriminatory effect that a facially neutral decision about housing can produce." Keith v. Volpe 1,618 F. Supp. 1132, 1150 (C.D. Cal. 1985). "This is 'the effect which the decision has on the community involved; ifit perpetuates segregation and thereby prevents interracial association it will be considered invidious under the Fair Housing Act independently of the extent to which it produces a disparate effect on different racial groups.''' Id. at 1150-51; see also Huntington Branch NAACP v. Town a/Huntington, 844 F.2d 926, 937 (2d Cir.1988) (finding perpetuation of segregation after a town blocked a housing project that would have started to desegregate a white neighborhood); United States v. City a/BlackJack, 508 F.2d 1179,1186 (8th Cir. 1974) (finding perpetuation of segregation where there was "proof that many blacks would live in the development" that would be located in exclusively white community); Keith 1,618 F. Supp. at 1151 (finding perpetuation of segregation when the ultimate result of the city's actions was to "prevent low income minority displacees from continuing to reside in [the city]").
D. Title VI
Title VI prohibits law enforcement agencies that receive federal financial assistance from engaging in law enforcement activities that have an unnecessary disparate impact based on race, color, or national origin. Specifically, 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

5

HUD issued 24 C.F.R. 100.500 under its delegated authority to implement the FHA. See

42 U.S.c. § 3614a. The regulation is therefore entitled to deference. Chevron USA, Inc. v.

Natural Res. De! Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984).

-15-

federal financial assistance." 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. LASD receives federal financial assistance made eligible under Title VI and currently has at least $30 million in open federal awards."

V. DISCUSSION

A. LASD's Antelope Valley Stations Engage in a Pattern of Unconstitutional Stops and Searches, Unreasonable Force, and Biased Policing
We have reasonable cause to believe that LASD's Antelope Valley deputies engage in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional law enforcement activity that reflects unlawful bias and that violates individuals' rights not to be subj ected to unreasonable searches and seizures, including the use of unreasonable force. These practices violate the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fair Housing Act, and Title VI. Our investigation uncovered an apparently unjustified disparate impact of stops and searches of African Americans and Latinos, as well as a practice of racially biased enforcement of the voucher program, unlawful backseat detentions, and a pattern of stops and searches without adequate legal justification.
1. Antelope Valley Deputies' Stop and Search Practices Have an Unnecessary Disparate Impact on African-American and Latino Residents and Violate the Fourth Amendment
LASD deputies stop and search African Americans and Latinos in the Antelope Valley in a manner indicating that stops and searches are motivated, at least in part, by bias. With the assistance of a statistical expert, we conducted a regression analysis of all 4,084 pedestrian and 44,672 vehicle stops and searches recorded in Lancaster and Palmdale during 2011.7 This analysis allowed us to control for factors other than race that could potentially influence the reason why African Americans and Latinos are stopped and/or searched at a disproportionately higher rate. All of the regression analyses conducted of this data accounted for a multitude of factors, including (1) the demographic composition of each LASD reporting district, (2) the ages of residents, (3) the gender of residents, and (4) the crime rates by race reported by each reporting district. Each statistic described in the following paragraphs was conducted using a regression analysis, which accounted for these four different variables, to determine whether there is a disproportionate effect on African Americans and Latinos. Additionally, the regressions are weighted by district populations, because the estimates of population and crime characteristics are more reliable in districts with larger populations. While it is impossible to account for every single factor that could affect law enforcement activity, the regression analyses account for the major factors that influence law enforcement activity, including crime rates. Even after accounting for all these factors, the analysis shows that none of these factors could

6

This estimated amount is very conservative as it does not take into account subgrants that

LASD may receive as part of larger awards.

7

Regression analyses demonstrating racial disparities may be used to prove a pattern or

practice of discrimination. See Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385,400-02 (1986) (alleging

pattern or practice of employment discrimination); Int '/ Bhd. a/Teamsters v. United States, 431

U.S. 324, 337-40 (1977) (alleging pattern or practice of employment discrimination).

-16-
account for the clear disproportionate effect that Antelope Valley policing practices still have on African-American and, to a lesser extent, Latino residents. This disproportionate impact thus provides circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266 (intent may be established by clear pattern unexplainable on grounds other than race); Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 345 (discriminatory impact may demonstrate unconstitutionality). This disparate impact also appears to be unnecessary and thus in violation of Title VI.
Pedestrian Stops and Searches. Our statistical analysis of 2011 pedestrian stop data showed that the stop rate of minority pedestrians is disproportionately high in the Antelope Valley. In Palmdale, African-American and Latino pedestrians are stopped at a rate 33% higher than if there were no racial differences, and, in Lancaster, African-American pedestrians are stopped at a rate 38.5% higher than if there were no racial differences. In Lancaster, the aggressive pedestrian stop rate of African Americans cannot be justified by demonstrating that the higher rate of stops results in discovery of more contraband. In fact, a regression analysis controlling for the factors described above indicates that there is about a 50% lower rate of contraband seizure for African-American pedestrians compared to whites. In Palmdale, there was no statistically significant difference in contraband discovery rates by race. The low contraband seizure rate for African Americans indicates that, overall, LASD deputies in the Antelope Valley appear to have a less accurate threshold of suspicion for searching African Americans, and that the greater frequency of searches of African Americans cannot be explained by a greater likelihood that they are carrying contraband (such as illicit drugs or weapons).
Vehicle Stops and Searches. Though the analysis of Antelope Valley's 2011 vehicle stops alone did not reveal any racial disparities, the analysis of the searches resulting from vehicle stops revealed a stark effect on African Americans and, to a lesser extent, Latinos. Controlling for potential intervening factors, the regression analysis revealed a finding that, following vehicle stops, the search rate of the persons of African Americans in the Antelope Valley is 10-15 percentage points higher than that of whites, and the disparity in the search rate of Latinos in the Antelope Valley is also statistically significant. Additionally, across the Antelope Valley, the vehicles of African Americans are searched at an 8-14 percentage point higher rate than whites. The analysis also revealed that, in vehicle stops, Latinos and their vehicles are searched at a statistically significant disparate rate.'

8

These analyses are statistically significant because the likelihood that the racial

disparities in the analyses arose randomly or by chance is less than five percent. Additionally,

differences between the expected and observed values for African Americans and Latinos

subjected to policing activity that are outside two standard deviations may be sufficient to show

discrimination. See Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 496 n.17 (1977) (In a case involving

underrepresentation of Mexican Americans on grand juries, the Court stated, "[I] f the difference

between the expected value and the observed number is greater than two or three standard

deviations, then the hypothesis that the jury drawing was random would be suspect to a social

scientist.")

-17-

Discretionary Offenses. The data also shows a clear racial disparity for African Americans when stopped for offenses where law enforcement discretion is greatest. Such charges include offenses such as crossing against a traffic light, jaywalking, failing to yield right of way, or walking on the wrong side of the street. Controlling for possible intervening factors discussed above, we found that an African-American pedestrian in Lancaster is over 25% more likely than a white pedestrian to be stopped for a discretionary offense. A large number of these stops, for minor offenses such as jaywalking, also resulted in questionable pat downs and consent searches.
The disparate contraband discovery rate discussed above can alone indicate biased policing. The discovery rate should be the same regardless of race if individualized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing, rather than race, is fueling the suspicion that leads to the search. It is unclear, however, whether disparate discovery rates in the Antelope Valley stem from bias because of the significant number of purported consent searches and, to a lesser extent, parolee/probationer searches conducted by Antelope Valley deputies, which do not require individualized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. See Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 856 (holding that suspicionless searches of parolees are constitutional because parolees consent to suspicionless searches as condition of parole).'
What is clear, however, is that LASD's search tactics place a disproportionate burden on African Americans in the Antelope Valley, in that African Americans are significantly more likely to be searched even if they are not carrying contraband. We know also, based upon the scores of complaints we received about LASD's search practices during our interviews of community members, that this practice is a significant cause of the divide between LASD, and Latinos and African Americans in the Antelope Valley. Over and over again, we heard disturbingly similar accounts of Antelope Valley deputies pulling over African-American and Latino pedestrians and drivers, searching their persons and/or cars, and releasing them without a citation or any information about why they were initially stopped.
In addition, if a deputy's decision to ask an individual whether he or she is on probation or parole prior to a search is in part prompted by the race of the individual, this constitutes unlawful discrimination. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the selective enforcement of the law based on race); Richards v. City of Los Angeles, 261 Fed. Appx. 63,65-66 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that a claim of racial harassment by police on the basis of race constitutes Fourteenth Amendment claim). While it is lawful to ask about an individual's probation or parole status even if there is no reasonable suspicion of

9

While the patrol log contains a data field for deputies to record the category of a search-

for example, as a consent search, a search incident to arrest, or a pat down - there is no separate

data field where deputies document whether a civilian was subject to search because of his

parole or probation status. Further, LASD's directive regarding "Logging Public Contacts" does

not require deputies to provide a narrative that articulates the probable cause justifying the search

as opposed to the stop. There does not appear to be any documentation of an individual's

informed consent to search, outside the recent policy changes regarding the voucher program,

other than a deputy's patrol log entry.

-18-
criminal activity, the practice of routinely asking individuals whether they are on probation or parole has an impact on both the perception and reality of bias in LASD. 10 Our review of a year's worth of civilian complaints indicates that all people who stated that they were asked about their probation or parole status were African-American or Latino.
It is thus clear that LASD spends significant resources, in terms of time and community trust, conducting searches that turn up nothing. Therefore, it is incumbent upon LASD to: (1) better track and analyze data so that it can ensure that a legitimate law enforcement purpose, rather than bias, is fueling these disparate seizure rates; (2) reassess its emphasis on consent and probation or parole status searches and determine whether there are steps it can take to reduce the divisiveness and potential for constitutional harm of this heavy handed approach;!! and, (3) enhance policy and training to ensure that officers understand that it is a violation of law to ask, based on an individual's race or ethnicity, whether someone would consent to search or is on probation or parole. See Whren, 517 U.S. at 813 (Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the selective enforcement of the law based on race); Rodriguez v. Cal. Hwy. Patrol, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1131, 1140 n.5 (N.D. Cal. 2000) ("It is settled law that race or appearance alone is insufficient to justify a stop or arrest.").

10

During an investigation into one African-American civilian's complaint that he was

questioned about his probation or parole status for no reason during a traffic stop, one involved

deputy told the LASD investigator that he "always asks everyone he stops" about their probation

or parole status "to get into cars," that is, as a pretext to search vehicles. The other involved

deputy told the investigator that he instructs all deputy trainees to ask those same questions

during every stop. To his credit, the lieutenant who reviewed this civilian complaint advised

both deputies that some people "will be offended and become angry if they are immediately

asked about being on parole, or probation, when they are first contacted on a traffic stop." The

deputy still insisted that he would continue to ask such questions, dismissive of the potential

impact that the practice might have on his relationship with the community. A recent 2012

Lancaster Fourth Amendment training curriculum provides guidance about searches of

probationers and parolees, but still does not address the underlying practice of questioning. The

deputy's statements are consistent with what we heard from African-American and Latino

Antelope Valley residents who felt that deputies assumed they had criminal records when they

were asked about probation or parole status at the outset of minor police-civilian interactions,

such as low-level traffic stops.

11

Other jurisdictions have significantly more restrained stop and consent search policies,

whether voluntarily or by law, with no indication that this compromises public safety. See e.g.,

State v. Carty, 790 A.2d 903,912 (N.J. 2002) (consent searches of vehicles without independent

reasonable suspicion violate state constitution); State v. Ferrier, 960 P.2d 927, 929-30 (Wash.

1998) (failure to provide informed consent vitiates legitimacy of consent); State v. Ladson, 979

P.2d 833,838-39 (Wash. 1999) (use of pretext stops for warrantless searches or seizures violates

state constitution).

-19-

2. Enforcement of the Housing Choice Voucher Program in the Antelope Valley Reflected Bias and Violated the Fair Housing Act and the Fourth Amendment
In response to racially-charged opposition to the growing presence of African-American voucher holders in the Antelope Valley, and amid a climate of tolerance for racially derogatory conduct within the LASD, the LASD teamed with the Housing Authority of Los Angeles County (HACoLA) to pursue enforcement of the voucher program. Lancaster and Palmdale city officials initiated the campaign of enforcement by entering into Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with HACoLA to hire and pay for dedicated fraud investigators. As a result of the MOUs, enforcement of the voucher program in Lancaster and Palmdale differed from enforcement of the voucher program throughout the rest of the county in both qualitative and quantitative ways, and was carried out with the intent that African-American voucher holders leave Antelope Valley. All of the fraud investigators were former LASD deputies, worked out of office space in the Lancaster or Palmdale sheriffs stations, and were issued LASD email addresses to conduct their HACoLA business. In addition, a Palmdale deputy coordinated with a dedicated district attorney investigator to specifically develop criminal fraud cases against voucher holders in the city for violations of the voucher program's rules. The MOUs were renewed and expanded every year beginning in 2004 until June 2011, when Los Angeles County instituted a moratorium on the MOUs in response to the filing of private litigation. 12
LASD played a critical role in enforcement of the voucher program in the Antelope Valley, teaming with HACoLA investigators and acting independently to pursue enforcement efforts at voucher program households, including by intimidating, harassing, and facilitating the termination of voucher holders from the program. Among other things, LASD: (1) sent numerous deputies on HACoLA compliance checks of the homes of voucher holders, often in the absence of any legitimate justification; (2) accompanied HACoLA on a disproportionately large percentage of compliance checks in the Antelope Valley as compared to other areas of Los Angeles County where HACoLA's and LASD's jurisdictions overlap; (3) allowed deputies to directly question voucher holders about their compliance with the voucher program's rules; (4) referred voucher holders for criminal prosecution for voucher program violations; (5) independently used law enforcement tools, such as probation/parole checks and arrest warrants, to obtain information about voucher program violations; (6) failed to properly issue Miranda waruings even when deputies had a legitimate reason to enter the home; and (7) provided confidential information about voucher holders to third parties.
As mentioned above, LASD's efforts with respect to voucher program compliance in the Antelope Valley were conducted in a manner that was qualitatively and quantitatively different from enforcement of the voucher program throughout the rest of the county. In the conduct of these efforts, LASD departed from standard or proper procedures in a number of important ways; for example, as described below and elsewhere in this letter, deputies often departed from department policies and procedures that require a warrant or, in its absence, consent to enter and

12

The County agreed not to renew the MOUs with Lancaster and Palmdale for a period of

three years as part of a settlement agreement reached with private plaintiffs in March 2012.

