Skip navigation

Cripa Alabaster Al Investigation Findings 11-9-04

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division

Special Litigation Section - PHB
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530

November 9, 2004

Frank James, Esq.

Baker, Donelson, Bearman, 

Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
Southtrust Tower
420 North 20th Street, Suite 1600
Birmingham, AL 35203-5202

Investigation of the Alabaster Police Department

Dear Mr. James:
As you know, in March 2003, the Civil Rights Division initiated an investigation of the
Alabaster Police Department (“APD”), pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”), and the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)(3). We would like to take this
opportunity to express our appreciation for the cooperation we have received thus far from the
City of Alabaster and the APD in our investigation.
To date we have reviewed relevant APD policies and conducted interviews with City
officials, all of the APD command staff and a cross-section of APD supervisors. We have
interviewed line officers and participated in ride-alongs. We have also talked to community
leaders and other citizens.
At the beginning of our investigation, we committed to providing the City with technical
assistance to improve APD’s practices and procedures. We already communicated a number of
recommendations during our meetings with you and the APD command staff in May 2003 and
January 2004. This letter is intended to supplement that guidance and is focused on APD’s
written policies.
It is important to point out, however, that our fact-gathering process is not yet complete.
Indeed, we have made no determination that APD officers engaged in a pattern or practice of
unconstitutional conduct. This letter, therefore, is simply a recitation of some of the concerns we

- 2 
have identified to date. We hope this letter will assist in our mutual goal of promoting officer
safety while ensuring that the APD provides the best possible police service to the people of


Policies and procedures are the primary means through which police departments
communicate their standards and expectations to officers. Accordingly, it is critical that APD’s
policies and procedures are complete, accessible to all officers, and up-to-date.
A. Distribution and Accessibility
APD’s Policy and Procedure Manual (“the Manual”) is provided to all APD officers on
computer disk when they commence employment. Officers are responsible for printing out a
hard copy of the Manual. Officers sign a form acknowledging receipt of the disk.
It is our understanding that there is no process for reviewing or updating the Manual on a
regular basis. Instead, new and revised policies are added to the disk upon approval by the
Chief, and the disks are then reissued to officers. Our review of the Manual indicates that this
method of maintaining the Manual may result in inconsistencies between older policies and more
recently issued policies. For example, Chapter 12, Internal Affairs, Section 12.3.0, which sets
forth the procedures to be used in processing citizen complaints, does not reference the APD
Standard Internal Complaint Form. However, Chapter 27, Citizen Complaints on Police
Personnel, Section 27.1.3.C requires the completion of this form upon receipt of any complaint.
We recommend that APD review its Manual to ensure consistency between policies, and that
APD repeat this review upon issuance of any new or revised policies. We also recommend that
each policy include the date it is issued.
Moreover, APD’s practice of distributing the Manual and revisions to the Manual on disk
may not adequately ensure that officers review and understand new policies or revisions to
existing policies. We recommend that the APD ensure that every officer is issued an APD
Manual in hard copy (as well as an electronic copy, if desired), and that officers maintain
manuals that contain all current policies. We recommend that the APD revise its requirement
that officers acknowledge receipt in writing of policies and procedures to include a signed
statement that the officer has read and understands the Manual and any revisions to the Manual.
To facilitate APD’s implementation of these recommendations, we suggest APD
designate an individual to be responsible for reviewing the Manual and any revised or new
policies to ensure consistency. This individual would also be responsible for ensuring that all
officers receive both electronic and hard copies of the Manual and revisions to the Manual, and
for maintaining copies of officers’ signed statements acknowledging receipt and understanding
of the Manual and any revisions.


- 3 
Policies and procedures should be clear, comprehensive and organized so as to be
accessible to officers. APD’s Manual contains twenty-seven (27) chapters that are not organized
topically or according to another readily identifiable system.1 For example, several chapters
address policies and procedures pertaining to the use of force, but these chapters are spread
throughout the Manual. See, e.g., Chapter 5, Use of ASP Expandable Batons; Chapter 10,
Firearms; Chapter 15, O.C. Spray and/or Chemical Agent; and Chapter 22, Canine Operations.
This structure makes it difficult for officers to locate all relevant information on a particular
topic in the Manual.2
We recommend that the APD arrange its policies in a manner that allows immediate
access to a complete policy, such as organizing the policies according to subject matter
(administrative, operations, investigations, personnel, technical services, etc.). APD should
review each policy to ensure that (1) all information directly pertaining to a particular topic is
contained within the section of the Manual addressing that topic; and (2) information or policies
that indirectly pertain to or inform other policies are cross-referenced. Policies should be
reevaluated on a regular basis to ensure they are clear, internally consistent, and incorporate
accepted, modern police practices.
In the course of duty police officers are sometimes required to use deadly and non-deadly
force. Because the use of force can place officers, civilians, and subjects at serious risk of harm,
it is incumbent upon law enforcement agencies to ensure that officers use force appropriately.
Use of force policies and procedures must clearly set forth standards for appropriate use of force.
APD’s policies on the use of force during arrests, including the use of firearms, are set
forth in Manual Chapter 3, “Administration,” Section 3.22.0-3.29.0. This section includes
APD’s use of force reporting policy. We recommend that the APD remove the force-related
policies from Chapter 3 because the policies are not administrative, and consolidate force-related
information into a specific chapter applying to all uses of force.
A. Definition of Use of Force and Use of Force Continuum
The Manual defines the terms “General Orders,” “Bulletins,” “Personnel Rules
and Regulations,” and “Procedural Manual.” However, the APD does not issue General Orders
or Bulletins, and all personnel and procedural rules and regulations are contained in the Manual.
To avoid confusion, we recommend APD delete references to these terms.

Chapter 3 of the Manual, entitled "Administration," appears to function as a
"catch-all" chapter containing unrelated information on a variety of important topics. At 43
pages long, Chapter 3 is approximately twice the length of the next longest chapter in the
Manual, and is four times the length of the majority of the other chapters. As a result, Chapter 3
is unwieldy and its contents difficult to access.