-20-
search a resident's home. Moreover, LASD's conduct had serious consequences for voucher holders in the Antelope Valley, including (in some cases) termination from the voucher program, criminal prosecution for administrative violations, and relocation from the Antelope Valley for fear of further law enforcement harassment.
Vigorous enforcement of the voucher program would not, on its own, violate the FHA. However, here, LASD's enforcement efforts were part of racially biased opposition to voucher holders, and were based on an unsubstantiated and racially stereotypical correlation of race and crime - including that African-American voucher holders in the Antelope Valley were gang members and that the increase in voucher holders had brought crime to the Antelope Valley. As described above, in determining whether conduct violates the FHA, courts look to a wide range of circumstantial evidence, including the historical background against which the conduct takes place; the specific sequence of events leading to the conduct; departures from normal procedures; and statements by the actors evidencing racial bias. See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266. Reliance on circumstantial evidence is necessary, especially when dealing with municipal entities, because courts recognize "municipal officials ... seldom, if ever, announce on the record that they are pursuing a course of action ... to discriminate." Smith v. Town of Clarkton, 682 F.2d 1055, 1064 (4th Cir. 1982); see also Contreras v. City ofChicago, 119 F.3d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1997).
a) LASD's Enforcement of Voucher Program Rules Differed in the Antelope Valley and Was Not Justified by Legitimate Law Enforcement Concerns
HACoLA may initiate compliance investigations when it has information that a voucher holder is not abiding by the program requirements. A compliance investigation may include an evaluation of the voucher holder's home, which is commonly referred to as a compliance check. These compliance checks are not criminal investigations and HACoLA investigators are not entitled to enter the voucher holder's home without first obtaining consent to enter. Refusal by a person present at the residence to provide consent CalIDot itselfjeopardize the household's housing assistance benefits. If a household refuses to consent to a compliance check, HACoLA may schedule an appointment with the voucher holder to address the program compliance concerns. HACoLA Administrative Plan Sec. 10.7.3.
In a departure from ordinary procedures employed elsewhere in the county, LASD deputies accompanied HACoLA investigators on virtually all voucher program compliance checks in the Antelope Valley from 2004 through 2007, and to a more limited degree until 2011, when LASD was notified of this investigation and when a private civil rights lawsuit alleging similar facts was filed against Lancaster and Palmdale. Our analysis of data provided by HACoLA revealed that LASD's practice of accompanying HACoLA investigators occurred in a disproportionately high percentage of compliance checks in the Antelope Valley as compared to the rest of the County, including areas that border on inner-city Los Angeles and that are policed by LASD. Between January 2008 and August 2011, a much higher percentage ofHACoLA field contacts in the Antelope Valley (where the majority of voucher holders are African American) involved LASD deputies, as compared to field contacts in the remaining parts of the county in which HACoLA's and LASD's jurisdiction overlap (where African Americans are not the majority of voucher holders).

-21-
More often than not, multiple deputy sheriffs, sometimes as many as nine, would accompany HACoLA investigators on their administrative housing checks. Deputies would routinely approach the voucher holder's home with guns drawn, occasionally in full SWAT armor, and conduct searches and questioning once inside. In over 40% of the cases in which LASD's files indicated the number of deputies involved, six or more deputies were present. The sheer numbers of armed, uniformed deputies who participated in many of the compliance checks call into question whether voucher holders were able to give meaningful consent to compliance inspections by HACoLA investigators. See Gordon v. City a/Moreno Valley, 687 F. Supp. 2d 930, 944-52 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (concluding that the unnecessarily extensive and intrusive manner of warrantless health and safety inspections that included five police officers with bulletproof vests and firearms contravened the reasonableness standard of Fourth Amendment because "they were more akin to those conducted during criminal sweeps"); United States v. Marshall, 488 F.2d 1169, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 1973) (finding that consent was not voluntary when a resident answering the door was confronted by several officers who rushed the door with drawn guns because any indication of consent would have been "in response to an overwhelming display of authority under the compulsion of the badge and the guns"). Moreover, LASD deputies failed to acquire separate consent to enable them to legally accompany HACoLA investigators into voucher holders' homes. See discussion below for Fourth Amendment implications.
Of the 157 files provided by LASD, less than one-half included information demonstrating any reason for deputy presence, whether ensuring the safety of HACoLA investigators or furthering a proper law enforcement purpose, such as conducting a probation or parole compliance search or serving a warrant. Moreover, only one-quarter of the files that indicate the number of deputies present describe circumstances that would justify the number of deputies who responded. For example, of the files that specifically articulated a need to provide for investigator safety and stated no other basis for deputy presence, often four to six deputies were involved when one or two deputies should have adequately addressed that need.
Additionally, LASD deputies often improperly comingled their law enforcement functions with the administrative process and participated in HACoLA investigations beyond the scope of securing investigator safety. Courts have emphasized the importance of keeping criminal investigations separate from administrative searches. See Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 (1971), Sanchez v. Cnty. a/San Diego, 464 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, courts have held that the manner and method in which an administrative inspection is carried out must be narrowly tailored to the administrative goals ofthe inspection. See United States v. Bulacan, 156 F.3d 963,967-68 (9th Cir. 1998). As a result of these practices, LASD deputies were able to interview people and conduct searches before the individuals understood their rights, including that they might be incriminating themselves by participating in the. housing contract compliance check. For example, deputies questioned voucher holders during compliance checks about infonnation such as employment history and who resided in the home; these questions had no purpose other than to substantiate voucher program violations. LASD deputies would also use infonnation gathered during these compliance checks to further criminal investigations based solely on the voucher holders' alleged voucher program violations. In some cases, LASD also used voucher program compliance checks as a vehicle to further unrelated criminal investigations, gaining access to voucher holders' homes and their residents without providing

-22-
notice of their true purpose or administering necessary Miranda warnings. For example, in 2007, LASD arrived at a voucher holder's residence to serve an arrest warrant for driving without a license and to assist with a HACoLA compliance check. The deputy also suspected the voucher holder of stealing property from her former landlord. The deputy participated in the compliance check, but did not disclose to the voucher holder the fact that a criminal investigation was also underway regarding the stolen property. During the compliance check, the deputy noted the presence of an item similar to the reported stolen property and photographed it. As a result of information obtained during this improper search, the deputy later obtained a search warrant to recover the property.
As a result of LASD's conduct in accompanying HACoLA investigators on compliance checks as described above, voucher holders in the Antelope Valley were subjected to far more intrusive and intimidating searches of their homes, and in some cases, harsher administrative or criminal consequences to those searches, than voucher holders elsewhere in the county. Given the demographics and evidence of what led to this focused enforcement of the voucher program's rules in the Antelope Valley, this differential treatment of voucher holders in the Antelope Valley violates the FHA.
b) LASD Deputies Independently Targeted Voucher Holders in the Antelope Valley
LASD went beyond simply assisting HACoLA in its enforcement efforts. LASD independently employed otherwise legitimate law enforcement powers, including probation and parole checks, arrest warrants, traffic stops, and criminal prosecutions, in order to further the enforcement ofHACoLA program rules, facilitate the termination of voucher holders, and harass and intimidate voucher holders. Otherwise legitimate law enforcement action, aggressive or otherwise, does not itself violate the law, but here, actions taken by LASD deputies were part of racially-motivated bias against the voucher program (sometimes following specific emails making such bias explicit) and appear to have been focused on the ultimate goal not just to terminate voucher holders from the voucher program, but to force them out of their homes. This conduct, taken as a whole and considered against the social, historical, and procedural context, violated the FHA. "Even intrinsically lawful acts may lose that character when they are constituent elements of an unlawful scheme." United States v. City ofParma, 494 F. Supp. 1049, 1055 (N.D. Ohio 1980) (citations omitted) ("The character and effect of a general policy is to be judged in its entirety, and not by dismembering it as if it consisted of unrelated parts."); Harris v. Itzhald, 183 F.3d 1043,1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that circumstantial evidence, when viewed as a whole, may establish a genuine factual issue about whether facially unrelated actions were discriminatory).
By relying on probation or parole checks, which do not require consent, LASD deputies were able to enter voucher holders' homes to conduct searches and collect information pertinent to voucher program compliance that HACoLA could then use to support termination. Had HACoLA investigators sought to conduct those searches, they would have needed consent to enter. Similarly, LASD used traffic and pedestrian stops and arrest warrants as a means to question individuals to obtain information relating to voucher program enforcement. The following examples from LASD's files demonstrate this problematic conduct:

-23-
• In 2011, seven LASD deputies and a HACoLA investigator arrived at a voucher holder's home both to investigate possible violations of her voucher program contract and to conduct a probation compliance check. However, the lead deputy disclosed to the voucher holder only that they were there to conduct a "routine" probation check. Once the lead deputy entered the home and the voucher holder gave him information about the home's residents, the deputy told the HACoLA investigator - who was waiting outside - that the voucher holder's response did not match the voucher program contract. The HACoLA investigator and lead deputy then jointly questioned the voucher holder about her compliance with the voucher program's rules, which is documented in an incident report to substantiate criminal charges based solely on violations ofthe voucher program contract. While LASD was purportedly at the home to conduct a probation check, LASD's file contains no information regarding the nature or scope ofthe probation search or any probation consequences that resulted.
• During a 2008 traffic stop, deputies determined that an African-American woman had a warrant for driving without a license. A deputy then contacted a HACoLA investigator and determined that the woman participated in the voucher program. The deputy and investigator then engaged in a joint investigation into the woman's employment and the occupants of her home in order to find evidence of voucher program violations. At one point, the deputy told the woman that if she was honest about her violations, he would not file a criminal report and the only consequence would be termination of her benefits. When the deputy did not receive the admissions he desired, he filed an incident report to substantiate criminal charges based solely on alleged violations of the voucher program contract.
• In another case, in 2008, four deputies and a HACoLA investigator visited the home of a voucher holder for the purpose of conducting a probation compliance check of one of the residents of the home. The deputies had invited a HACoLA investigator to participate in the search although they had no evidence of any voucher program violations. Once inside the home, the deputies and the investigator identified property that they suspected was stolen, including a dolly marked as property ofthe United Parcel Service. Ultimately, the deputies arrested the voucher holder for unlawful possession of the dolly, which was estimated to cost $125, even though they could not confirm that it was stolen. Following the probation compliance check, HACoLA terminated the voucher holder from the voucher program for allegedly stealing the UPS dolly, along with other program violations they uncovered during the probation compliance check.
Furthermore, our investigation revealed that LASD took criminal enforcement action against some voucher holders, solely on the basis of violations of the voucher program rules. Notably, in some of these cases LASD pursued criminal charges despite the fact that HACoLA had already terminated the voucher holder from the voucher program. HACoLA administrators informed us that it was not their ordinary policy to refer contract violations to LASD for criminal enforcement. LASD referred these voucher holders to the District Attorney for charges of perjury (i.e., false statements on their housing contract) andlor grand theft (i.e., overpayments made by HACoLA). These charges resulted in some voucher holders being arrested, prosecuted for felonies, jailed, left in debt to HACoLA for restitution, typically in five-digit sums and,

-24-
importantly, forced from their homes. In just one example, three months after a voucher holder was terminated from the voucher program and opted to stay in the home and pay market rent to their landlord, a Palmdale deputy initiated an investigation into the family for "lying about their financial status to the Los Angeles County Housing Authority and ... defrauding the county in regards to receiving housing assistance." As part of that investigation, the deputy obtained a search warrant for the family's home. During the execution of that warrant, the deputy questioned the head of household about how the family could afford to continue living in the house even after being terminated from the voucher program and how they could afford various household items, including groceries, cellular telephones, a lawnmower, and exercise equipment, on such a limited income. At the conclusion ofthe search and interview, the deputy arrested the couple and confiscated all ofthe property (including the family automobile) that he believed the family should not have been able to afford as evidence of fraud against the Housing Authority. Ultimately, LASD successfully recommended to the District Attorney that the couple be prosecuted for perjury and grand theft of the total rent that had been paid by the Housing Authority, in the amount of $27,971.
Finally, LASD provided information obtained in the course of its participation in voucher program compliance checks to third parties, which led to the harassment of voucher holders. For example, shortly after a compliance check conducted by HACoLA and LASD where they photographed luxury vehicles in the voucher holder's garage, an LASD deputy sent those photographs to the administrator of the Antelope Valley-based "I Hate Section 8" Facebook page. Subsequently, the family's home was vandalized with the message "I hate Section 8 you fucking niggers" scrawled on their garage door, and the family's son had urine thrown on him as the perpetrator yelled, "You dirty Section 8 nigger." The family relocated from Palmdale back to inner city Los Angeles for fear of further harassment.
c) No Law Enforcement Justification Exists for LASD's Targeting of Voucher Program Households
LASD's involvement in enforcement ofthe voucher program's rules was motivated, at least in part, by the unsubstantiated perception among some members of the Antelope Valley community, including public officials, press, residents and deputies themselves, that AfricanAmericans in the voucher program had brought increased crime to the region. The only crime-related analyses LASD provided to us in the course ofthis investigation disprove the purported link between the voucher program and crime in the Antelope Valley. In 2007, a Lancaster sergeant conducted a study which concluded that "Section 8 housing did not change the crime statistics within their respective communities." In August 2009, a statistician employed by the city of Lancaster, at the request of the Mayor and City Manager, conducted an analysis revealing that for the period analyzed there was no link between crime and voucher holders in Lancaster. The Lancaster analysis further asserted that in certain neighborhoods, voucher program households might actually keep crime rates lower. Despite these findings, LASD invested significant resources to investigate voucher program participants. Notwithstanding this focus and the widely-accepted belief, including within the LASD, that voucher holders had brought serious, gang-related crime to the Antelope Valley, there is no evidence that these investigations resulted in arrests for gang-related criminal activity.

-25-

We recognize that "problem-solving" crime prevention efforts require that law enforcement agencies develop relationships with other public agencies, such as county housing authorities like HACoLA. Effective problem-solving policing, however, requires that partnerships with communities be at least as strong as the partnerships with fellow enforcement agencies and LASD's Core Values reflect this principle. In any event, problem-solving partnerships do not obviate the requirement that law enforcement officers respect individuals' legal rights.
d) LASD Searches of Voucher Program Homes Violated the Fourth Amendment
Between approximately 2008 and 2011, evidence suggests that LASD engaged in a pattern or practice of Foucth Amendment violations, which included conducting searches of voucher holders' homes that exceeded the regulatory scope of the voucher program compliance check, and that were not justified by meaningful consent since so many LASD deputies were often present. See Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287, 294 (1984); United States v. Shaibu, 920 F.2d 1423,1426 (9th Cir. 1990). In mid-20l1, LASD, with the assistance ofOIR, implemented a new Field Operations Directive, titled "Housing Authority Non-Criminal Investigations! Inspections," that ceased the practice ofLASD deputies accompanying HACoLA investigators as a matter of course. The Directive became officially effective in March 2012. The Directive notes that HACoLA investigations are "non-criminal in nature," and that LASD deputies may ensure the safety of HACoLA personnel but must not participate in such investigations or inspections. The directive requires deputies to follow specific procedures to ensure that LASD personnel are present at HACoLA inspections only when necessary, such as when HACoLA staff have had prior confrontations with a resident, the resident has made threats, the resident is known to be in a gang, or other established reasons for concern over the HACoLA worker's safety. We further note that, on May 10, 2012, approximately 60 deputies and supervisors from the Lancaster and Palmdale stations attended a four-hour long voucher program awareness course, which was intended to enhance deputies' knowledge about fair housing laws and to inform them about how the voucher program works in Los Angeles County.
Likely as a result of sensible departmental developments, we do not have evidence of a continued pattern or practice of unlawful searches of voucher holders' homes in violation ofthe Fourth Amendment. However, LASD is still liable under the Fair Housing Act for its past conduct described above. 13
3. Deputies Unnecessarily Detain Residents in the Backseat of Patrol Cars in Violation of LASD Policy and the Fourth Amendment
Generally, an individual would not expect to be detained in the backseat of a patrol car when stopped for a minor vehicle infraction or while an officer writes a citation. Similarly, a victim of domestic violence who has dialed 9-1-1 would not expect that the responding officers

13

For the six-month time period from June to December 2012, HACoLA did not request

law enforcement assistance on any compliance checks, and law enforcement was present during

one compliance check in Lancaster.

-26-
will confine her to the backseat of a patrol car as if she were a suspect. Unfortunately, many Antelope Valley residents have come to expect this unnecessary and unlawful treatment from LASD deputies as a matter of course. LASD documentation indicates that Antelope Valley deputies conduct hundreds of backseat detentions every year. 14 Backseat detentions also are frequently associated with complaints against deputies: of 180 civilian complaints received in a one-year period, at least 30 involved backseat detentions.
While there are many valid reasons to conduct backseat detentions, the widespread use of backseat detentions without individualized justification constitutes a pattern or practice of unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment. Temporary detention of an individual during the stop of an automobile, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a 'seizure' of 'persons' under the Fourth Amendment. Whren, 517 U.S. at 809-10; Torres v. City a/Madera, 524 F.3d 1053, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2008) (officers' conduct governed by Fourth Amendment where individual was handcuffed and placed in back of patrol car). In each instance, "[tJhe length and scope of detention must be justified by the circumstances authorizing its initiation," and an officer must be able to articulate specific facts and rational inferences drawn from those facts that a person may have committed or is about to commit a crime. Pierce v. Multnomah Cnty., Or., 76 F.3d 1032, 1038 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Garcia-Acuna, 175 F.3d 1143,1146 (9th Cir. 1999)(quoting United States v. Sutton, 794 F.2d 1415, 1426 (9th Cir. 1986)). LASD routinely fails to make constitutionally required determinations of criminality, threat, or risk when placing individuals in the rear of patrol cars. Improper use of this tactic undermines LASD legitimacy by frightening and humiliating the people that deputies are sworn to serve and reflects an apparent presumption that every person encountered presents a criminal threat.
Not only is the indiscriminate use ofbackseat detentions unconstitutional, it also violates LASD policies that mandate judicious use of this practice. LASD's COPS Bureau Training Bulletin, reissued in January 2012 (and containing the same guidance provided in March 6, 1999), describes the backseat detention as "a tactic used by deputy personnel who believe the person they are detaining may pose a threat or be an escape risk." The Bulletin continues to state that backseat detentions "should only be used when necessary and fully justified, not as a matter of routine or convenience," and that it is a technique that "should be used primarily as a precautionary measure by single deputy units when conducting vehicle searches or other investigations on detained persons." A Palmdale Unit Order from 2001 notes that backseat detentions are "not generally appropriate for traffic citation issuance or non-investigative contacts." If the deputy is able to obtain additional LASD support right away, backseat detention should not be used "absent some compelling justification." The Palmdale station order provides further detail about what deputies should consider a compelling justification, such as when an individual is suspected of a crime involving violence; the subject poses a threat to officer safety; or to prevent a possible flight. Recognizing the constitutional consequences of abuse, LASD's Advanced Training Bureau Bulletin warns, "If the procedure is overused, or used in inappropriate situations, the courts may take this valuable tool away from law enforcement."
14 Patrol logs document 391 backseat detentions. Deputies are not required to document when they conduct a backseat detention, so this number likely undercounts backseat detentions significantly.

-27-
While LASD's backseat detention policy and training bulletin could benefit from some refinement, they provide generally good guidance about limiting the use of this tactic. However, even though the Department has had these directives for quite some time - since as early as 2001 and re-issued as recently as January 2012 - our review indicates that Antelope Valley deputies have, for years, routinely ignored this guidance. One sergeant told us directly that deputies use backseat detentions as a matter of course, which was corroborated through our review of documents and interviews with community members. Deputies even conducted improper backseat detentions while in the presence of Civil Rights Division representatives, about which we immediately informed LASD leadership. The following examples illustrate the pattern and practice of inappropriate backseat detentions that we discovered through our review of LASD policy, civilian complaints (otherwise known as SCRs), use of force reports, interviews with LASD deputies and leadership, and information provided to us by community members.
During one encounter, according to an LASD use of force investigation, two Palmdale deputies handcuffed and detained a domestic violence victim in the back of a patrol car for no articulated reason. The apparently unjustified detention of the victim agitated the domestic violence suspect, which then led to a physical struggle between the suspect and deputies, who deployed a Taser on him. This use offorce in turn upset the victim, who began to kick the window of the patrol car. In response to the kicking, a deputy sprayed the victim in the face with O.C. spray. Not only did the backseat detention itself constitute an unlawful seizure, but it may have been a poor choice tactically, as it escalated the situation and led to risk of injury to the deputies, two significant uses of force, and vehicle damage, all of which may have been entirely avoidable.
According to another LASD investigation resulting from a civilian complaint, two Palmdale deputies stopped a car for a broken license plate light and detained all three passengers without apparent justification. All three people were asked to exit the car, and two of them the driver and a Latino male - were detained in the backseat of a patrol car while the deputies checked their identification. According to the complaint, one of the deputies sarcastically commented he was surprised that the Latino male had valid identification. The investigation demonstrated that the deputy failed to document any "compelling justification" for the backseat detention despite policy requiring an explanation if two or more deputies are present. In fact, the deputy failed to document that the backseat detention had even occurred at all. The civilian complainant agreed to resolve the complaint with the deputy through informal dispute resolution, so LASD never formally determined whether the deputy's conduct was outside of policy.
In a similar incident, a Lancaster deputy conducted a pat down search and backseat detention of a young African-American female after stopping her for failing to use her headlights and having tinted windows. The deputy removed the woman from the car, directed her to place her hands behind her back, and conducted a pat down search. The deputy then placed the young woman into the backseat of the patrol car. During the complaint investigation, the deputy stated that the pat down and backseat detention were justified because the young woman became upset. The deputy offered no facts that would explain how the woman's emotion - a reasonable human reaction - rose to such a level that necessitated the deputy's intrusive actions. Rather, the deputy's decision to order the driver to exit her car, pat her down, and then endure backseat detention without adequate justification would be expected to escalate the interaction unnecessarily. Unjustified backseat detentions contribute to tension and diminished trust

-28-
between Antelope Valley deputies and the community. LASD does appear to be sensitive to the fact that backseat detentions can evoke strong reactions from the community, and has issued guidance cautioning deputies to perform justified backseat detentions with "courtesy, respect and professionalism." If a detention does not result in an arrest, the policy requires deputies to "explain to the detainee again the reason for the backseat detention," "request a field sergeant if the detainee wishes to complain," and make a detailed record log entry specifically noting the backseat detention. These built-in accountability and risk management procedures, when applied, could help to ensure that deputies use the tactic judiciously and that civilians are treated respectfully.
We laud LASD for the steps it has taken to eliminate unlawful backseat detentions since we alerted it to this practice at the end of our on-site visit. But LASD's policies regarding backseat detentions have been routinely ignored for years with impunity. Sustained supervision, and accountability for officers who persist in conducting unlawful backseat detentions, will be necessary to reverse this deeply entrenched practice. In sum, as in other areas we reviewed, LASD must do more to ensure that deputies adhere to policies, and that supervisors and commanders provide appropriate redirection, guidance, and accountability when errant conduct occurs.
. 4. Deputies Detaiu Individuals Without Adequately Articulatiug Reasonable Suspicion
The Fourth Amendment requires deputies to have reasonable suspicion before detaining individuals. See e.g., Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d at 1129. LASD policy additionally requires each deputy to articulate the factual basis for each pedestrian or vehicle stop in his or her patrol log. The policies specifically state that nervousness, furtive gestures, prior arrests, high crime area, or the fact that the suspect does not appear to fit the general ethnic make-up of the area are not factors sufficient to demonstrate reasonable suspicion. Our review found, however, that many log entries do not describe facts sufficient to support the predicate of reasonable suspicion required for a detention under Terry, or other legal authority. Deputy log entries instead provide conclusory statements such as: "persons acting suspiciously," "925" (internal LASD radio code for "person acting suspiciously"), or "hanging out in narco area."
The apparent lack of concern for articulating any basis for suspicion for even more intmsive detentions was striking. For example, a deputy ran a warrant check of two individuals in a high narcotics area, with no additional facts noted, except that it turned out the individuals were "just talking." Behavior that constitutes "common conduct exhibited by the population at large" is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. United States v. Adler, 70 F.3d 121, at *1 (9th Cir. 1995) (unpublished) ("hunching" over in an open-air phone booth is not uncharacteristic public behavior and insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion).
The general lack of further detail in patrol log entries, such as a corresponding call for service or deputy observation of crime, indicates that deputies are detaining individuals without articulating legal authority. This is especially problematic when considered in the context of our findings that African Americans and Latinos are stopped and/or searched at a disproportionate rate, and our finding of unconstitutional backseat detentions.

-29-

LASD requires that all vehicle and pedestrian stops be recorded in a patrol log. 15 Field Operations Directive 00-04 specifically requires that the narrative portion of the logged incident include the name, sex, race, and age of the involved person, the reason for the contact, and a brief description of the action taken by deputies. Unit commanders are also supposed to ensure that the patrol logs are reviewed in a timely manner and that appropriate corrections are made. We commend LASD for requiring documentation that provides such useful information and data to assess the propriety of encounters that occur between deputies and civilians. However, LASD does not appear to make meaningful use of this information itself in that it does not regularly review or audit the narratives to assess the reasonableness or lawfulness of deputies' stops. At least one training deputy told us that supervisors only review trainees' patrol logs with any regularity. Additionally, the narrative portion of the entries typically just records how a contact was cleared (or what citation or arrest resulted). This does not allow a supervisor to determine whether a stop was justified before the eventual citation or arrest. As in the other areas we reviewed, we fOlUld that in order to give meaning to these policies and procedures, LASD must ensure that its supervisors supervise more closely.
5. Deputies Use Unreasonable Force

While society entrusts law enforcement officials with the authority to use force, the Constitution places limits on this power to ensure that it is not abusively used against the very people that officers are sworn to protect. Unfortunately, based on our review of the 326 Lancaster and Palmdale use offorce reports originating between August 1, 2010, and August 1, 2011; all 180 civilian complaints filed during the same period; policy and training materials; and interviews with Antelope Valley deputies, command staff, and community members, we find reasonable cause to believe that LASD is engaged in a pattern or practice of unreasonable force in the Antelope Valley.

Although we found that force was used unreasonably in a number of ways, we focus below on two practices that were particularly prevalent: the use of unreasonable andlor retaliatory force against handcuffed individuals and the unnecessary use of fist strikes to the head and face of handcuffed individuals. We uncovered numerous instances in which the inappropriateness of the force used was readily apparent from the face of the report, and each incident mentioned in this section is based upon the involved deputy's own words describing the event.

Further, we found deficiencies in how the Antelope Valley stations implement the use of force review systems that LASD has put in place, deficiencies that compromise LASD's ability to effectively respond to problematic uses offorce by Antelope Valley deputies. While LASD supervisors in the Antelope Valley appeared willing to offer guidance or mild critiques of officer uses of force, we found a pattern of reluctance to hold deputies accountable even when they

15

A patrol log, otherwise known as a Deputy Daily Worksheet (DDWS), compiles a

deputy's daily entries from his Mobile Digital Terminal (MDT). Also known as Mobile Digital

Communications System, these tenninals are located in patrol cars and some designated

locations within the stations. LASD is transitioning to Mobile Digital Systems, which is for all

practical purposes here the same system as MDT. An MDT entry serves as the only record for

Terry stops that do not result in an arrest or use of force.

-30-
commit serious violations ofLASD policy, including significant uses of unreasonable force.
a) Deputies Use Unreasonable Force Against Handcuffed Individuals
(1) Handcuffed Individuals in Patrol Cars
In approximately 18 of 326 use offorce incidents, we found that deputies used force against handcuffed individuals that, based on LASD's own reports, appeared unreasonable. Force used against handcuffed individuals should be rare and, when it does occur, should be subject to close scrutiny. This is because a handcuffed individual has usually surrendered, and in any event is restrained, greatly diminishing any immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others. See Smith v. City a/Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 702 (9th Cir. 2005) (the "most important" factor is whether suspect posed "immediate threat to safety"); LaLonde v. Cnty. a/Riverside, 204 F.3d 947,961 (9th Cir. 2001) (when "an arrestee surrenders and is rendered helpless, any reasonable officer would know that a continued use ofthe weapon or a refusal without cause to alleviate its harmful effects constitutes excessive force."); Dearie, 227 F.3d at 1281 (an officer's "desire to resolve quickly a potentially dangerous situation" cannot alone justify the use of force that may cause serious injury). We found Antelope Valley deputies use force against handcuffed individuals with surprising frequency and under circumstances where the force appears clearly unreasonable. It is notable that in the sole case that was administratively investigated (and is currently being criminally prosecuted) out of the 180 civilian complaints received in the Antelope Valley over a year, the allegations involve the use of force against a man who was handcuffed while being transported in the backseat of a patrol car. Also, 15 of these 18 uses of force against handcuffed individuals involved AfHcan-American or Latino individuals. See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 265-66 (discriminatory impact can sometimes show discriminatory intent).
Antelope Valley deputies frequently rationalize the use offorce against handcuffed individuals as a necessary control tactic for individuals who threaten to, or are, kicking out the windows of patrol cars. But the force used in these situations does not appear to be a reasonable response to the risk of property damage since other options were available to address the harm. Several use of force incidents demonstrate the fact that supervisors provide deputies with guidance on an ad hoc basis in their informal debriefing sessions on how to prevent detainees from damaging vehicles without resorting to higher levels of force. For example, supervisors have recommended that deputies consider using the hobble; calling a field supervisor to the scene before transporting the individnal to the station; or properly placing seat belts on snbjects so that they are not able to kick the windows as easily. While this supervisory direction is laudable, as in other areas, we found that accountability for repeatedly failing to use reasonable alternatives rather than unreasonable force, was largely absent. In fact, our review revealed that one deputy used unreasonable force against a handcuffed subject at least three times and was not held accountable for this improper tactic.
(2) Retaliatory Force Against Handcuffed Individuals
We find that LASD deputies in the Antelope Valley use unreasonable force in retaliation for being treated disrespectfully. Deputies routinely use OC spray against individuals who act