- 4 Officers should be provided with clear policies that establish guidelines for the use of
force, including limitations on the use of deadly force and prohibitions on the use of
unauthorized types of force. Uses of excessive force by police officers are violations of the
Fourth Amendment, and are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness
standard. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989). The analysis requires a balancing of the
quality of intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the governmental
interests. Id. at 396. The criteria courts apply to assess an excessive force claim include the
severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect presents an immediate safety threat to the
officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest. Id.
Lack of specific policy guidance in the appropriate use of force may lead officers to believe they
are justified in using force in situations in which it would be unreasonable or unnecessary.
Conversely, unclear or too general policies may result in officers refraining from using necessary
and appropriate force for an unwarranted fear of using excessive force.
Although APD officers may carry a variety of weapons, ranging from Oleoresin
Capsicum (“OC”) spray to the ASP baton to their service firearms, APD’s policies do not guide
officers on when to use each weapon in relation to other choices. APD does not employ a use of
force continuum, matrix, or any other description of levels of suspect resistance and appropriate
officer use of force responses. APD’s policy does not mandate or describe de-escalation
techniques that can minimize officers’ use of serious force. We recommend that APD’s force
policy include a use of force continuum. When properly designed and implemented, a use of
force continuum is a fluid and flexible policy guide. Many departments employ the continuum
because it provides a useful tool in training officers to consider lower levels of force first, which
protects the safety of both the officer and the civilian. Moreover, a use of force continuum
emphasizes that officers’ presence, verbal commands, and use of “soft hands” techniques (using
hands to escort rather than to control subjects) can often be used as alternatives to other more
significant uses of force. APD’s force policy should describe how the various force options may
be used, how the various applications of the options affect their placement in the use of force
progression, and what level of force is appropriate in response to what type of resistance by
suspects. The continuum should include the actual types of force used by APD, including
canines and tasers.
APD’s force-related policies fail to fully address what constitutes “deadly force.”
Chapter 3, Section 3.29.1 provides that an officer may discharge his firearm, among other
reasons, to defend himself from death, serious injury, or felonious assault, and to defend another
person from death or serious injury when that person was unlawfully attacked and other means
have failed. APD policy fails to identify what uses of the baton constitute deadly force and fails
to indicate that a strike to the head with an impact weapon, including a police radio or flashlight,
is an application of deadly force. Similarly, the policy fails to identify uses of physical force that
may constitute deadly force, such as the application of a carotid hold.
Chapter 10, Section 10.2.1.A of the Manual cites Section 3.43 of the State of Alabama
General Statutes. We believe the intended reference is to Section 13A-3-27 of the Alabama
Code, which provides, in relevant part:

- 5 (b) A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person
when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary in order:
(1) To make an arrest for a felony or to prevent the escape from custody of
a person arrested for a felony, unless the officer knows that the arrest is
unauthorized . . . .
Ala. Code § 13A-3-27. The Supreme Court has determined that deadly force is only permissible
when a suspect poses an immediate threat of serious physical harm to the officer or another
person. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11 (1985). The only exception to this general
prohibition is the “fleeing felon” rule, that allows police officers to use deadly force to prevent
the escape of a suspect in cases where there is probable cause to believe the suspect either poses
an immediate threat of serious harm to the officer or another or has committed a crime involving
the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Id.; Vaughan v. Cox, 343 F.3d
1323, 1329-30 (11th Cir. 2003). Yet even in those circumstances police are required to provide a
warning (if feasible) before using deadly force. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11. Deadly force is only
permissible for as long as the threat remains. When the threat is over, the use of deadly force
must stop.

Specific Uses of Force

We have reviewed APD’s use of force policies regarding specific uses of force and have
the following comments.


APD’s firearms policy fails to provide clear guidance on the circumstances in which
officers are authorized to use firearms. Both Chapter 3, Section 3.29.1.A (“Authorized Use of
Firearms”), and Chapter 10, Section 10.2.1.A.2 (“Use of Firearms Policy”) should be revised to
adhere to constitutional standards regarding the use of deadly force, set forth supra, Section II.A.
APD’s firearm policy references six different types of firearms without providing clear
guidance on which officers are authorized or required to carry which firearms.3 Section 10.6.0,
“Authorized Weapons,” provides that members shall only carry weapons issued by the
Department or approved by the Chief of Police. The policy does not specify whether off-duty
members may, or are required to, carry Department firearms, nor does it set forth the procedure
for requesting the Chief’s approval to carry a personal firearm. The guidance on ammunition is
also inconsistent. For example, the section on police patrol rifles specifies the kind and amount
of ammunition officers are authorized to carry, but this information is not provided for shotguns,
Specifically, APD’s firearm policy references the use of “service revolvers”
(Section 10.4.1.A), “automatic weapons” (Section 10.6.3.C), shotguns (Section 10.8.2.B), “hideout weapons,” (Section 10.8.1.A), police patrol rifles (Section 10.10.0), and “personal weapons”
(Section 10.10.0).

- 6 
service revolvers, or automatic weapons. The section on patrol rifles provides that officers
carrying personal weapons may carry any amount of extra ammunition. We recommend the
policy clearly identify the equipment officers are expected to carry routinely. We further
recommend that APD establish a system of accountability for both Department-issued and
personal ammunition so that the Department is able to monitor how much ammunition is used
and the circumstances in which it is used. This will facilitate investigations into firearm
While Section 10.10.4 of APD’s Firearms policy requires officers to qualify semiannually on patrol rifles, the policy does not require regular qualification on any other firearm.
We recommend that officers qualify to use each and every type of firearm the APD allows them
to carry at least once a year, including “hideout weapons”4 and shotguns as described in Section
Section 10.6.3.C provides that officers shall not remove or use Department automatic or
gas weapons without the approval of the Chief, Captain or Sergeant. The policy should identify
exceptions to the policy, if any, for circumstances in which there is not time to obtain
supervisory approval and/or supervisors are unavailable to provide approval.
Section 10.2.1.B.6 prohibits officers from firing their weapons at a moving vehicle unless
the occupants of the vehicle “are using deadly physical force against the officer or another
person.” The policy does not specify whether the moving vehicle itself can constitute “deadly
physical force” justifying the use of a firearm. To minimize risk of harm to officers and others if
the driver of the moving vehicle were shot, we recommend that the policy prohibit officers from
shooting at vehicles that are used as weapons, unless the officer or a third-party is unable to
move out of the path of the oncoming vehicle, or the driver or occupants of the car (for some
reason other than the fact that they are using the car as a weapon) pose an imminent threat of
death or serious injury to the officer or the public. The policy should include a prohibition on
officers intentionally placing themselves in the paths of moving vehicles.
The potential for serious injury, including death, is high when officers are allowed to
shoot at moving vehicles. The bullets could ricochet off the moving target and hit the officer or
an innocent bystander, or the bullet could disable the driver of the vehicle causing the car to
crash into the officer or a third party. Since the risks presented by officers firing at moving
vehicles far outweighs any benefit that could be attained by such an action, because it is very
difficult to disable a moving vehicle by shooting at it, officers should be prohibited from firing at
moving vehicles except in those circumstances set forth in the preceding paragraph.
Section 10.5.1 provides that a firearms review panel will be convened to review firearms

“Hide-out weapons” are concealed weapons, such as leg-holstered firearms, that
function as secondary weapons should officers be forced to relinquish their primary firearms
and/or their primary firearms malfunction or they run out of ammunition.

- 7 
discharges that are referred to the panel by the Chief. We recommend that the APD firearms
instructor be a permanent member of the panel.

ASP Baton and Nightstick

Chapter 5 sets forth APD’s policy on the use of the ASP Baton. According to the policy,
the ASP Baton may be used by an officer to subdue a violently resisting subject, in self-defense,
or in defense of a third party. The policy provides that blows from the ASP baton “capable of
inflicting permanent injury” must be avoided unless a “life-threatening situation” exists.
However, the policy fails to define either “blows capable of inflicting permanent injury” or “lifethreatening situation.” We recommend that APD identify head strikes as blows capable of
inflicting permanent injury. “Life threatening situation” should be defined as a situation in
which the use of deadly force would be authorized.
Section 5.3.2.b provides that uniformed APD officers may carry the ASP baton at their
discretion. It is not clear from this policy whether officers are required to carry any alternatives
to the ASP baton, such as a sidehandle baton, nightstick, or flashlight. Because officers may
unnecessarily resort to their firearms if intermediary force options are not available, we
recommend that APD require all officers to carry ASP Batons, as well as O.C. Spray, at all
The use of nightsticks is briefly referenced in Chapter 3, Section 3.29.6.F, which
prohibits the “unnecessary, excessive, or brutal use of the nightstick,” and provides that it shall
be used “with discretion and common sense, and then only as a ‘come along’ when necessary or
as a defensive weapon when attacked.” If nightsticks are not authorized and issued to APD
officers, this policy should be deleted, and the carrying of nightsticks, like all unauthorized
weapons, should be prohibited. If nightsticks are authorized and issued to APD officers, this
policy should be expanded to provide adequate guidance on their use. The term “come-along”
should be defined as a method of using the baton as leverage to move a resistant suspect. We
note that this is the only reference we have found in the Manual to nightsticks, and it is
inexplicably located within a section of the Manual dealing with firearms. We recommend that
any nightstick policy be consolidated with Chapter 5, on ASP batons, so that the policy
addresses all impact weapons.

O.C. Spray and Aerosol Tear Gas

Section 10.9.0 of APD’s firearms policy addresses the use of aerosol tear gas. Section
10.9.2.B provides that tear gas
is intended primarily for use in those cases where the officer is attempting to

Chapter 15, Section 15.5.3.C provides that “All unformed personnel will carry the
chemical agent propellant on his/her gun belt at all times.”

- 8 subdue an attacker or a violently resisting suspect or under other circumstances
within the rule of law which permits the lawful and necessary use of force and
which is best accomplished by the use of tear gas.
The last section of this policy (“or under other circumstances . . .”) fails to provide adequate
guidance to officers as to when the use of tear gas is appropriate. Tear gas, once dispersed,
covers a wide area and can affect many individuals. A tear gas cannister may be thrown back
towards officers. Accordingly, tear gas should only be deployed by Special Operations Units in
situations such as crowd control or when necessary to extract a suspect such as a barricaded
gunman. It should only be carried by officers trained and authorized in its use.


When we toured APD in May 2003, we learned that APD has a canine unit consisting of
one canine officer and one canine. APD has since adopted a canine policy, set forth as Chapter
22 of the Manual, which was provided to us during our January 2004 tour.
It is our understanding that APD’s canine unit is used only for drug search operations,
and that APD’s canine is trained only for drug search operations. However, this is not reflected
in the canine policy. Instead, the policy includes procedures that indicate canines may be used
for physical apprehension. For example, Section 22.1.3.A.3 states that canines may be used for
“making or maintaining an arrest when circumstances justify such use.” Section 22.1.3.B.4 sets
forth procedures to be used “should the K-9 cause physical apprehension.”
Because the use of canines for physical apprehension constitutes a use of serious force, a
canine policy must include the following information at a minimum: the circumstances in which
canines would be deployed and whether they would be deployed on- or off-leash; whether
handlers are required to issue a verbal warning before releasing their canines; whether prior
supervisory approval is required to deploy a canine; what canine methodology is employed by
the Department’s canine program;6 and the training and certification required for both canine and
handler to perform physical apprehensions. Since APD does not use its canine for physical
apprehensions, nor is the canine trained for this purpose, we recommend that the APD’s canine
policy be revised to prohibit the use of canines for physical apprehension.
APD should revise the canine policy to provide more guidance on the appropriate use of
the canine for drug search operations. We note that on April 5, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court
granted certiorari in Illinois v. Caballes, 802 N.E.2d 202 (Ill. 2003) to decide the question of
whether the Fourth Amendment requires a reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a

For example, “find and bark” methodology requires training the canine to bark
but not attack upon locating the subject.

- 9 -

drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop.7 APD will ultimately need
to conform its canine policy to the Supreme Court’s holding Caballes. In addition, the policy
should state whether the canine is to be deployed on or off-leash, and should address whether a
supervisor must approve, be present at, and/or be notified of a canine deployment.
Because the use of a canine, even when limited to drug search operations, may result in
an unintended use of force should the canine react to an unanticipated threat, the canine handler
must be an experienced officer specifically trained in canine handling.


It is our understanding that APD recently purchased and began to use tasers. APD did
not have a policy governing the use of tasers when we visited in May 2003, but enacted a draft
policy after our May visit and provided it to us when we returned in January 2004. The draft
taser policy, however, is a subsection of APD’s firearms policy. We recommend that APD
create a separate taser policy.
While the policy provides useful general guidelines on the use of the taser, it does not
provide adequate guidance on specific situations in which the use of the taser is appropriate.
Because they are a targeted deployment device, tasers may be the best choice for de-escalating
an incident in a crowded situation. The taser may also be effective in stopping a fleeing suspect.
The policy does not specify which officers or rank of officers will be authorized to carry and
deploy tasers, and whether carrying tasers will be mandatory or optional. We recommend that
the policy be revised to include these details.