-31-
out in nonviolent ways, even when the individual is handcuffed and does not pose a threat. The language used by deputies to describe these incidents in use of force reports often sounded so canned that reviewers had to check to confirm that they were not rereading reports they had previously reviewed. As reprehensible and provocative as some expressions of disapproval towards officers are, including profanity, racial slurs, or spitting, such behavior cannot alone justify using force. Properly trained police officers are expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than would the average citizen. See Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 462 (1987); see also Johnson v. Campbell, 332 F.3d 199,213 (3d Cir. 2003) (detainee's words "son ofa bitch" to police officer were not fighting words). Indeed, the credibility oflaw enforcement rests in part upon the belief that officers respond based on the rule oflaw, not upon emotional impulse, no matter how justified those emotions may be.
The following use of force incidents illustrate the consistent pattern in which deputies use force unreasonably in retaliation for a perceived threat that has already passed. In one instance, a deputy OC-sprayed multiple times a handcuffed and hobbled man after the man spat at the deputy. The deputy successfully applied a hobble restraint to the legs of a handcuffed man in the backseat of a patrol car after he began kicking the car window. When the man later began to spit at the deputy from the backseat of the car, the deputy stopped the vehicle, opened the back door, and warned the man that he would be pepper sprayed ifhe continued to spit. The man then spat at the deputy again, and the deputy sprayed him with multiple bursts of OC spray, each lasting for approximately two seconds. The deputy's actions constituted excessive force because the individual- whose arms and legs were completely restrained in the rear of the vehicle - did not pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or the public warranting use of OC spray. In a separate incident, a handcuffed man spat at a deputy while the deputy was standing the man against a wall in the Lancaster jail lobby. In response, the deputy immediately hit the man on the side of the face with an open hand. The deputy offered no facts that would objectively warrant this level of force and it appears the force was prompted by the spitting.
LASD's guidance on this topic is problematic and may help explain the retaliatory force incidents we reviewed. The guidance justifies the use of deputies' force to prevent spitting because it is a "battery" and viewed as an "attack," and provides that a heel palm strike is an appropriate use of force to re-direct or stop such an attack. The guidance does not make clear that force may not be used after the threat has dissipated. Furthermore, in its summary, the guidance takes an aggressive tone that may encourage retaliatory force: "Remember that the word 'force' is part of the very title of our profession: Law Enforcement." The aggressive tone of the guidance is consistent with a recurring theme that we observed in reviewing use of force reports and interviewing community members - that deputies unnecessarily escalate situations to unreasonable uses of force that are not necessary to obtain compliance from the subject, and that LASD practices, and in some instances policies, condone this. See Deorle, 272 F.3d at 1282. It appears that LASD guidance on appropriate deputy response to spitting is being conflated by deputies with the situations described above, where the deputies' force occurred after any perceived threat occurred, and where the force was simply retaliatory and could not be justified as preventing further risk.
(3) Unreasonable Head and Face Strikes of Handcuffed Individuals

-32-
Punches to the head or face can cause severe injuries to the individual, and additionally carry a high risk of injury to the deputy using such force. Deputies should only use this extremely dangerous level of force where lower force levels are not available or are ineffective, especially when the individual is already handcuffed and less severe use of force alternatives are available. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. LASD's Deputy Field Operations Manual and Defensive Tactics Manual state that "personnel are discouraged from striking an attacker's head with a fist," and encourages deputies "to use an open hand palm heel strike to lessen the potential of cutting injuries." LASD policy prescribing situational uses of force essentially ranks head strikes as akin to deadly force, stating they are appropriate only when a subject's behavior is "likely to result in serious injury or possibly in the death of a person." Punches to the face, as opposed to the head, are not considered deadly force, but this poor tactic can result in more injury to a subject and a deputy. The pattern of head and face strikes against handcuffed individuals we observed in LASD appears unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The following incidents are illustrative of this practice.
In one incident, Palmdale deputies used excessive force when they delivered fist strikes to a man's head while transporting him, already handcuffed, to the station. When one of the deputies attempted to assist the man out ofthe patrol car, he began to kick at the deputy, who then sprayed him with OC spray. According to the use of force report, the deputy believed that the man was attempting to lunge towards the door of the car to escape or further assault the deputy. In response to this behavior, the deputy punched the man once with his fist to the side of the head and then pushed the man back into the patrol car. While the man continued to kick the deputy, the deputy struck the man two to three times under the ear with elbow strikes. The deputy then grabbed the man's legs and pulled him out of the car. Even giving the deputy the benefit of the doubt that he believed that the handcuffed man was either a serious flight risk or safety risk, the use of this high level of force against a handcuffed man in the backseat of a patrol car was unreasonable and unnecessary to gain control of him.
A Lancaster deputy punched another handcuffed woman in the jaw while three other deputies held her down. The individual had been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and, while handcuffed, was placed in a holding cell without being properly searched for weapons or contraband. A sergeant then directed three LASD deputies and a custody assistant to conduct the search. Upon entering the cell, the woman yelled, refused to comply with orders, and began to kick her legs at the sergeant and one of the deputies. Two deputies secured the woman's legs as a third deputy held her on the mat. During this search, the woman continued to yell and jerk her head around. One of the deputies who had secured her legs was kneeling on the woman's back and struck her once on the jaw with his fist. Though the woman was exhibiting resistive behavior, a punch to the face under the circumstances was unreasonable, especially when considering the fact that four deputies - each 200 pounds or more - were holding down one woman who weighed much less than 200 pounds.
LASD recognized that this use of force was problematic. During the "training and tactical review" of this force incident, the supervisor advised the deputy who had punched the woman of the possible hazards associated with using personal weapons and striking boney areas of the body. The watch commander counseled the deputy regarding available options when dealing with handcuffed individuals and spoke with him regarding his duty to control emotions

-33-
during stressful circumstances. This informal counseling session was documented in a Unit Performance Log Entry, however, no formal discipline or accountability measures resulted from this incident. Two months later, a Training Unit lieutenant also reviewed the incident, and found that "continued control holds may have been a better choice," and that the "use of a strike to the face of a female handcuffed drunk was not likely the best option available." He continued by noting that an uninvolved individual's review of the video could result in a questioning of "the necessity of the 'punch' to the face." This review should have resulted in formal finding that the use offorce violated LASD policy and led to formal discipline accordingly. The tepid language used by multiple reviewers to describe a clear instance of unreasonable force reflects the reluctance we found to hold deputies accountable when they commit even clear violations of LASD policy.
b) Use of Force Related to Obstruction Charges Raises Concerns
When an officer uses force and arrests someone only for obstruction of justice, it raises the question of what legitimate law enforcement objective was being obstructed. Because of the potential nexus between obstruction and similar arrests and improper uses of force, these uses of force warrant special attention. LASD has been on notice of the need to focus on this issue since at least 2010, when LASD's Special Counsel issued a report on obstruction arrests and related use of force in the Antelope Valley. The Special Counsel noted that Lancaster and Palmdale had a high rate of obstruction arrests when compared to the rest ofLASD, with the number of obstruction arrests at Lancaster and Palmdale stations accounting for 25% of all obstruction arrests by LASD and exceeding the number of obstruction arrests for every other station. Lancaster and Palmdale also reported disproportionately high proportions of African Americans arrested for obstruction. The report noted also that, based on 2007 data, 30% of Palmdale's arrests where obstruction was the highest charge involved a reported use of force, and 24% of Lancaster's obstruction arrests involved a reported use of force.
We examined use offorce reports from August 2010 to August 2011 in which the subject was charged only with the following and no other crimes: resisting arrest or obstructing an officer in his or her duties, whether a felony, California Penal Code (PC) § 69; misdemeanor, PC
». § 148(a)(l); and battery on a peace officer or other public officer without the infliction of injury,
PC § 243(b Of all the use of force reports reviewed, approximately 22% fit into this category.
Perhaps most strikingly, we found that 81 % of the uses of force we reviewed where the only charge was obstruction-related involved targets who were African American or Latino. For the 25 felony obstruction-only arrests, 88% involved victims who were people of color. This is an extraordinarily disproportionate number of obstruction charges involving use of force against people of color and warrants close attention by the Department. See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266 (intent may be established by "clear pattern, unexplainable on grounds other than race").
The 201 0 Special Counsel report recommended that supervisors "carefully scrutinize these arrests to ensure that they are not being misused," and LASD drafted a new directive in December 2011 to address some categories of obstruction arrests. We commend LASD for developing a new directive that provides guidelines for addressing resistance and obstruction arrests, and believe that this directive, if implemented properly, will help ameliorate the issue.

-34-
The information we reviewed indicates that LASD must continue to review these types of arrests, and also pay particular attention to force used during obstruction arrests of African Americans and Latinos.
B. The Antelope Valley Stations' Civilian Complaint Process Undermines Accountability and Reflects Bias
To LASD's considerable credit, its policies reflect an understanding that for policing to be most effective, the community must see the police as legitimate partners in a cooperative effort to prevent crime. LASD calls this approach "Trust-Based Policing," and describes this as "the use of police resources in a manner that includes the public participation in the mission of public safety." LASD understands that "[t]he purpose of public trust policing is to provide a higher level of public safety" and that "[i]t is incumbent upon law enforcement to recognize that without the full faith and cooperation of the public, the mission of public safety is severely impaired."
LASD policies further recognize that this police-community partnership depends in part on fair treatment, and how the department responds when people complain about mistreatment. As described in the introduction to LASD's Service Comment Report (SCR) Handbook:
Public trust is vital to our mission, and rests on Department responsiveness to community needs and expectations. To foster public confidence in the Department and to promote constructive communication, commendations and complaints must be received with equal professional interest and courtesy, and given appropriate supervisory attention. This is a vital component of Trust-Based Policing.
In practice, however, the misconduct complaint investigation systems in place in the Antelope Valley fails to live up to these words, undermining community trust in and respect for the LASD through an unacceptable tolerance of biased and discourteous conduct. LASD gives too little credence to claims of misconduct originating from the community, and these claims are not being recorded in a manner that facilitates meaningful assessment of individual and unitwide conduct.
Our assessment of LASD' s handling of misconduct complaints is based not only on conversations with scores of community members, but also our review of civilian complaints, administrative investigations, use of force investigations, and policy handbooks on investigative processes, discipline, and discipline alternatives. Our analysis of these sources indicates that LASD's accountability systems fail to appropriately classify and therefore review serious civilian complaints; fail to adequately investigate or track discriminatory policing complaints; use inappropriate techniques while conducting civilian complaint investigations; and fail to identify and provide appropriate mentoring to deputies. These failings undermine Antelope Valley deputies' legitimacy and, as LASD recognizes, risk making LASD less effective at preventing crime than it would be if it had greater trust and cooperation within the Antelope Valley communities most in need of public safety protection.

-35-

I. LASD Complaint Classification Undermines Effective Accountability
Our review showed that, at least in the Antelope Valley, LASD overuses the service review process in a manner that undennines accountability. LASD's Antelope Valley stations have a practice of resolving nearly all civilian complaints of misconduct at the unit level through "service reviews" rather than as formal administrative investigations - in the one-year period we reviewed, all but one of the civilian complaints of misconduct were resolved as service reviews. Even misconduct allegations that are required by policy to be investigated by LASD's Internal Affairs Bureau (lAB) are instead handled as service reviews. The distinction is significant, as discipline may not be imposed when a complaint is resolved via service review, even where the misconduct is found to violate LASD policy. In addition, service comment review resolutions are tracked differently and in a manner that makes it more difficult to identify and respond to problematic trends in officer conduct.
LASD's policy manuals layout a comprehensive process for determining how to handle civilian (i.e. "externally generated") complaints. 16 When a civilian makes a complaint of deputy misconduct, a Watch Commander must immediately complete a "Service Comment Report" (SCR) to document the complaint. 17 The Unit Commander, which for the Lancaster and Palmdale stations is a Captain, reviews this information and determines whether to conduct a service review; conduct a unit level administrative investigation; request an lAB administrative investigation; or request a criminal investigation. If there is insufficient information to make this detennination, the Watch Commander must conduct a service review and report back so that the Captain can decide how to proceed. If, during the course of a service review, it becomes evident that the allegation is more serious than expected, the Watch Commander must stop and consult with the Captain regarding how to proceed.
LASD's policy manuals provide some guidance about whether a complaint should be resolved via a service review or administrative investigation. LASD policy states that the nature and seriousness ofthe allegation, the potential for employee discipline, and the deputy's performance history are "potential factors" the Captain may consider in deciding whether to resolve the complaint via review or investigation. Policy also states that a case should be assigned to a Watch Commander for service review where, if true, the violation can be addressed through non-disciplinary means, such as training, counseling, or mentoring. Administrative investigations must be conducted where an allegation, if true, would require formal discipline.

16

LASD's complaint investigation policies are set out in MPP 3-04 and in its

Administrative Investigation and Service Comment Report Handbooks. While in many respects

quite thoughtful, these three sets of directives are sometimes inconsistent, and, as discussed

below, require clarification and strengthening in some aspects.

17

Service Comment Reports document commendations and service complaints, as well as

"personnel" complaints, which are defined as external allegations of misconduct against a

member ofLASD that would amount to a violation oflaw or LASD policy. A service complaint

is an external commnnication of dissatisfaction with an LASD "service, procedure or practice"

that does not involve misconduct by a particular employee.

-36-
While most administrative investigations are conducted at the unit level, a Captain may request that IAB conduct the administrative investigation, based on the following criteria: allegations that, iffounded, may result in discharge; allegations involving witnesses spread over a large geographic area; allegations involving incidents of high media attention; allegations involving subjects who are supervisory personnel; allegations concerning sexual harassment; allegations concerning racial discrimination; allegations concerning gender discrimination or hostile work environment; domestic violence issues; and workplace violence. Some allegations must be conducted by lAB, including allegations regarding racial discrimination and those that, if founded, may result in discharge.
LASD's loose guidance for classifying misconduct complaints places broad discretion for accountability at the station-level in a number of respects. First, and most significantly, station Captains have wide latitude to decide at the outset whether there is even a potential for a misconduct complaint to result in discipline, as service complaint reviews "cannot result in any action beyond counseling, instruction, or informal verbal admonishment.,,18 As noted elsewhere, during the one-year period we reviewed, Captains precluded the possibility of discipline for every misconduct complaint filed in the Antelope Valley except one.
In addition, the prevalence of service reviews means that inquiries into civilian complaints of officer misconduct are kept within the Antelope Valley. The Antelope Valley stations tend to use administrative investigations for clear internal policy violations, such as a failure to perform to standards, but not to resolve external misconduct complaints. With most complaints being handled as service reviews, LASD's lAB has a much smaller role in reviewing or providing centralized oversight to the civilian complaints received by the Antelope Valley stations.
18 By LASD policy, service reviews may be resolved with one of the following dispositions: (1) conduct was reasonable; (2) conduct could have been better; (3) conduct should have been different; (4) unable to make a detennination; and (5) conflict resolution. LASD directives provide this additional guidance for each potential disposition:
(1) "Conduct appears reasonable" is the disposition used for complaints when review indicates that the employee's actions appear to be in compliance with procedures, policies, guidelines, or training;
(2) "Conduct could have been better" is the disposition used "when the employee's conduct was determined to be within policy and training, but the manner in which the employee handled the contact or incident primarily caused the complaint [or] cases where employees chose less-desirable or effective options between technically acceptable alternatives;"
(3) "Conduct should have been different" is the disposition used "when the employee's conduct was not consistent with policy or training, but not at a level warranting formal discipline;"
(4) "Unable to make a determination" is the disposition used when there is insufficient information to assess conduct or identify employees; and
(5) "Resolved through conflict resolution" is the disposition used when "employee(s) and reporting party participate in adequate discussion or dialogue about all of the reporting party's concerns."