Use of Force Reporting

APD’s current policies and procedures do not clearly indicate when uses of force are to
be reported, nor do the current policies and procedures clearly indicate how uses of force are to
be recorded. Chapter 3, Section 3.11.4.D requires APD officers to provide a written report to the
Chief “whenever it is necessary to use any unusual physical force [or] other means.” The policy
should, but does not, define either “unusual physical force” or “other means.” The policy further
requires that if the officer must use physical force, or “other means,” to overcome “actual
physical resistance,” the officer will, on approval of the Chief, charge the subject with interfering
with an officer and/or assault. No specific form for reporting the use of force is referenced in

The defendant in Caballes is arguing that his conviction should be overturned
because the Illinois officers did not have probable cause under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
to suspect the presence of illegal drugs in the suspect’s car before a canine unit “alerted” on the
truck, where marijuana was discovered. The State, citing the Supreme Court’s holdings in
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) and City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32
(2003), contends that canine sniffs do not implicate the Fourth Amendment because a sniff is
not a search.

- 10 
this section. However, other sections that reference this requirement refer to use of force reports
using varying terms. For example, Section 15.7.1.A of APD’s O.C. spray policy requires that an
officer must complete the APD’s “Chemical Use of Force” report upon the use of a chemical
agent. Section 10.9.4.D of APD’s revised Firearms, Tear Gas, Patrol Rifle, and Taser policy
provides only that “the use of the spray will be reported, as is the discharge of the service
revolver.” In contrast, Section 3.29.3.C of APD’s Administration Chapter provides that “A
member who discharges his service weapon accidentally or intentionally (except at firearms
range) shall make a verbal report to his Superior Officer as soon as circumstances will permit,
and shall file a written report with his Commanding Officer as soon as practical thereafter,
describing the circumstances in detail under which the firearms was discharged.” The APD’s
ASP Baton Policy does not reference the requirement that the use of force be reported.
In our original document request of July 22, 2003, and again during our visit to Alabaster
on January 7-8 2004, we requested copies of all completed APD use of force forms since March
2002. APD produced two reports. While it is possible that APD officers have been required to
use force only twice since March 2002, it is also possible that the use of force is being underreported in part due to officer confusion around reporting requirements.
We recommend that the APD adopt a policy that requires reporting for all uses of
physical or instrumental force beyond unresisted handcuffing on a form dedicated solely to
recording use of force information. The form should be able to record discrete information about
multiple uses of force by multiple officers in a single incident. The form should require an
officer to provide a detailed description of the incident, beginning with the basis for the initial
contact, continuing through the specific circumstances and actions that prompted each use of
force, resulting injuries, and medical treatment. Check boxes should be supported by a narrative,
where appropriate. The form should include a section to indicate whether the named witnesses
provided statements and for supervisors to evaluate each use of force. The reporting policy
should also specify a time frame in which the use of force information must be recorded, the
responsibility of the first-line supervisor to ensure force is documented, and a procedure for the
information to be provided to the chain-of-command. Finally, the policy should establish a
review mechanism to ensure that officers are complying with the reporting procedures, and
provide for appropriate administrative sanctions for officers who fail to comply.
The information regarding each use of force should be tracked in an Early Warning
System (“EWS”), as discussed below. The APD should train all officers in use of force
reporting and in the use of the use of force form.

Use of Force Review and Investigation

The routine review of officer uses of force is critical to a department’s ability to ensure
officers are using force in a manner consistent with constitutional standards and the department’s
policies. Use of force reviews may identify both officer training needs and patterns of
unauthorized or excessive uses of force. APD lacks a clear policy on reviewing uses of force

- 11 
and investigating those that appear excessive, avoidable, and/or indicative of potentially criminal
We recommend that the APD establish a policy requiring the review and investigation of
all uses of force beyond un-resisted handcuffing. We recommend that the APD establish
guidelines regarding the initiation of the review and investigation process. Guidelines should
identify the circumstances in which an officer’s supervisor is required to make command
notifications, to respond to the scene to gather and preserve evidence, and to ensure injured
person(s) receive prompt medical attention.
We recommend that the Internal Affairs Office be responsible for routinely responding to
the scene and investigating serious uses of force, including uses of force in which the subject is
injured or complains of excessive use of force, uses of force that require hospitalization or result
in death, and all head strikes and firearm discharges, except discharges in the course of training
or certification.
The policy should require the officer assigned to investigate an incident to evaluate each
use of force as well as any instance of potential officer misconduct discovered in the course of
the investigation. The investigating officer should be required to refer any incident of potential
misconduct through the chain-of-command to the Chief.

Vehicle Pursuits

APD’s vehicle pursuit policy, set forth in Chapter 18 of the Manual, sets forth the
policies and procedures that guide APD officers’ pursuit of known or suspected criminals. There
is a high risk of harm to the officer, the subject, uninvolved bystanders, and other drivers during
high-speed vehicle pursuits. Accordingly, well-defined guidelines that identify circumstances in
which it is appropriate to initiate a vehicle pursuit are critical elements of a vehicle pursuit
policy. Training in appropriate vehicle pursuit techniques is essential.
APD’s Vehicle Pursuit Policy provides only general guidelines to officers on when to
initiate and when to terminate vehicle pursuits. Section 18.1.6.F states:
as a general rule, pursuit is not recommended or favored when the potential
danger to the officer and general public outweighs the potential advantage of
apprehending a fleeing vehicle by such means.
The policy identifies nine “questions” or factors officers should consider when deciding whether
to initiate or terminate a vehicle pursuit, including: the nature of the offense; the time of day;
weather conditions; road conditions; traffic conditions; geographic location; population density;
officer familiarity with the area; and vehicle capability and reliability. The policy does not
provide specific guidance to officers in how to evaluate and balance these factors. Instead, the

- 12 
decision as to whether to initiate or terminate a vehicle pursuit is left largely within the officer’s
APD’s policy apparently permits vehicle pursuit for traffic violations and other
misdemeanor offenses. See Section 18.2.1.A. Additionally, insofar as the policy contemplates
“continuing pursuits” (defined as “over a greater distance and for a long period of time”), the
policy suggests that pursuits can continue indefinitely. See Section 18.2.2 B. If the officer
continues a pursuit without success, the policy provides for the use of “boxing-in” and
“ramming” techniques in “extreme” emergency situations. However, the policy does not
describe or define “emergency.” See Sections 18.3.0 and 18.4.0. APD policy provides for the
use of roadblocks, another technique that poses a significant risk of harm to officers, subjects,
and bystanders.
We recommend that APD revise the Vehicle Pursuit Policy to clearly prescribe the
circumstances in which vehicular pursuit is authorized. More guidance should be provided on
when to terminate a pursuit, and the policy should be revised to limit the distance and time a
supervisor may authorize a pursuit to continue. Section 18.2.6.F provides that when a pursuit
enters another jurisdiction the appropriate police department will be contacted “if possible.”
This section should be revised to indicate that such contact is mandatory.
Finally, it is our understanding that APD has procured and is now using tire deflation
devices, also known as “Spike Strips.” Spike Strips are a safer alternative to the use of
roadblocks and we commend APD for adopting this system. The rules governing APD officers’
use of Spike Strips are set forth in a newly created policy, Chapter 23.1.0. Ideally, the use of
Spike Strips should reduce or eliminate the need for roadblocks, ramming, and boxing-in
A. Investigation of Citizen Complaints
A fair and impartial process for receiving and investigating citizen complaints is crucial
to ensuring officer accountability and supervision. Not only does such a process deter
misconduct, but it also is an important tool for maintaining good community relations and
ensuring that the community has confidence in, and respect for, the Department. Aspects of
APD’s prior citizen complaint process had the potential to discourage the filing of complaints
and to impair their effective tracking and resolution. The APD revised its previous policy in
November 2003 to provide more accessibility to the public in the citizen complaint process.
1. Intake and Tracking of Citizen Complaints
Under APD’s new policies, Chapter 27 (Citizen Complaints on Police Personnel),
Section 27.1.0, any person believing he or she was treated “less than professionally” by a
member of the APD may file a complaint. The complaint may be registered by telephone, in

- 13 
person, or in writing, and may also be filed anonymously. Section 27.1.2. During our January
2004 APD tour, we were told that all APD employees were trained in the handling and
processing of complaints. We noted that the new procedure for handling complaints was posted
prominently by the entrance to the police station.
APD has created a “Standard Internal Complaint Form” (“Complaint Form”) to be
completed “after a particular and specific complaint is received.” Section 27.1.4. This form is
then to be given immediately to the Chief for assignment and investigation. Id. We were told
that officers carry complaint forms that citizens can fill out immediately. The complaint form
currently records the complainant’s statement, officer’s statement, supervisor’s comments, and
APD’s new policy is a marked improvement over its prior policy, particularly because it
increases public access to the complaint process. We recommend that APD continue to accept
all phoned, faxed, and anonymous or confidential complaints. Every officer in the department
should continue to be required to accept a complaint presented by a citizen, and that upon
receipt, the officer be required to submit the complaint to a supervisor in writing.
Although the APD is to be commended for its new complaint intake policy, there are a
number of areas that could benefit from modification. For example, APD’s new policy on
citizen complaints does not explicitly state to what degree it overrides or supersedes matters
dealing with citizen complaints contained in Chapter 12, Section 12.3.1. Because Chapter 12
contains a
number of policies inconsistent with Chapter 27 (e.g., requirements that complaints be made in
person, in writing, under oath)8, it is unclear which policy an officer must follow.
We recommend that APD delete superseded portions of the APD policy manual and
ensure that officers are well-trained on current policy. We also recommend that the Complaint
Form currently required by Section 27.1.3 be used not only for citizen complaints, but also for
internal complaints, where an officer reports inappropriate action by another officer.
Many APD officers have not been properly trained to record a citizen complaint about a
fellow officer. Our expert consultant’s review of completed complaint forms determined that
some officers recording citizen complaints omitted crucial information, failed to ask important
questions, and did not record such basic facts as the names of witnesses. Investigations of these
complaints would be hampered by the absence of this information. All officers should be trained
on how to take a citizen complaint.

APD’s old complaint policy included other problematic practices, such as
requirements that the complainant commit to testifying against an officer, or that a complainant
release personal medical information at the time the complaint is filed. Any medical release
should be narrowly tailored to information regarding the injury alleged in the complaint.

- 14 -

APD’s Complaint Form appears to be poorly designed. Our expert consultant noted that
based on his review of complaint forms, officers were unable to complete them accurately. We
recommend APD redesign the Complaint Form to assist officers in more completely capturing
relevant information. Our recommendations for redesign are discussed below in Part IV.D.,
“Investigative Findings.”
Though it is APD policy to make publicly available an annual summary of IA
dispositions, it is unclear whether this occurs. Moreover, it does not appear that there is in
policy or practice a requirement to notify individual complainants of the disposition of their
complaints. We recommend APD notify all complainants of the disposition of their
complaints, including the finding and an explanation of the finding.

Referral for Investigation and Internal Investigative Procedure

A referral to Internal Affairs (“IA”) may be initiated within the department or by citizen
complaint. It appears that under current APD policy, internally generated and citizen complaints
are to be investigated in the same fashion.
The Chief makes the ultimate determination as to how each allegation of misconduct is
referred for investigation within the APD. If the allegation is criminal, the Chief may choose to
assign a matter to an outside police agency for investigation. Chapter 27, Section 27.1.5. The
Chief may refer to IA complaints deemed “major.” Chapter 12, Section 12.3.1(d). Major
complaints are those that may be criminal or that would carry severe discipline or reprimand. Id.
Minor violations, Section 12.3.1(1), are referred by the Chief to the Captain of Police, who may
himself investigate and act, or may assign the complaint to the Patrol Division Commander or
the Watch Commander for investigation. Chapter 27, Section 27.1.6. Under APD policy, the IA
is delegated the authority of the Chief for investigatory purposes. Chapter 12, Section. 12.4.1.
Current IA policy states that any investigation begun by a supervisor may be ordered stopped at
any time and assumed by the IA. Section 12.4.2.
During investigations of potentially criminal misconduct, officers are read Miranda rights
before questioning. Officers accused of administrative wrongdoing are advised of other rights
and obligations.9 Section 12.5.1.A.1-2. Officers are permitted counsel “during any interview
concerning allegations of misconduct by the employee,” Section 12.5.2, and may be required to

APD officers can be required to answer all questions specifically, narrowly and
directly related to the performance of their duties. Refusal to comply with an order to answer
these questions violates departmental rules, subjecting the officer to further discipline, which
may include dismissal. However, any required self-incriminatory admission made during the
interview may only be used in subsequent administrative proceedings, and may not be used in a
criminal action. Section 12.5.1.A.2.a-c.