-37-
Because of these effects on accountability, including the negligible impact of a service review finding that a deputy's conduct was contrary to policy, it is critical that LASD take care that service reviews are used only as strictly appropriate. Unfortunately we found that the service review process is overused in the Antelope Valley. LASD's Antelope Valley stations effectively have done away with "seriousness" and the deputy's performance history as factors in determining whether a complaint will be handled as a service review or administrative investigation, and handle nearly all complaints as service reviews, even complaints alleging misconduct that could result in discipline (including complaints offorce or discrimination), or involving deputies with multiple complaints.
During the year-long period from August 2010 to August 2011, Antelope Valley deputies received 180 civilian complaints of which only one was elevated to an administrative investigation. Thus, of the 180 civilian complaints about Antelope Valley deputies, only one of the complaints could even potentially have resulted in any formal discipline to the deputy, regardless of whether the complaint was substantiated. Of those 180 civilian complaints, 25 related to allegations of racial discrimination (as discussed below), and nine related to use of force. These complaints should have at least been referred to lAB for central tracking and assignment and, by policy, the discrimination complaints should have been investigated administratively. Conversely, all but one of the 25 administrative investigations involving LASD employees that were completed during the one-year period ending August I, 2011, concerned internal policy violations as opposed to externally-generated civilian complaints.
The impact of this failure to conduct administrative investigations, and thereby preclude the potential for any discipline, is particularly striking considering the types of allegations that were substantiated when they were investigated as service reviews, and the complaint histories of the involved deputies, for example:
• A deputy was found to have engaged in behavior that was inconsistent with policy and training after a civilian complained that the deputy inappropriately contacted a domestic violence victim, whom he had met while on duty, to flirt with her and to try to begin a personal relationship. Given the seriousness of the allegation, the station should have referred this complaint to the Internal Affairs Bureau. Further, during the one-year period we reviewed, this deputy had received an additional complaint, that did not result in discipline, for allegedly telling a female burglary suspect, "Don't think by showing your tits you're gonna get out of this." The deputy was not disciplined because both complaints were kept at the service review level. In addition, despite the similarities between the two complaints lodged against this deputy, he was not identified as a candidate for the department or unit-level performance mentoring program. (A further description of the performance mentoring program is described below in Section IILC.)
• A training officer and deputy were found to have engaged in behavior that was inconsistent with policy and/or training for improperly citing an African-American driver for tinted windows. The driver alleged that he was racially profiled and asked by one of the deputies whether or not he had just come from jail. The deputy and training officer stated that asking about probation and parole status was a good way to

-38-
be able to conduct searches of cars. (This same complaint is described in more detail in Section A.I above.) For both the training officer and deputy, this complaint was the first of three complaints in a single month. For the deputy, this was one of seven complaints received in an eight-month period. Because this complaint was kept at the service review level, neither employee was disciplined. Nor was either employee identified as a candidate for the department or unit-level performance mentoring program.
• Supervisors often also fail to investigate the full range of allegations referenced by the civilian in his or her complaint. We found several examples of service reviews where a complainant described several allegations, but the supervisor did not formally mark all of those allegations on the complaint form, or investigate them. For example, as described below in Section B.2, we found instances where a complainant specifically alleged that a deputy engaged in racially discriminatory behavior, yet the supervisor's investigation failed to specifically irivestigate this type of conduct. In another complaint, a civilian alleged harassment and an improper search by a deputy during a traffic stop. However, when the reporting party gave a more fulsome explanation of the incident, he revealed that the deputy also used force by kicking and pushing him, and the supervisor should have additionally categorized the complaint as a force complaint, further investigated the allegation, and categorized the investigation as an administrative investigatioQsince a use of force policy violation could result in discipline.
The Antelope Valley stations' practice of handling complaints of even serious misconduct as SCRs, and of allowing even deputies with histories of civilian complaints to evade being investigated with the possibility of discipline, fundamentally undermines any system of meaningful accountability. It also runs afoul of LASD's own policies meant to ensure that civilian complaints are handled in a mauner that engenders trust and community cooperation. LASD reports that the Antelope Valley stations have undertaken efforts to make the civilian complaint system more accessible in response to DOJ's feedback. These efforts are a welcome step that, alongside taking steps to ensure that complaints are classified properly and investigations are conducted appropriately, will help ensure that deputy behavior comports with LASD policy and the federal law, and increase community confidence in LASD.
2. LASD Does Not Adequately Investigate or Track Discriminatory Policing Complaints.
LASD's policies and Core Values strongly prohibit discrimination and bias. LASD's policy against derogatory language explicitly requires that deputies "not use coarse, profane or insulting language nor use threatening or uncomplimentary terms of speech, or use terms which would defame or demean the nationality or culture of any individual." In addition, deputies are not to "intentionally antagonize any person with whom they come in contact and shall treat all persons in a respectful, courteous and civil manner." In spite of these policies, and the Administrative Investigations Handbook's requirement that racial discrimination allegations require mandatory referral to the lAB, the Antelope Valley stations appear to tolerate deputies'

-39-

racially derogatory conduct by failing to elevate complaints to the administrative investigation level and failing to hold deputies accountable for policy violations. This has the effect of diminishing and devaluing allegations of discrimination made by civilians.
None of the civilian complaints of discriminatory conduct for the one-year period preceding August 2011 resulted in sustained allegations. Of the 114 Lancaster complaints, we found that 18 involved allegations of discrimination, profiling, or bias on the basis of race or ethnicity, either initially alleged or discovered during the course of the subsequent review. 19 However, ten of the 18 cases were not identified by LASD on the SCR as involving such allegations at all. Ofthe 66 complaints we reviewed for Palmdale, seven involved allegations of discrimination, profiling or bias, and six of those seven were not marked as "discrimination," and were instead categorized as complaints of "harassment," "discourtesy," and/or "improper tactics." When a complaint is not properly marked as discrimination - by checking a box on the service comment report - the total number of discrimination allegations from the community, or regarding a particular deputy, unit, or behavior, is not accurately reflected in PPI, compromising accountability and risk management purposes. Given the statistical and anecdotal evidence of bias described in the sections above, claims of bias and discrimination should be taken more seriously by the LASD.
We reviewed a number of civilian complaints that should have been handled as administrative investigations because they clearly involved allegations of racial discrimination. In one complaint, a civilian alleged that a deputy called her a "pickaninny." Despite the alleged use of this racially offensive language, the complaint was not marked as a discrimination complaint, and instead was marked as a complaint regarding the more minor issue of discourtesy. Instead of recommending an administrative investigation, the watch commander elected to resolve the complaint by conflict resolution, which is an inappropriate mechanism for dealing with a complaint, such as a discriminatory policing complaint, that could potentially result in discipline. In another service review, a supervisor reviewed a video in which a deputy clearly told the complainant he was talking in "African-American double talk," and still did not elevate the complaint to the level of an administrative investigation. The supervisor asserted that the complainant's reiteration of the comment as "African-American mumbo-jumbo," somehow discredited the. allegation of inappropriate language, despite the video recording demonstrating that the deputy in fact used inappropriate language. Our contention here is not that these allegations should necessarily have been sustained; it is that LASD should treat such allegations more seriously.
These two complaints illustrate the severity of misclassifying civilian complaints. Even though these complaints were clearly complaints of discrimination, they were not properly

19

According to LASD's Policy of Equality, "Discrimination is the disparate or adverse

treatment of an individual based on or because of that individual's sex, race, color, ancestry,

religion, national origin, ethnicity, age (40 and over), disability, sexual orientation, marital status,

or medical condition." Using this definition, we considered allegations to involve

"discrimination, profiling or bias" only where complainants specifically alleged adverse

treatment, including, among others, derogatory language and profiling on the basis of race or

ethnicity.

-40-
classified and therefore not elevated to formal administrative investigations, which meant that the deputies would not have been eligible to receive formal discipline had the allegations been founded. If founded, LASD policy states that any use of derogatory language results in a discipline ranging from a written reprimand to 10 days suspension.
The handling of these complaints also demonstrates the high bar civilians must meet when alleging discrimination. Absent an admission or recording, witnessing deputies invariably state that they "did not hear" offensive language, and, as discussed above, the deputy's version is always credited over the civilian's account. Even in the complaint described above, where the supervisor reviewed a video, he only found that the employee's behavior "could have been better." To ensure that LASD sends a consistently strong message that racially biased language will not be tolerated, and to hold deputies who use such language accountable, the Antelope Valley stations must refer all allegations of racially derogatory language to the lAB for administrative investigation and must substantiate complaints where a preponderance of the evidence supports the allegation.
We found evidence that complaints of racial bias among LASD deputies have merit. One supervisor stated directly to DO] officials that he thought all African Americans who recently moved to the Antelope Valley were gang members. This statement helps explain the view of another African-American complainant who commented that he felt deputies viewed all African Americans as criminals. We heard this same sentiment - of being stereotyped and criminalized - repeatedly expressed during our meetings with African-American and Latino community members.
In sum, LASD's handling of civilian complaints of discrimination in the Antelope Valley is deficient to the point that, rather than acting as an effective accountability mechanism, it reinforces deputy misconduct, including bias. When civilian complaints are very rarely elevated to administrative investigations, and deputies know that the worst practical consequence for improper treatment of an individual is a "should have been different" disposition and nondisciplinary corrective action, then the accountability system fails. LASD's current system for conducting service reviews serves to perpetuate patterns of improper community interactions because it provides no incentive for deputies to behave in accordance with LASD' s strong policies prohibiting bias. When assessed within the totality of the circumstances, LASD's failure to appropriately handle discriminatory policing complaints provides evidence of an equal protection violation. See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266.
Ensuring that LASD sends a consistent message about bias through its complaint investigation process will require greater scrutiny of civilian complaints by commanders reviewing complaint investigations; a willingness to send back investigations for more work or to ensure that the findings fit the facts; and the fonnal administrative investigation of these complaints. LASD leadership in the Antelope Valley also must be vigilant about identifying problematic practices or trends identified in civilian complaints and taking steps to correct such practices and trends.

-41-
LASD reported that, in mid-June 2012, virtually all Antelope Valley deputies attended a four-hour racial profiling course taught by the Museum of Tolerance at the Simon Wiesenthal Center. According to LASD, this training exceeds the minimum hourly requirement set by the state Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, and limits class attendance to 25 personnel to maximize discussion. Enhancing deputies' racial profiling training is an important preventive measure. As stated above, LASD must also implement accountability backstops to ensure that deputies are held accountable if and when complaints of discriminatory policing are sustained.
C. LASD's Early Warning and Intervention Systems Do Not Provide Effective Oversight for Antelope Valley Deputies
LASD's data systems and early intervention programs provide the department with an enormous capacity for self-analysis and self-correction. The Personnel Performance Index (PPI) is a sophisticated electronic database that serves as an early identification system to discover problematic behavior trends in deputy conduct. The PPI captures many different performance indicators, among them an employee's administrative investigations, civil lawsuits, uses of force, including lethal force, public commendations, and complaints. PPI data enables invaluable analysis that makes deputy supervision more effective and informs LASD's risk management system. Towards both these ends, the PPI identifies deputies who are eligible for LASD's nondisciplinary Performance Mentoring Program (PMP). Together, PPI and PMP form the basis of a solid early warning and intervention systern. However, our review indicated the need for certain updates and modifications to allow it to adequately respond to the systemic problems we found.
LASD should tailor PPI data collection and analysis to address the specific challenges facing the Antelope Valley, and to be responsive to the expressed concerns of the community. As discussed, community members in the Antelope Valley feel that policing by the LASD is unnecessarily intrusive and heavy-handed. This sentiment is consistent with our findings regarding pedestrian and vehicle stops, searches, and arrests. Yet, according to the materials provided to us by LASD, PPI does not track basic stop, search, and detention data. This omission is particularly striking given that that LASD's own Special Counsel has repeatedly recommended since at least 2003 that LASD add this data to PPI, and given that other law enforcement agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department, have incorporated this data into updates of their own early intervention systems. Similarly, the information provided to us by LASD indicates that, while LASD's perfonnance review protocols require consideration of the nature of an employee's assignments when considering whether intervention is appropriate, PPI does not have the same capacity as other early intervention databases to make peercomparisons between deputies who work similar shifts or assignments, or to compare similar units. It is incumbent upon LASD to use PPI to collect and analyze the data as necessary to address community concerns, especially in light of our findings regarding unconstitutional practices.
Alongside this data enhancement, LASD supervisors, training officers, and training curricula should fully embrace the performance mentoring program as a real opportunity to explore how the culture of their policing has led to strife with the community, and to examine how to truly change the culture of their work so that they can more effectively police and more

-42-
meaningfully engage with the community. Unfortunately, as discussed above, our review in the Antelope Valley showed that some potential mentors harbor sentiments that are counterproductive to this effort. This underscores the need for LASD to address the attitudes and values among its supervisors and commanders to ensure that they act as models of appropriate policing behavior.
LASD should also ensure that its Performance Mentoring Program is operated to timely address deputies' mentoring needs. The PMP is a non-disciplinary, "proactive, early intervention program designed to enhance a member's professional performance through guidance and supervision when it is determined the member may benefit from a more structured plan." Alternatively, a unit commander, the lAB, or the Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau may refer potential candidates to the PMP. If an employee is selected for participation in the PMP, the employee will meet regularly with a designated mentor for a period of no less than two years to discuss the employee's progress, ensure that performance objectives of the employee's plan are met, and provide the employee's unit commander with regular written reports.
One significant obstacle to making the PMP fully effective is that it can take months for a deputy to be appropriately considered and begin to receive mentoring. Recognizing this failing, the North Patrol Division'o, which encompasses Lancaster and Palmdale, has implemented a local unit version of the performance mentoring program. We commend LASD's North Patrol Division for taking the initiative to develop a locally based performance program that responds to employee need for closer supervision at an earlier stage than the department-wide PMP would. We further encourage LASD to ensure that it is taking all steps necessary to ensure timely and effective mentoring for its deputies.
Another obstacle to timely and accurate identification of deputies in need of mentoring is that the PPI is only as good as the information it contains. If data on civilian complaints, uses of force, or other indicators are not accurately recorded, then the integrity of the PPI is compromised. We have found this to be the case. In addition to complaint allegations being mismarked in PPI, as described in the above sections, we found misconduct complaints that did not attach to individual deputies because they were improperly marked as "all patrol," "all station," or another aggregate for the "involved employee" category, even where investigation identified a specific deputy, or deputies, as the subject of the complaint. Therefore, LASD Antelope Valley stations should improve the quality of data entered into the PPI.
Overall, LASD has an excellent framework for early warning and intervention already in place. However, LASD does not realize the true value of this resource. Fortunately, LASD has already done the time-consuming and expensive work of putting into place such a system. LASD should make the relatively straight-forward changes described above in order to fully capitalize on this investment.

20

As of Apri113, 2013, the geographic area previously known as Field Operations Region 1

is now called North Patrol Division.

-43-
D. LASD Has Not Responded Adequately to Community Concerns
As noted above, effective crime prevention includes partnerships not only with sister agencies like HACoLA, but with community members as well. In the Antelope Valley, a community with a history of racial tensions, it is. also incumbent upon LASD to be aware ofthe biased attitudes that may be espoused by some individuals in the community to the extent this affects its discharge oflaw enforcement activities. LASD policies demonstrate that it recognizes the importance of developing and maintaining trust while protecting the community it serves, and during the course of the investigation, we saw LASD's increasing commitment to . responding to the community's concerns.
Yet there is more work to do. Some recurring patterns specifically identified by community members are captured below. Though we did not obtain documentation that corroborated these types of community-reported allegations, we believe that the consistency and similarity of these community reports warrant LASD's attention. While these allegations could be isolated instances of errant behavior, the prevalence of these complaints, especially in the context of our findings above, suggests more patterns ofunprofessional, and potentially unlawful, conduct. See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266 (totality of circumstances can suggest discriminatory intent).
• In the Antelope Valley, the practice of impounding vehicles whose drivers are unable to produce a valid drivers' license has an extreme disparate impact on the African-American and Latino population. In 2011, there were 3,811 vehicle impoundments in Lancaster, and 1,061 vehicle impoundments in Palmdale. In Lancaster, 82.6% of these impoundments were of vehicles belonging to AfricanAmericans and Latinos, who only comprise 58.5% of the population. In Palmdale, 88.9% of the vehicle impoundments were of cars driven by AfricanAmericans and Latinos, who only comprise 69.2% ofthe population. The toll that this practice takes on communities of color is particularly troubling given the hundreds of dollars required for release of the vehicle, the impound period imposed, and the fact that it is often difficult to maintain a job or attend school or work training in this part of the County without access to a vehicle. Though we did not assess the appropriateness of individual vehicle impoundments, given the impact this has on the quality of life for minority residents of the Antelope Valley, and on LASD-community relationships, we urge LASD to use the practice only when necessary to serve a "community caretaking function." Cal. Veh. Code § 22651 (h)(1). A recent California Attorney General opinion provides guidance that cars belonging to unlicensed drivers do not have to be automatically impounded. Cal. Attorney General Opinion, No. 12-301, May 3,2012, at p. 15.
• We heard several complaints from Latino small business owners that their calls for service were routinely not addressed in a timely manner. For example, one Latino business owner of a clothing store alleged that his calls for service are not addressed in a timely manner. He stated that his business has been broken into nine times over the past four years, but deputies have only responded to his calls

-44-
for service twice. A failure to provide basic law enforcement services to certain communities, if substantiated, could potentially rise to the level of a constitutional violation. LASD reported that the Antelope Valley stations have begun working on this issue by comparing 2011 response times on the east-side versus the westside of Lancaster and Palmdale. In its initial analysis, LASD reported comparable response times on the east and west sides of Lancaster, and attributed longer response times on Palmdale's east side to the higher frequency of routine calls for service. We look forward to a more thorough analysis of this issue, including surveys of the community's opinions about responses to calls for service.
• We heard multiple accounts of probation and parole compliance checks during which Antelope Valley deputies subjected family members and companions to degrading and potentially unlawful conditions. In one particularly egregious instance, an elderly woman was forced to sit in her yard in the winter while deputies conducted a probation compliance check for a family member. This is reminiscent of deputies' treatment of an elderly couple during a 2007 compliance check. We also heard several accounts of deputies searching the companions of probationers or parolees, even though they lacked any suspicion that the companion had engaged in criminal activity.
• We heard multiple accounts of day laborers being cited for loitering while soliciting employment in public places in Lancaster. Solicitation is a form of expression protected under the First Amendment, meaning that there are limitations regarding the restrictions the state can place on an individual's attempts to look for work. See Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 945 (9th Cir. 2011); Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 709 F.3d 808, 828 (9th Cir. 2013). We caution LASD against any activity that tmlawfully restricts the rights of day laborers soliciting employment.
• Some Antelope Valley deputies wear tattoos or share paraphernalia with an intimidating skull and snake symbol as a mark of their affiliation with the Antelope Valley stations. Though there are varying interpretations of what these tattoos may symbolize, they provide an undeniable visual representation of a gulf between deputies and the community, and are an unfortunate reminder of LASD's history of symbols associated with problematic deputy behavior. LASD has assured us that the Antelope Valley stations have tried to suppress the skull and snake image while promoting the official, and more appropriate, Antelope Valley symbol. We remain concerned, however, that these unofficial images still appear widely visible throughout the Antelope Valley - just recently, the image was seen on a bumper sticker on a car in the parking lot of the Lancaster's sheriff s station. Because many Antelope Valley deputies both live and work in the Valley, these insignia are perhaps more widely visible within the Antelope Valley than they would be otherwise. We encourage LASD to take stronger measures to dissuade deputies from displaying these symbols, including training to ensure that deputies understand the inconsistent and divisive message sent by deputies' apparent adoption of such insignia, while respecting their First Amendment rights.

-45-
We recognize that the Antelope Valley stations have been working to improve their commnnity outreach efforts. We commend LASD for nndertaking new commnnity outreach initiatives and for proactively seeking advice on these efforts during the course of this investigation. For example, LASD has committed to improving its commnnity outreach efforts to enhance the level of trust between the Department and the commnnity. In a June 2012 letter to the DOJ regarding LASD's latest reform efforts, Sheriff Baca reiterated that it is the Lancaster and Palmdale captains' responsibility to "re-double their efforts to identify all opportunities to develop trust with community members who may feel less enfranchised, underrepresented by government entities, or simply less heard." Antelope Valley station captains have also developed Commnnity Advisory Committees (CAC). The CACs are comprised of commnnity members who meet with lead station personnel and discuss a range oftopics, including deputyinvolved shootings, minority relations; voucher program housing, civilian oversight, and community outreach. In Palmdale, the Captain specifically selected minority community leaders to participate in the CAC, several of whom were recently and publicly critical of Antelope Valley law enforcement.
Antelope Valley station leadership has also attended meetings of the Antelope Valley Human Relations Commission, participated in the Cafe Con Leche Hispanic Talk Radio Program, and met with the League of United Latin American Citizens Board of Directors. We further understand that the Antelope Valley stations, in partnership with the Community Oriented Policing Services, have conducted commnnity surveys in Lancaster and Palmdale to identify neighborhood crime and nuisance problems.
Commnnity members have begun to express their appreciation to DOJ for LASD leadership's recent efforts to engage in meaningful outreach. We also are pleased to hear that community members have had positive experiences working with the new Antelope Valley station leadership, Captain Don Ford and Captain Patrick Nelson. We encourage LASD to continue on this path of developing this collaborative relationship with the community, and to strategize about how best to involve other Antelope Valley personnel, including patrol deputies, in this effort. This concerted effort to engage in community outreach is one important way to begin to remedy the difficult relationship between the Antelope Valley stations and the community. Changing entrenched practices and the culture at the stations will require LASD to continue to work on changes to its practices in the areas of use of force, stops, searches, and arrests, as well as in the acconntability systems discussed above.
We also encourage LASD to continue its recruitment efforts of African-American and Latino deputies, especially those who are interested and willing to work in the Antelope Valley, and to review its recruitment, selection, and assignment procedures to determine whether any of these create unnecessary barriers to the increased presence of African-American and Latino deputies in the Antelope Valley. As recently as November 1, 2012, only 21 ofthe 391 sworn personnel at the Antelope Valley stations were African-American (6.6% of Lancaster's sworn personnel and 6.7% of Palmdale's sworn personnel), and 46 sworn personnel were Latino (22.1 % of Lancaster's sworn personnel and 18.6% of Palmdale's sworn personnel). LASD's Antelope Valley stations are in a nnique situation because the majority of their sworn deputies both live and work in the Antelope Valley. As a result, we believe it is even more important in

-46-
the Antelope Valley that LASD focus on recruiting additional qualified African-American and Latino deputies in an attempt to reflect the increasingly diverse demographics of the communities, and generally improve the relationship between LASD and the Antelope Valley community.
As the stations move to strengthen the bonds with the communities they serve, we urge LASD to redouble efforts to listen to the community openly and to be responsive to the articulated concerns. We caution both LASD and community members against thinking that the deep-rooted cultural divide between LASD and the broader community will change overnight, and we encourage the slow and steady development of relationships that will ultimately mend the relationship between the Antelope Valley stations and many segments of the community.
VI. CONCLUSION
We are encouraged by the proactive and genuine assistance we received from LASD and Antelope Valley leadership throughout this investigation. As noted throughout this letter, we are further encouraged by the steps that the commanders at LASD Antelope Valley stations have already taken to proactively address the concerns we have already shared with the Department during this investigation, including our concerns about LASD's previous lack of sufficient community engagement in the Antelope Valley. We look forward to continuing to work with LASD to craft sustainable remedies that ensure iliat LASD's important Core Values and commitment to constitutional policing are embraced by all patrol deputies, and that those values are expressed in all Antelope Valley deputies' daily law enforcement activities. We are confident that we can work with LASD to resolve the concerns outlined in this letter. Our goal for every investigation is to work cooperatively to develop and implement sustainable reform measures. LASD's strong leadership, policies, and existing structures, in particular its two existing forms of civilian oversight, make us confident that we can partner together to tackle the concerns effectively. We urge LASD to help us craft remedies that will make law enforcement efforts in Antelope Valley more effective, while simultaneously restoring the community'S confidence in LASD.
Thank you again for your ongoing cooperation throughout this investigation. Please note that this letter is a public document and will be posted on the Civil Rights Division's website. If you have any questions, please contact Jonathan Smith, Chief of the Special Litigation Section, at (202) 514-5393.
Sincerely,
~?~ Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General

 
 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department - Antelope Valley Statement of Intent
The following is a statement of intent to reach a comprehensive settlement agreement (Agreement) to be negotiated between the County of Los Angeles, and the United States of America (collectively, the Parties) to resolve issues identified by the Department of Justice’s investigation, pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631, as amended, into alleged civil rights violations by the Lancaster and Palmdale stations (collectively, the Antelope Valley stations) of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD). The Agreement to be negotiated is intended to ensure that: 1) LASD personnel in the Antelope Valley engage in practices that comply with the Constitution and laws of the United States; and 2) the objectives of LASD’s Core Values and Trust-Based Policing program are realized in the Antelope Valley community.
The United States has concluded that some LASD personnel in the Antelope Valley engage in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional and unlawful policing regarding stops, searches, and seizures, excessive force, and discriminatory targeting of voucher holders in their homes.
The County contends that there is no such pattern or practice of constitutional or federal law violations, but agrees that the findings identified by the United States are issues of great importance to the County, LASD, and the Antelope Valley community. The County and LASD have established high standards for deputies, as their Core Values and Public Trust Policing program reflect the idea that community participation and trust are necessary for effective policing that ensures public safety. This Agreement builds upon this important tenet of LASD’s mission. LASD has already demonstrated its commitment to ensuring constitutional policing by implementing changes to its policies and training materials in response to the Department of Justice’s feedback. In particular, LASD has made progress with respect to its recent community outreach efforts in the Antelope Valley, which have been positively received by many in the community. These outreach efforts are consistent with and a reflection of LASD’s public trust policing model, which is intended to promote constructive communication with the community.
This Agreement is intended to ensure that the shared policing objectives of the United States and the LASD are embodied and carried out by every member of LASD in the Antelope Valley. The United States recognizes the dangers faced by law enforcement officers, and believes that prompt implementation of this Agreement not only will ensure constitutional policing and increase the public’s confidence in LASD, but also increase the safety of deputies and community members in the Antelope Valley.
While the parties recognize that none of the matters contained herein are binding or enforceable until an Agreement is reached, the Parties have identified various provisions listed below that they believe should be included in some form in the final Agreement, the details of which will be negotiated. The Parties will be cognizant of costs in negotiating the Agreement
1

but recognize that constitutional and statutory obligations supersede any financial burden. Therefore, the negotiations will include discussions of cost-effective ways to implement the final provisions of the Agreement and the possible effect on other areas of constitutional policing and overall public safety. The parties will continue negotiations in an attempt to reach a final comprehensive settlement Agreement.
1. Stops, Searches, and Seizures
LASD will revise its policies, directives, training, and practices so that stops, searches, and seizures by Antelope Valley deputies are consistently conducted in accordance with the law.
LASD will require Antelope Valley deputies to document in their patrol logs, in electronic searchable and retrievable format, a narrative articulating specific facts and circumstances that support reasonable suspicion or probable cause for investigative detentions, pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle stops, non-consensual and consensual searches, probation or parole searches, and property seizures. Noting a radio clearance code, or the code for the resulting citation or arrest that ultimately resulted (as required by current policy) will not be deemed sufficient articulation of legal support for the stop or search. To allow for more precise and accurate analysis of all field activity, LASD policy will specifically track bicycle stops.
LASD will revise policies and training regarding questioning individuals about their probation or parole status to ensure that deputies understand that this question may not be motivated, in whole or in part, by an individual’s status as a member of a protected class, including race, ethnicity, or national origin. LASD shall document and track relevant information about all searches conducted pursuant to consent and/or probation or parole status. LASD supervisors and commanders will conduct a regular review of this documentation to determine whether there are trends and patterns that indicate potential bias, or practices that run counter to effective and efficient policing.
LASD shall require that deputies document all Terry stops; all contacts that result in the request to conduct a consent search; all contacts that result in questioning about an individual’s probation or parole status; and all consent searches, including searches conducted because of an individual’s probation or parole status. The result of the questioning and search shall also be documented. The request to conduct a consent search and the request about an individual’s probation or parole status should be reasonable, and deputies must be able to articulate the suspicion that formed the basis of the request. LASD policy will also require deputies to advise individuals of their right to refuse a consent search and to document consent in writing and audio record the consent. Supervisors shall additionally respond to the scene to approve consent searches of homes.
LASD will additionally require deputies to record, in an electronic, searchable and retrievable format, each detention in the backseat of a patrol vehicle as well as the length of the detention. LASD will also require deputies to articulate a reason, consistent with LASD policy and the law, for each backseat detention and hold deputies accountable for inappropriate detentions. LASD will provide updated training on the appropriate use of backseat detentions
2

and continue to reinforce that backseat detentions should not be a tactic used as a matter of routine or convenience and should not be used for traffic citation issuance or non-investigative contacts.
LASD shall also implement additional accountability and supervision practices in the Antelope Valley, and ensure that existing measures are followed, to ensure that unlawful stops and searches are detected and effectively addressed. Supervisors will be held accountable for appropriately and thoroughly reviewing reports and documentation related to stops, searches, and arrests, and requiring deputies to provide the appropriate level of detail. Antelope Valley supervisors and commanders will conduct regular analysis of stop and search data to determine whether any trends, patterns, or problems exist, and take appropriate steps in response to any trends or issues identified. LASD will also issue public reports about their analysis. In addition, LASD will make efforts to incorporate regular analysis of this data into its routine operational decisions.
2. Housing Choice Voucher Program Enforcement
LASD has already begun revising its policies regarding the role of deputies in the enforcement of Los Angeles County Housing Authority’s housing choice voucher program (commonly referred to as “Section 8”) through LASD’s Field Operations Directive regarding Housing Authority Non-Criminal Investigations/Inspections. LASD is committed to further strengthening and uniformly implementing these protocols regarding deputy participation in HACoLA’s investigation of housing choice voucher holders’ compliance with program rules.
LASD will enhance its policies regarding the review of HACoLA’s requests for deputy accompaniment on compliance checks, including specifically outlining factors to be considered when assessing the need for deputy accompaniment and the number of deputies necessary for accompaniment.
LASD will enhance its record keeping to consistently reflect each interaction a deputy has with a voucher holder in the voucher holder’s home, including documenting the race of the voucher holder, when the deputy is in the home for a compliance check, or when the deputy otherwise receives information, in advance, that the occupants of the home participate in the voucher program.
LASD will institute new policies regarding LASD’s own independent investigations of allegations of fraud on the voucher program, including guidance on proper procedures for sharing information with HACoLA.
LASD will revise its training curricula for all deputies to include training modules on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act as they apply to law enforcement. LASD also agrees to ensure that any third party trainings it sanctions, pays for, or subsidizes, including but not limited to those regarding the enforcement of the voucher program, do not conflict with the principles of this Agreement.
3