- 15 
be polygraphed. Section 12.5.3. In circumstances where the department orders a polygraph for
an officer, the complainant, if known, must also agree to submit to a polygraph. Id.
We note several issues concerning APD’s current procedures for referring and
investigating internally generated misconduct allegations. As an initial matter, APD policy is
unclear as to what conduct will trigger a criminal investigation. APD should establish written
polices clearly indicating when investigations of possible criminality by APD employees will be
handled by an outside investigatory agency, and when the District Attorney’s Office will be
In addition, APD has developed only general investigative protocols. Section 12.5.4.
APD policy does not sufficiently specify the duties of officers responsible for conducting
investigations. APD should require investigators to conduct in-person, mechanically recorded
interviews with all complainants, relevant officers, and witnesses. We recommend establishing
guidelines concerning when recorded interviews are transcribed. APD should establish
guidelines regarding when to compel statements pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493
(1967), and ensure that officers are adequately informed of their rights against self-incrimination
to preserve the integrity of potential criminal investigations. APD should require photographs of
all injured parties. APD policies should specify the documents that investigators must collect
and preserve in the investigative file, including all relevant police reports.
APD policy does not explicitly state that officers must report violations of law or APD
codes of conduct that would be subject to disciplinary action. A policy should be established
requiring officers who witness misconduct by other officers to report such conduct to an IA
APD should also develop a protocol specifying the responsibilities of officers who are
the subject of an investigation, consistent with Garrity concerns and constraints. The protocol
should require subject officers to provide non-testimonial evidence, if warranted, such as
submitting to a chemical test, releasing relevant medical information or turning in a firearm for a
ballistics analysis. A subject officer should also be required to produce all statements, reports
and notes completed in his or her course of duties that are related to the allegations.
APD’s policy on special investigations, Section 12.5.3.C.5, suggests that an officer’s
requirement to submit to polygraph testing depends on the complainant’s willingness to submit
polygraph testing. APD should clarify that an officer’s duty to submit to polygraph testing is
independent of a complainant’s willingness to be polygraphed.

Internal Affairs Office: Structure and Organization
1. Organization and Responsibilities

- 16 The IA component of law enforcement agencies safeguards the integrity of the
department and its officers. It should seek to ensure that those who enforce the law will
themselves follow the law, as well as maintain an acceptable level of professionalism. This
mission requires appropriate administration, staffing, and investigative procedure.
APD IA policies are contained in Chapter 12, Internal Affairs Component, Section 12.1.0
et seq. APD’s IA division has primary supervisory responsibility for the review and
investigation of all internal as well as citizen complaints against officers. Section 12.4.1. APD
policy requires maintenance of a complaint log and a central file for complaints, regular audits of
complaints, and publication of an annual summary of complaints and investigations. Section
12.4.3. These policies enable department officials to obtain details concerning specific
complaints and investigations, as well as details about complaints and investigations over
specified time periods.

Staffing and Training

An IA component must be appropriately staffed, and staff must be trained to handle
investigative and administrative responsibilities. Currently, the APD’s IA division is staffed by
a lieutenant and two investigators who investigate allegations and recommend whether
disciplinary action should be taken. APD’s IA staffing level is sufficient to conduct timely
investigations. However, there appear to be no policies establishing selection criteria for IA
positions, nor are there recruiting or training procedures. In selecting an IA officer, their
disciplinary histories, if any, must be taken into account to ensure that only officers with the
highest ethical standards serve as investigators. IA officers should not be selected to investigate
a particular matter if they had any involvement in the incident under review or whose
relationship with an officer in question would create an appearance of bias. APD also currently
offers no incentives to encourage qualified officers to apply for IA duties.
Given the potential implications of IA investigations, it is critical that IA officers be
properly trained in investigative procedure. All IA officers should receive investigatory training.
Officers must be trained on how to ask questions, what types of questions to ask, how to develop
and preserve evidence, as well as the various constitutional requirements that are associated with
these inquiries.
C. Supervisory Review and Treatment of Minor Violations
If the Chief determines a complaint to be “minor,” the Chief refers it to the subject
officer’s supervisory chain of command for investigation. A supervisor’s investigation is limited
to questioning the officer, witnesses, and complainants, as well as securing relevant evidence.
Chapter 12, Section 12.3.1. Upon completing the inquiry, the supervisor forwards to the unit
commander the investigative report of the alleged violation, all documents and evidence, and a
recommendation for disposition. Section 12.3.2. During our most recent tour of the APD, we
were told that the patrol lieutenant conducts the investigation of “minor” citizen complaints.

- 17 -

APD’s policy does not clearly define what constitutes a “minor” category infraction, and
does not specifically identify the kinds of complaints to be investigated by IA, command staff, or
the chain of command. The distinction between major and minor infractions is not sufficiently
articulated in APD policy. This is a particularly important issue because this categorization
determines whether IA will be responsible for the investigation. We recommend that APD more
clearly define major and minor infractions.
To the extent command officers investigate citizen complaints, APD should require them
to be properly trained in investigatory procedures. APD policy should prohibit a supervisor from
investigating a complaint against another officer if the supervisor was involved in, or present
during, the incident under review, or has a relationship with the officer that might undermine the
integrity of the investigation or that creates an appearance of bias.

Investigative Findings

APD’s policy directs that a supervisor’s recommendations, or those made by IA at the
conclusion of an IA investigation, are referred to the Chief for a final determination of whether a
violation has been sustained according to the evidence. See Chapter 12, Section
APD’s investigation protocol does not set forth the requirements for what evidence must
be gathered during an investigation. For example, a supervisor’s investigation permits
“questioning the officer, witnesses and complainants, and securing all relevant evidence.”
Section 12.3.1. There is no specification of what questions are to be asked or what evidence is to
be gathered. Our review of completed APD citizen complaint forms showed that officers often
failed to inquire about basic facts necessary for a proper investigation. This failure stemmed in
part from the complaint form’s poor design that does not direct officers to ask relevant questions.
We observed that many of the complaint forms contained little useful information
regarding the specific complaint. Some complaint forms contained no complaint statements,
others listed that a “verbal discussion” was held with an officer – a form of disciplinary action –
despite a finding that a complaint was “unfounded.” Some complaint forms conveyed
information in such vague terms that it was not possible to understand the complaint. Many
forms were unsigned by the investigator. Because citizen complaint investigations often did not
develop all relevant evidence, it is difficult for APD to determine whether citizen complaints
may signal general problems in the APD, such as in the way APD officers conduct traffic stops.