LASD will institute policies and procedures that outline the circumstances that may warrant a referral of fraud on the voucher program to the District Attorney’s office or other third party, the approval process within LASD for making such referrals, and other procedures for how those referrals should be handled.
LASD will ensure that its participation in voucher program enforcement is consistent across Los Angeles County and agrees to collect and analyze data to confirm such consistency.
In addition, LASD will pay a civil penalty to the United States to vindicate the public interest and monetary damages to any persons harmed in the course of LASD’s enforcement of the voucher program from 2004 to at least 2011. The Parties will negotiate the exact amount of damages and the final Agreement will set forth the process by which aggrieved persons are identified.
3. Bias-Free Policing and Disparate Impact Analysis of Data
LASD and Antelope Valley commanders will regularly analyze, at a minimum, the following data to determine whether there are disparities in policing activity associated with race and ethnicity: stop, search, contraband seizure, and arrest data; arrests for discretionary offenses; uses of force; obstruction arrests; obstruction arrests associated with uses of force; vehicle impoundments; civilian complaints; and voucher holder compliance checks involving LASD personnel. LASD will conduct regular comprehensive reviews of this data, including assessing whether there is a disparate impact on any particular group of people and taking into account relevant benchmarks, such as the demographic composition of the reporting district, crime rates, and age. LASD, as necessary, will conduct analyses to determine reporting districts and deputies with potentially problematic trends.
Through this data analysis, LASD will identify trends or issues that compromise constitutional policing and respond accordingly. Appropriate responses may include reviewing and revising any policies or training that may be leading to problematic trends; and assessing whether any practices should be changed to ensure adherence to constitutional requirements and/or more effective policing. LASD will link this data to other relevant Personnel Performance Index indicators (discussed at greater length in Section 6). LASD will make efforts to incorporate regular analysis of this data into its routine operational decisions. LASD will provide public reports on this analysis to the Antelope Valley community.
LASD will conduct regular training for deputies, training officers, supervisors, and command staff regarding discriminatory policing. The training will include periodic testing to ensure that employees are appropriately comprehending, retaining, and applying the knowledge and skills conveyed during the training. In addition to LASD’s current state-mandated training for Antelope Valley deputies, the new training will focus solely on how bias may occur in law enforcement activity, and on the effects of bias on subjects of law enforcement activity. The curriculum will include discussion of the causes and negative impact on policing of biased policing, subconscious bias, and strategies to avoid and mitigate its effects. LASD will conduct regular roll call trainings to emphasize the importance of preventing discriminatory policing.
4

These roll call sessions will include scenario-based discussions of real and hypothetical situations.
LASD will hold Antelope Valley deputies strictly accountable for engaging in conduct suggesting bias or activity that subjects community members to different treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or other protected classes.
4. Use of Force
LASD will revise its use of force policies, training curricula, and any relevant directives, bulletins, or defensive tactics manuals to provide clear guidance about the reasonable use of force. Specifically, these revised materials will ensure that deputies receive appropriate guidance and training about how best to reasonably control handcuffed individuals, including providing clear direction on options available to deputies that do not include the use of force. LASD will also revise any policies and associated training about the use of force in response to individuals’ failure to cooperate, and provide guidance about the use of force in response to lower level resistance. LASD will also revise its defensive tactics manuals regarding the appropriate use of head strikes and punches to the face. LASD will also revise its use of force policies and training curricula regarding communication, de-escalation, and disengagement tactics. LASD will continue to monitor obstruction-related charges and require supervisors and commanders to carefully review the narratives in use of force reports. The Antelope Valley stations will conduct regular analysis of obstruction arrests for patterns or trends.
LASD will also revise training for Antelope Valley supervisors and command staff to ensure that use of force incidents are appropriate investigated. Supervisors and command staff will receive training about how to review use of force statements for inconsistencies and misstatements, and how to detect when a deputy’s statement about the use of force might be inconsistent with injuries sustained by either the subject or deputy. LASD will hold deputies accountable for unreasonable uses of force that violate policy, and require deputies to refer potentially unreasonable uses of force to the Internal Affairs Bureau or the Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau for further investigation or review. LASD shall ensure that force review/investigation is thorough and that the findings are consistent with the preponderance of the evidence. LASD shall ensure that officers are held accountable when they use unreasonable force and that supervisors are held accountable for not detecting, investigating, and responding to force that is unreasonable or contrary to LASD policy.
Antelope Valley commanders will regularly review and track the section of use of force reports regarding “training and tactical review” to ensure that informal supervisory feedback is not replacing the need for formal discipline, and additionally ensure that this supervisory feedback is documented in a performance log entry. Antelope Valley commanders will also regularly review the comments provided in the “training and tactical review” section of use of force reports to identify trends or patterns in use of force tactics. Antelope Valley commanders will then report upon these identified trends, as well as report upon the preventive steps they took to curb these trends, including issuing or revising policies, directives, training bulletins, or providing additional mentoring and supervision to individual deputies. LASD shall hold
5

commanders accountable for reviewing, tracking, and effectively responding to uses of force by personnel under their command.
5. Service Comment Reviews & Internal Affairs Bureau
LASD will revise its Service Comment Review and Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) policies and procedure manuals to clarify when civilian complaints get referred for full administrative investigations. LASD shall conduct administrative investigations of all civilian complaints alleging behavior that, if substantiated, would be eligible for discipline. LASD policy will clearly state what kinds of behavior are eligible for discipline, including discriminatory or biased conduct. LASD shall make sure that, pursuant to existing policy, IAB sufficiently investigates all complaints related to use of force and discriminatory or biased policing. LASD will audit Service Comment Reviews and administrative investigations conducted by the Antelope Valley stations to ensure that the classifications are consistent with policy and LASD’s Core Values, and that complaint dispositions are consistent with the weight of the evidence.
LASD will provide training to Antelope Valley deputies and supervisors about proper complaint intake, classification, and investigation techniques. LASD will provide training about how to record complete and thorough complaints from individuals, including how to obtain complaints from individuals who may not be proficient in English. LASD will continue its efforts to make the complaint process more accessible to community members. LASD will hold deputies, supervisors, and commanders strictly responsible for appropriately accepting and investigating complaints of misconduct.
All personnel involved in the investigation of civilian complaints will receive training on appropriate investigative skills, such as proper interrogation and interview techniques (such as avoiding leading questions); gathering and objectively analyzing evidence; how to identify alleged misconduct that is not clearly stated in the complaint or that becomes apparent during the investigation; properly weighing credibility of civilian witnesses against deputies; using objective evidence to resolve inconsistent statements; and the proper application of the preponderance of the evidence standard. LASD will hold Antelope Valley personnel strictly responsible for appropriately classifying every allegation raised by an individual in a complaint or during the investigation of a complaint. LASD will also hold personnel strictly accountable for appropriately investigating all allegations that may arise during an investigation even if an allegation of an apparent policy violation is not specifically articulated as such by the complainant.
6

6. Early Intervention System
LASD will modify its Personnel Performance Index (PPI) to track additional data relevant to policing within the Antelope Valley, including capturing data about stops, searches, and arrests. LASD will ensure that the PPI system is calibrated to effectively capture and analyze information that is relevant to current community concerns. LASD will periodically review how PPI is being used at the stations to ensure that it is employed in the manner most responsive to community complaints and any trends that LASD may otherwise identify. LASD shall also modify its procedure for Performance Log Entries so that all entries are maintained in an electronic format and noted in the Personnel Performance Index. LASD will ensure that PPI entries are accurately entered and hold Antelope Valley personnel accountable for inaccuracies in any data entered.
LASD will also expand PPI’s capability so that it can make peer comparisons between deputies who work similar shifts or assignments, or to compare similar units. Antelope Valley commanders and supervisors will also conduct periodic reviews of all deputies under their command to identify potential trends. The purpose of these evaluations is not to discipline, but to provide deputies with necessary support, and to provide supervisors with appropriate information to help prevent certain practices from continuing unnecessarily.
LASD will continue to provide mentorship to deputies in the North Patrol Division’s locally based Performance Mentoring Program (PMP), as well as through LASD’s departmentwide PMP, based upon appropriate determination of eligibility. LASD will ensure that the LASD-wide PMP program operates in a more timely manner so that interventions happen within a reasonable amount of time after a triggering incident, and to increase the effectiveness of the remedies used to address a deputy’s behavior. LASD will also ensure that the Department-wide PMP and the North Patrol Division’s PMP coordinate with each other and share information about deputies and their individual mentoring programs. Mentors involved in LASD’s Performance Mentoring Program will continue to receive training about mentoring and training deputies effectively, so that they embody LASD’s core values and public trust policing principles and instill those values at the line deputy level.
7. Community Engagement
LASD will continue its positive community engagement efforts in the Antelope Valley, including participating in local community meetings, making itself available for community feedback, developing the Community Advisory Committees (CAC), and working with the community on the development of diversion programs. Solidifying these community partnerships is at the heart of LASD’s public trust policing model. To assess the success of these recently implemented community engagement initiatives, the Antelope Valley stations will determine which initiatives have been well-received by the community and why they have been successful, so that they can continue to refine and improve upon these efforts. LASD will issue public reports on the Antelope Valley stations’ community engagement efforts, including identifying obstacles faced and recommendations for future improvement.
7

LASD will also assess specific issues of importance to the community, including, but not limited to, vehicle impoundments, response to calls for service, and access to the civilian complaint system.
8. Policy Review/Revision
To ensure compliance with the provisions of this Agreement, LASD will review and revise policies, including but not limited to all procedure manuals, field operations directives, and unit orders, to make sure that all requirements of the Agreement are reflected in the relevant policies. In addition, LASD will conduct annual reviews to ensure its policies remain consistent with the Agreement and current developments in law and police practice. LASD policies will be readily accessible to all LASD personnel and made public to the extent permitted by law.
9. Training
LASD will provide annual training to deputies, supervisors, and commanders that is sufficient in duration and scope to ensure that all deputies can consistently and effectively carry out LASD’s policies and directives implementing the Agreement. In addition, LASD will provide sufficient training on any new or revised policies implemented as a result of this Agreement. LASD will provide updated training as necessary to reflect changes in the law, or to address identified training needs.
10. Court Enforceability and Independent Monitoring
The United States and Los Angeles County will seek entry of this Agreement as a courtenforceable order. The Parties will agree to the selection of an Independent Monitor who will act as an agent of the Court in assessing whether the Agreement is being implemented. This model has been used effectively to resolve pattern or practice investigations the most efficiently in other jurisdictions. The Independent Monitor also will conduct and report publicly on the status of the Agreement. The Independent Monitor also will conduct audits and reviews to determine whether the requirements of this Agreement have been fully implemented. In addition, the Independent Monitor shall conduct outcome assessments to determine whether the expected outcomes of the Agreement are being achieved. The Independent Monitor will conduct on-site observations, review records, incidents, and other policies, and engage in regular and frequent communications with the Antelope Valley stations and DOJ personnel. Additionally, the Independent Monitor may offer technical assistance to LASD in furtherance of full implementation of the Agreement.
11. Baseline Measures and Outcome Assessments
The Parties will agree on a set of objective outcome measures to be used to assess whether the Agreement is having the effect intended by the Parties of promoting constitutional policing and increasing community trust.
8

As part of the outcome assessments, LASD will establish baseline measurements in agreed-upon areas. Among other baseline measurements, LASD will modify or supplement its community surveys to assess community members’ interactions with Antelope Valley deputies, including whether those interactions are consistent with the Constitution and federal law, and foster community trust in LASD.
12. Timing
The Parties both agree that they are committed to working together to reach a Final Settlement Agreement and seek court approval in as expeditious manner as possible, so that the important work of implementing reforms can begin. The Parties intend to have completed negotiations, including securing approval by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, on the Final Settlement Agreement by August 30, 2013.

LEROY D. BACA Sheriff Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department _/s/_Roger H. Granbo___ ROGER H. GRANBO Assistant County Counsel Office of the County Counsel County of Los Angeles Date: 6/27/2013
9

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
ROY L. AUSTIN, JR. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief
CHRISTY E. LOPEZ Deputy Chief
_/s/_Charles W. Hart, Jr. CHARLES W. HART, JR. MICHELLE L. LEUNG Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section
Date: 6/26/2013

 
 Justice Department Opens Investigation into the Antelope Valley Stations of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s 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 Friday, August 19, 2011

Justice Department Opens Investigation into the Antelope Valley Stations of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
LOS ANGELES – The Justice Department has opened a civil investigation into allegations of discriminatory policing by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) members based in the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale, Calif. The investigation will focus on allegations that the Lancaster and Palmdale stations of the LASD are engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race or national origin in violation of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act.
The Justice Department will seek to determine whether there are systemic violations of the Constitution or federal law, including the Fair Housing Act, by deputies of these LASD stations. The investigation will focus on allegations that the LASD has sought to identify during routine traffic stops individuals who use Housing Choice Vouchers, commonly known as Section 8, to subsidize housing costs for low income families. In addition, the investigation will examine allegations that t he LASD has conducted warrantless searches of African-American families’ homes under the auspices of housing authority compliance inspections, and that housing authority investigators based in the Lancaster and Palmdale sheriff’s stations have been accompanied by sheriff’s deputies as they conduct routine housing contract compliance checks. At times, it is alleged that the deputies approach the Section 8 recipient’s home with guns drawn and in full SWAT armor and conduct searches and questioning themselves, unrelated to the housing program.
In addition, the Justice Department has an ongoing investigation under the Fair Housing Act of the cities of Palmdale and Lancaster, as well as of the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles, to determine whether there has been a systematic effort to discriminate against AfricanAmericans and Latinos.

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-opens-investigation-antelope-valley-stations-los-angeles-county-sheriff-s[8/16/2016 4:18:03 PM]

Justice Department Opens Investigation into the Antelope Valley Stations of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department | OPA | Department of Justice

During the course of the investigation of the LASD, the Justice Department will consider all relevant information, particularly the efforts that LASD has undertaken to ensure compliance with federal law. The Justice Department has taken similar steps involving a variety of state and local law enforcement agencies, both large and small, in jurisdictions such as New York, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia and Louisiana.
This matter is being investigated by attorneys from the Special Litigation Section and Housing and Civil Enforcement Section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. The department welcomes any information from the community. If you have any comments or concerns, please feel free to contact the department at 1-877-218-5228 , or via email at community.antelope@usdoj.gov.

Identify Our Most Wanted Fugitives
Find a Form
Report and Identify Missing Persons
Contact Us

11-1067

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/justice-department-opens-investigation-antelope-valley-stations-los-angeles-county-sheriff-s[8/16/2016 4:18:03 PM]

 
 Justice Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Agree to Policing Reforms and Settlement of Police-Related Fair Housing Claims in the Antel...