APD Policy Section 12.7.2 separates investigative findings into four categories:
“sustained,” “exonerated,” “not sustained,” and “unfounded.” “Sustained" complaints are those
where it is determined that the alleged conduct took place and violates policy. “Exonerated”
complaints are those where it is determined that the alleged conduct took place but does not
constitute a violation of policy. Complaints categorized as ?not sustained" are those where
there is not enough evidence to determine whether misconduct has taken place. “Unfounded”
complaints are those where it is determined that the alleged conduct did not take place.

- 18 APD should revise its policies to develop an investigative protocol for citizen complaints
that requires a summary of the investigation and an assessment of the police action that is the
subject of the complaint. The protocol should require a finding as to whether: (1) the police
action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards; (2) the incident involved
additional misconduct; (3) the use of different tactics should or could have been employed; (4)
the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary
corrective measures; or (5) the incident suggests that APD should revise its policies, training,
tactics, or equipment. The APD protocol should state that the preponderance of the evidence is
the standard of proof for an administrative investigation.
We suggest that the complaint form should be redesigned to include the name of the
officer investigating the complaint, and the names of those individuals interviewed about the
complaint. The form could be divided into three sections: (1) investigation; (2) findings; and (3)
resolution. All information necessary for the investigation of the complaint would go in the
investigation section: complainant’s name; nature of complaint; officer(s) involved;
investigator’s name; a statement of all relevant information discovered in the investigation;
names of witnesses; and any other relevant information. The findings section would state the
investigator’s findings and rationale. The third section would note whether any discipline was
taken, the date it was taken, and whether the complainant was notified.


The imposition of discipline is crucial to address and minimize officer misconduct. APD
policy allows for both oral and written reprimands, and in some cases, the filing of formal
charges subject to a departmental hearing. It appears, however, that these methods of discipline
have not been used systematically.
We recommend that the APD develop a consistent system to impose discipline. Such a
system should identify ranges of appropriate disciplinary action that would look not only to the
nature of the infraction, but to other factors, such as prior disciplinary history. Those serving on
a departmental hearing panel charged with imposing discipline must be appropriately trained. A
disciplinary system should track all discipline received by an officer as well as the dates of
disciplinary action.

A. Risk Assessment and Management

APD command staff should examine and review officer conduct on a regular basis as a
proactive measure to minimize and detect misconduct, and to identify training and policy issues.
The new APD citizen complaint procedure requires a Captain to meet annually with every APD
officer to “display and discuss” all contents of an officer’s individual complaint file. Chapter 27,
Section 27.1.9. On our January 2004 tour of the APD, we were told that in practice, the Chief
meets privately every six months with each officer not only to review complaint reports, but to

- 19 
discuss any problems or concerns officers may have concerning the department. The current
practice of meeting and discussing complaints and other issues with each officer is an
appropriate way of troubleshooting potential problems in the department. In addition to this
practice, the APD should also adopt an EWS as an integral part of its risk management program.
B. Early Warning System
An EWS is a program, often computerized, designed to collect data on individual officers
for the purpose of maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for effective
supervision and management of a police department and its personnel. It may track uses of
force, citizen complaints, IA investigations, service calls, and other items relevant to an officer’s
conduct. A police department can then use EWS data regularly and proactively to promote best
professional police practices; accountability and management; manage the risk of police
misconduct and potential liability; evaluate and audit the performance of officers and units; and
to identify, manage, and control at-risk officers, conduct, and situations. APD does not currently
utilize an EWS.
Despite APD’s relatively small size, APD can develop an EWS that is appropriate for its
needs. APD could develop a paper-based EWS system rather than an electronic system if
necessary. Even a simple EWS would provide a useful assessment of each officer’s conduct. It
should contain information on all investigations and complaints, including non-sustained
complaints and complaints prior to final disposition, uses of force, criminal arrests and charges,
civil lawsuits, training history, supervisory reviews, discipline, and other corrective actions, as
well as awards and commendations.
We recommend that the APD require supervisors to review the EWS data of every officer
they supervise on a regular basis. APD should establish guidelines regarding specific events that
will trigger an additional supervisory review, such as a specific number of uses of force or
citizen complaints within a discrete period.

Vehicle Video and Audio Tape System

Vehicle video recording, as well as the audio recording of field interviews, can be an
important tool in protecting the integrity of a department, its officers, and officer interactions
with the public. Chief Oliver initiated the use of vehicle videotapes and hand-held cassettes used
to record field interviews. These policies have been codified at Chapter 9, Section 9.1.0 et seq.
Generally, the officers we interviewed during our visit to APD – including the Chief – were
pleased with the results of the new policy. APD vehicle video cameras are designed to
automatically turn on when a cruiser’s emergency lights are switched on. We were told that
officers are required to manually turn on their hand-held tape recorders – kept in their jacket or
shirt pockets – in nearly all instances when they speak with a citizen. Written policy, however,
requires recorded conversations in domestic dispute cases, field interviews, interrogations,
arrests, and “other times when an officer considers it appropriate....” Sections 9.1.1, 9.3.9 and
9.3.10. APD policy allows a supervisor to review a tape at any time. Section 9.6.2.

- 20 Some officers may not be complying with APD’s Vehicle Video Camera and Tape
policies (Sections 9.3.6, 9.5.1, and 9.5.2). One supervising officer reported that on some
occasions, particularly with hand-held recorders, officers claimed dead batteries or forgetfulness
as reasons the cassette did not record an encounter. Officers should be held accountable for
negligent and foreseeable failures to follow APD policy, such as “forgetting” to tape an
encounter or allowing batteries to run down.
It is unclear how and when these video and audio tapes are reviewed by supervisors. We
recommend that APD institute periodic and random review of video and audio tapes to ensure
compliance with APD’s recording policy. APD officers should expect random reviews and
internal auditing of their citizen interactions.
A. Field Training
1. APD’s Field Training Program
Field training for new officers is an integral component of any comprehensive officer
training program, and minimizes the risk of officers engaging in problematic behaviors,
including the use of excessive force. APD recruits generally begin their officer training at a
regional police academy along with recruits from 73 neighboring police departments. Because
of the diversity of the departments and their policies, the academy teaches basic courses and
relies upon individual police departments to teach recruits about their unique policies and
procedures. The ADP field training program is the first opportunity new recruits have to learn
APD policies and procedures. APD’s field training policy focuses primarily on records and
accountability. APD administers written examinations on field training subject matters, and
relies upon daily evaluation reports to evaluate recruit performance. APD’s training model does
not appear to utilize role-playing and “real-life” training models, but instead focuses more on
evaluating routinized performance through written materials. This field training method has
been questioned by some police practice experts because it focuses more on evaluation than
teaching officers how to react to potential situations.
We recommend that APD update its field training program, exam, and evaluation
methods. The fact that no one has ever failed APD’s field training program suggests it may be
insufficiently rigorous.
Notwithstanding the field training and exam provided to recruits, APD’s policy
requirements for its current field training program policy service are sparse, offering merely
“guidelines” that require ride-a-longs with current APD officers. Chapter 26, Section 26.1.0 et
seq. Trainees are then to be “evaluated” with “material that is expected of them,” and told that a
written test will be given at the end of the program.

- 21 Generally, APD’s field training program should be updated to reflect current training
techniques and police procedures. Training and teaching should be emphasized over evaluation.
Updated categories of training, such as community policing, department goals, mission
statement, and values, should be developed and implemented. Field training should cover and
test “high liability” items such as unconstitutional uses of excessive force and illegal searches
and seizures.
We recommend the APD ensure that new recruits are trained in high liability APD
policies and procedures before they are placed on patrol, even with another officer. At a
minimum, the APD should ensure that each recruit has successfully completed the requirements
of the field training program before placing that recruit on solo patrol. For many recruits the
eleven week field training program will be sufficient; however, those recruits who are unable to
complete the program in eleven weeks should be held over until they have completed the
We recommend that APD design its field training exams to better reflect a substantive
knowledge of the information necessary to be an effective officer. The exam should avoid
questions that suggest the answer. Recruits who fail the exam should be required by policy to
return for additional training, or perhaps not become officers.
We recommend that the daily reports completed by field training officers (“FTO”)
contain enough information to provide a useful review of trainee performance. Our review of
“Officer’s Daily Observation Reports” found that the reports contain too few comments to
evaluate performance. Training evaluations should reflect proper APD policy. In one case, an
officer’s evaluation we reviewed stated the trainee “is very nice to the public and will be
corrected when nice is not the best policy." Without further elaboration or explanation, this
comment is inappropriate because it does not identify how being “nice” is improper.
2. APD’s Field Training Instructors
Well-qualified FTO instructors are critical to ensuring well-trained police recruits.
APD’s current policy appears to contain no criteria to evaluate the qualifications or effectiveness
of those providing field training. The APD has no eligibility criteria for FTOs pertaining to the
applicants’ complaint and disciplinary histories, performance levels or special skills.

During our tour, we were told that under certain circumstances, APD may allow
recruits to begin working in the field as patrol officers before attending the state police academy.
Regardless of the quality of field training an APD officer will receive, and though it may
comport with state law, it is not the best practice to allow recruits who have not yet attended the
police academy to ride with officers, particularly if the recruits are armed. If APD wishes to hire
officers and utilize their services prior to their attending the police academy, it would be better to
give those recruits tasks inside the department that are ministerial or administrative.

- 22 We recommend that officers who train recruits should have at least three years
experience on the APD. Additionally, FTO instructors should have completed a course on how
to serve in that capacity, such as those offered by the Law Enforcement Training Officer’s
Association. An FTO’s experience and interpersonal skills should be factored into selection
We recommend that the APD take measures to recruit and train qualified FTOs,
including providing additional incentives to encourage officers to apply to become FTOs. The
APD should develop a mechanism for removing FTOs who fail to perform adequately, and
whose actions while serving as FTOs would have disqualified them from selection. The APD
should standardize the procedure for evaluating field training officers and solicit anonymous
evaluations of those individuals by their probationary officers.
B. In-service training
In-service training is a valuable tool for ensuring that officers maintain familiarity with
issues that are essential to police work. APD’s in-service training covers the basic elements of
police duties, such as radar certification, information on fugitive warrants, regulation reviews,
and various safety issues. Monthly Police Officer Service Training (“POST”) meetings are held
and attendance is taken.
Although APD provided us with monthly records documenting the training topics
covered and those attending monthly POST meetings, it did not produce documents reflecting
the substance of in-service training by including curricula, lesson-plans, or other materials.
From the class list, it appears that during the years 2002 and 2003, there is little if any training
aimed at developing supervisors, and no community-relations oriented training.
We recommend that the APD provide additional blocks of mandatory, annual, in-service
training that would include training on the use of force, searches and seizures, legal
developments, and police integrity. Use of force training should train officers to use only
reasonable force and instruct them in de-escalation techniques that can help them avoid using
force or minimize the amount of force used, rather than focusing solely on when an officer is
legally justified in using force. We recommend that this training focus on discussions and roleplay with officers about particular scenarios (preferably taken from actual incidents involving
APD officers) with the goal of educating officers regarding the legal and tactical issues raised by
the scenarios. The APD should document that all officers have successfully completed the
We recommend that all investigators receive annual in-service training including
investigatory techniques, interview skills and APD investigatory policies. Records of in-service
training should, where applicable, include details regarding what subject was taught, who taught
the material, and how much time was devoted to the matter. Documentation of in-service
training may prove important should the need arise to defend APD training practices in
litigation. Tests given during in-service training should be documented. APD should create a

- 23 
training committee that should meet several times a year to decide on the upcoming year’s
training. The committee should organize training so that it properly addresses the Department’s
needs and weaknesses. The committee should include the Chief, but should also include
representatives throughout the chain of command.
We note that one potential resource for the APD in establishing and improving in-service
training programs may be the long-standing training and grant programs operated by other
components of the Department of Justice, such as the Office of Justice Programs. While these
programs are completely separate and independent of the Civil Rights Division’s investigations,
we would be pleased to provide you with contact information for exploring the availability of
such programs.
We look forward to working with you and the APD in the coming months as our
investigation proceeds.
/s/ Shanetta Y. Cutlar

Shanetta Y. Cutlar
Special Litigation Section

Mayor David Frings
Chief Stanley Oliver