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, April 28, 2015

Justice Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Agree to Policing Reforms and Settlement of Police-
Related Fair Housing Claims in the Antelope Valley
The Justice Department today announced a comprehensive settlement agreement with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) that will support wide-ranging reforms in LASD’s Antelope Valley stations in the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale. The Justice Department and the county of Los Angeles have agreed to enter into a court-enforceable settlement agreement that will require reforms to LASD’s data collection, training and accountability systems to improve the quality and effectiveness of LASD’s interactions with Antelope Valley residents, and reduce bias in its practices. The settlement agreement also provides for a monetary fund of $700,000 to compensate persons harmed by LASD’s alleged violation of the Fair Housing Act, and a civil penalty of $25,000 to the United States.
The agreement follows the department’s issuing of a findings letter in June 2013 following an investigation which began in August 2011. Sheriff Jim McDonnell, his predecessors and Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles Executive Director Sean Rogan were all cooperative throughout the investigation and began working with the department to negotiate a remedy to the problems revealed by the investigation.
This settlement resolves claims from the department's investigation which found patterns of excessive use of force, biased policing practices, including housing discrimination, and unlawful searches and seizures. LASD has already begun to implement many of the negotiated reforms under the leadership of Sheriff Jim McDonnell. The Justice Department and the county filed the settlement agreement with the United States District Court for approval and entry as an order.
“Constitutional policing and effective policing go hand in hand,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division. “We are confident that this settlement represents a commitment by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to respect the rights of residents and promote mutual confidence between law enforcement and the community. This agreement puts in place a structure that will foster lawful, bias-free policing in the Antelope Valley, and ensures compensation for persons harmed by past unlawful conduct. We look forward to continuing our positive partnership with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department to implement the

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-and-los-angeles-county-sheriffs-department-agree-policing-reforms-and[8/16/2016 4:19:08 PM]

Justice Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Agree to Policing Reforms and Settlement of Police-Related Fair Housing Claims in the Antel...

terms of this settlement agreement and to help restore the community’s confidence in fair, equitable, and effective law enforcement.”
The investigation was brought pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act. The investigation concluded that there was reasonable cause to believe that deputies engaged in a pattern or practice of misconduct in violation of the Constitution and federal law. The findings, which were announced in June 2013, include:
Pedestrian and vehicle stops that violated the Fourth Amendment;

Identify Our Most Wanted Fugitives
Find a Form
Report and Identify Missing Persons
Contact Us

Stops that appeared motivated by racial bias, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statutory law;
The use of unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and
A pattern of intimidation and harassment by LASD deputies against African-Americans who held Section 8 housing choice vouchers. The goal of that intimidation and harassment, which violated the Fair Housing Act, was to terminate African-American voucher holders from the Section 8 program and to pressure them to move out of the Antelope Valley.

Under the settlement agreement, LASD has agreed to implement comprehensive reforms to ensure lawful policing and restore public trust. An independent monitoring team will oversee the reforms, which LASD intends to implement within four years. In addition, the monitoring team will provide technical assistance and publicly report on the LASD’s compliance efforts. The settlement agreement provides for a $700,000 fund to compensate persons harmed by LASD’s alleged violation of the Fair Housing Act, and a $25,000 civil penalty to the United States. The areas covered by the settlement agreement include:
Stops, searches and seizures: measures to improve collection and analysis of policing data to identify instances and patterns of unlawful police-civilian contact, such as stops without adequate legal justification; Bias-free policing: improved training and supervisory review to prevent and identify biased or discriminatory conduct; Use of force: measures to improve the quality of use-of-force investigations and develop a better means to detect and correct problematic force patterns and trends; Policies and training: revised policies on use of force, preventing retaliation, supporting officers who report misconduct, and improving the field training program to ensure that officers develop the necessary technical and practical skills required to use force in a lawful and effective manner, with an emphasis on de-escalation and use of the minimal amount of force necessary; Internal and civilian complaint investigations: including standards for conducting objective, thorough and timely investigations; Supervision: including holding supervisors accountable for close and effective supervision; and providing guidance on effective accountability systems to improve public trust; Housing: measures to ensure proper limits on deputy involvement in searches of Section 8 voucher holders’ homes for compliance with program rules; and Community engagement: including measures to strengthen civilian involvement and feedback in setting policing priorities; public information programs to keep civilians informed of policing activities; requirements for community interaction at all levels of LASD; and establishing community advisory entities to ensure that meaningful feedback is obtained from the community.
This agreement does not resolve the department’s claims against the Housing Authority of Los Angeles County, the county of Los Angeles as it relates to the Housing Authority of the county of Los Angeles, the city of Lancaster or the city of Palmdale for related conduct under the Fair

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-los-angeles-county-sheriffs-department-agree-policing-reforms-and[8/16/2016 4:19:08 PM]

Justice Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Agree to Policing Reforms and Settlement of Police-Related Fair Housing Claims in the Antel...
Housing Act. Those parties are continuing to work toward a resolution.
The investigation was conducted by the Civil Rights Division. The investigation involved an indepth review of thousands of pages of documents, including written policies and procedures, training materials, and internal reports, data, video footage and investigative files. Department of Justice attorneys and investigators also conducted interviews with officers, supervisors, command staff and city officials as well as spoke with hundreds of community members and local advocates, and worked with experts in police practices.

15-528

Civil Rights Division

Civil Rights - Housing and Civil Enforcement

Civil Rights - Special Litigation

Download antelope_valley_complaint.pdf Download antelope_valley_exhibit_a.pdf

Updated June 2, 2016

Download antelope_valley_settlement_agreement.pdf

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/justice-department-and-los-angeles-county-sheriffs-department-agree-policing-reforms-and[8/16/2016 4:19:08 PM]

 
 ACCO,(FFMx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,MANADR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:15−cv−03174−JFW−FFM

United States of America v. The County of Los Angeles et al Assigned to: Judge John F. Walter Referred to: Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Date Terminated: 05/01/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

United States of America

represented by Carrie Pagnucco US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division−Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 202−353−9491 Email: carrie.pagnucco@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Hart US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N W Washington, DC 20530 202−305−3192 Fax: 202−514−0212 Email: charles.hart@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia Coe US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 202−353−1121 Email: cynthia.coe@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Ladewski US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−3192 Fax: 202−514−0212 Email: kathryn.ladewski@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norrinda Brown Hayat US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N W Washington, DC 20530 202−305−3192 Fax: 202−514−0212 Email: norrinda.hayat@usdoj.gov

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Acrivi Coromelas AUSA − Office of the US Attorney 300 North Los Angeles Street Suite 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−894−2404 Fax: 213−894−7819 Email: acrivi.coromelas@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joanna Berney Hull AUSA − Office of the US Attorney 300 North Los Angeles Street Room 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−894−6585 Fax: 213−894−7819 Email: joanna.hull@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 07/31/2018
Robyn−Marie L Monteleone AUSA − Office of US Attorney Civil Division 300 North Los Angeles Street Suite 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−894−2458 Fax: 213−894−7819 Email: USACAC.Civil@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 05/23/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant The County of Los Angeles
Defendant The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department

represented by Roger H Granbo , Jr Los Angeles County Counsel 648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Suite 605 Los Angeles, CA 90012−2713 213−974−1609 Fax: 213−626−2105 Email: rgranbo@counsel.lacounty.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Roger H Granbo , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/28/2015
04/28/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Fee Exemption in accordance with statute, filed by Plaintiff United States. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B") (Attorney Robyn−Marie L Monteleone added to party United States(pty:pla))(Monteleone, Robyn−Marie) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff United States. (Monteleone, Robyn−Marie) (Entered: 04/28/2015)

04/28/2015 04/28/2015 04/28/2015 04/29/2015 04/29/2015 04/29/2015
04/29/2015
04/29/2015
04/30/2015 04/30/2015 04/30/2015 05/01/2015

3 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Plaintiff United States. Related Case(s): 2:11−cv−04817 (Monteleone, Robyn−Marie) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
4 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT filed by Plaintiff United States. (Monteleone, Robyn−Marie) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
5 STIPULATION for Order for Entry of Settlement Agreement Pursuant to FRCP 41(A)(2) filed by Plaintiff United States. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order for Entry of Settlement Agreement Pursuant to FRCP 41(A)(2))(Monteleone, Robyn−Marie) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge John F. Walter and Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. (ghap) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT−DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
8 NOTICE OF FILING FEE DUE on Pro Hac Vice Application mailed to attorney Charles Hart for Plaintiff United States of America. Pro Hac Vice application has not been received by the court. Please return your completed Application of Non−Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case, form G−64, or a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing of your application and the $325.00 fee and this notice immediately. Out−of−state federal government attorneys who are not employed by the U.S. Department of Justice are required to file a Pro Hac Vice application;no filing fee is required. You have been removed as counsel of record from this case for failure to submit this filing fee. (ghap) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
9 NOTICE OF FILING FEE DUE on Pro Hac Vice Application mailed to attorney Norrinda Brown Hayat for Plaintiff United States of America. Pro Hac Vice application has not been received by the court. Please return your completed Application of Non−Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case, form G−64, or a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing of your application and the $325.00 fee and this notice immediately. Out−of−state federal government attorneys who are not employed by the U.S. Department of Justice are required to file a Pro Hac Vice application;no filing fee is required. You have been removed as counsel of record from this case for failure to submit this filing fee. (ghap) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
10 STANDING ORDER by Judge John F. Walter: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge John F. Walter. All counsel are ordered to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the Central District of California, the General Orders of the Central District and the Judges Procedures and Schedules found on the website for the United States District Court for the Central District of California. See document for details. (gk) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
11 RESPONSE filed by Pro Hac Vice attorney Charles Hart on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. RE: Notice of Filing Fee Due. PHV fee N/A. Attorney is with the USDOJ and does not have to apply PHV pursuant to 28 USC 515(a). (lt) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
12 RESPONSE filed by Pro Hac Vice attorney Norrinda Brown Hayat on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. RE: Notice of Filing Fee Due. PHV fee N/A. Attorney is with the USDOJ and does not have to apply PHV pursuant to 28 USC 515(a) (lt) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
13 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 14−03 (Related Case) filed. Transfer of case declined by Judge Otis D. Wright, II, for the reasons set forth on this order. Related Case No. CV11−04817 ODW (VBKx) (mg) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
14 STIPULATION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER OF RESOLUTION AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT by Judge John F. Walter: It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Settlement Agreement and Order of Resolution 5 is APPROVED and Judgment shall be ENTERED in this matter in the attached form. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), the Complaint is hereby conditionally dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the matter is placed on the Court's inactive docket until further application by the Parties or order of the Court. The Court retains complete jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement until the Defendants have fulfilled their obligations, at

07/20/2015 07/20/2015 07/21/2015
11/20/2015
11/20/2015
12/22/2015 06/22/2016 12/23/2016 02/21/2017 05/23/2017 05/23/2017
05/24/2017 05/25/2017
06/05/2017

which point the case will be dismissed. (Made JS−6. Case Terminated.) (gk) (Entered: 05/01/2015)
15 STIPULATION for Order Requesting Approval of Supplemental Settlement Agreement filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Monteleone, Robyn−Marie) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
16 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Supplemental filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Monteleone, Robyn−Marie) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
17 ORDER APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 15 by Judge John F. Walter AND NOW, upon consideration of the parties' attached Stipulation and Supplemental Settlement Agreement, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that pursuant to paragraph 196 of the Settlement Agreement, the Supplemental Settlement Agreement is APPROVED. (jp) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
18 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Monitors' Initial Six Month Report filed by Defendants The County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Extension of Time to File Monitors' Initial Six Month Report)(Attorney Roger H Granbo, Jr added to party The County of Los Angeles(pty:dft), Attorney Roger H Granbo, Jr added to party The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department(pty:dft))(Granbo, Roger) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
19 ORDER APPROVING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MONITORS' INITIAL SIX MONTH REPORT by Judge John F. Walter. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the time for the Monitors to submit the initial six month report as required by Paragraph 171 of the Settlement Agreement is extended to December 22, 2015. (jloz) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
20 SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' INITIAL SIX MONTH REPORT filed by Defendants The County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. (Granbo, Roger) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
21 SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' SECOND SIX MONTH REPORT filed by Defendants The County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. (Granbo, Roger) (Entered: 06/22/2016)
22 MONTHLY REPORT of Compliance with Agreement filed by Defendants The County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. (Attachments: # 1 Third Six Month Report)(Granbo, Roger) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
23 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Cynthia Coe on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Attorney Cynthia Coe added to party United States of America(pty:pla))(Coe, Cynthia) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
24 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Joanna Berney Hull on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Attorney Joanna Berney Hull added to party United States of America(pty:pla))(Hull, Joanna) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
25 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Joanna Berney Hull counsel for Plaintiff United States of America. Robyn−Marie Lyon Monteleone is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Hull, Joanna) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
26 Joint STIPULATION to AMEND Order, 17 filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hull, Joanna) (Entered: 05/24/2017)
27 ORDER APPROVING AMENDMENT TO SUPPLEMENTAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND NOW, upon consideration of the Parties Joint Stipulation Amending the Supplemental Settlement Agreement 26 , it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Attachment A of the Supplemental Settlement Agreement is AMENDED to permit compensation to Category 2 aggrieved persons in the range of $3,500 to $20,000 by Judge John F. Walter. (jp) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
28 NOTICE of Distribution of Settlement Fund filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Hull, Joanna) (Entered: 06/05/2017)

06/22/2017 07/12/2017
12/22/2017 06/22/2018 07/31/2018
11/06/2018
11/07/2018
01/25/2019 07/25/2019 01/24/2020

29 SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' FOURTH SEMI−ANNUAL REPORT filed by Defendants The County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. (Granbo, Roger) (Entered: 06/22/2017)
30 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Acrivi Coromelas counsel for Plaintiff United States of America. Adding Acrivi Coromelas as counsel of record for Plaintiff for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Acrivi Coromelas. (Attorney Acrivi Coromelas added to party United States of America(pty:pla))(Coromelas, Acrivi) (Entered: 07/12/2017)
31 SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' FIFTH SEMI− ANNUAL REPORT filed by Defendants The County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. (Granbo, Roger) (Entered: 12/22/2017)
32 SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' SIXTH SEMI−ANNUAL REPORT filed by Defendants The County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. (Granbo, Roger) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
33 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Joanna Berney Hull counsel for Plaintiff United States of America. Joanna Hull is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Hull, Joanna) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
34 Request to Modify Schedule for Submission of the Semi−Annual Reports; [Proposed Order] filed by Defendants The County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving the Parties' Request to Modify the Schedule for Submitting the Semi−Annual Reports)(Granbo, Roger) (Entered: 11/06/2018)
35 ORDER APPROVING THE PARTIES' REQUEST TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULE FOR SUBMITTING THE SEMI−ANNUAL REPORTS 34 by Judge John F. Walter. The Semi−Annual reports, as required by Paragraph 171 of the Settlement Agreement, shall be filed by January 25 and July 25 of each year, with the next report to be submitted by January 25, 2019. (iv) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
36 SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' SEVENTH SEMI−ANNUAL REPORT filed by Defendants The County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. (Granbo, Roger) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
37 SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' EIGHTH SEMI−ANNUAL REPORT filed by Defendants The County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. (Granbo, Roger) (Entered: 07/25/2019)
38 SUBMISSION OF MONITORS' NINTH SEMI−ANNUAL REPORT filed by Defendants The County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. (Granbo, Roger) (Entered: 01/24/2020)