Beginning Compliance. (BC) means that the Juvenile Court has made initial efforts to implement the required reform and achieve the desired outcome of equal protection for all youth within the stated time-lines but significant work remains on many of facets of stated above items. Non-Compliance (NC) means the Juvenile Court has not implemented policies, procedures and programs; has not trained staff and personnel; does not have sufficient staff to implement the required reform; has not demonstrated a commitment toward reform; has not identified points of contact, have not met, have not collected data, have not analyzed the data, and have not attempted reform; has not addressed data needs; has not developed and utilized mechanisms to disseminate information; has not identified and developed areas and stages in the system in need of reform; has not developed a plan to evaluate and monitor reform, and has not ascertained if reform achieved desired outcomes. This assessment is made within the context that the above stated actions or inactions has not occurred within time-lines as specified in the Agreement. Compliance Level to Be Determined (CLTBD) means that a decision on the compliance level is pending in light of deadlines of specific reforms as stated in the Agreement have not yet come or arrived – Nine-Months, One- Year- or have been given an extension.
Beginning Compliance. This level indicates that the EPSO has made initial efforts to implement the required reforms and achieve the outcome envisioned by the provision but significant work remains.
Beginning Compliance. SUPERVISION REGARDING FOURTH AMENDMENT ACTIVITIES Report Reviews (Paragraphs 22, 23) Beginning Compliance Addressing Policy Violations (Paragraphs 24, 25, 26) Non-Compliance CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS Interrogations (Paragraphs 27, 28) Substantial Compliance Xxxxxxx adherence (Paragraphs 29, 30, 31) Substantial Compliance Documentation of Interrogations (Paragraph 32) Beginning Compliance Recording Interrogations (Paragraph 33) Beginning Compliance Investigative File Creation and Maintenance (Paragraph 34) Partial Compliance Investigative File Identification and Tracking (Paragraph 35) Substantial Compliance Investigative File Management (Paragraph 36) Partial Compliance Community Outreach (Paragraph 37) Partial Compliance Booking (Paragraphs 38, 39) Pending/Insufficient Information Detainee Searches (Paragraphs 40, 41) Non-Compliance Inmate Files (Paragraph 42) Partial Compliance Inmate Lists (Paragraphs 43, 44) Partial Compliance
Beginning Compliance. Providing Inmate Lists to Court (Paragraph 47) Partial Compliance Access Provisions (Paragraphs 48, 49) Beginning Compliance POLICIES Settlement Agreement Requirements (Paragraphs 50, 51, 52) Partial Compliance Policy Manual (Paragraph 53) Partial Compliance Publicly Available Policies (Paragraph 54) Partial Compliance Basic Training and Certifications (Paragraphs 55, 56, 57, 58) Substantial Compliance Annual Training Requirements and Field Training Program (Paragraphs 59, 60) Partial Compliance Lateral and In-Service Training (Paragraphs 61, 62) Partial Compliance Misconduct Reporting (Paragraphs 63, 64) Non-Compliance Body-Worn Cameras (Paragraph 65) Partial Compliance Eliminating Unlawful practices (Paragraph 66) Beginning Compliance Developing Data Collection System (Paragraphs 67, 68, 69, 70) Beginning Compliance Annual Reports (Paragraphs 71, 72) Beginning Compliance Status Reports (Paragraph 73) Beginning Compliance Conducting Annual Outcome Assessments (Paragraph 74) Beginning Compliance Creating Outcome Assessments Plan and Protocol (Paragraph 75) Beginning Compliance
Beginning Compliance. Outcome Assessments Status and Annual Reports (Paragraph 77) Beginning Compliance
Beginning Compliance. 2020 Status Beginning Compliance Assessment During the prior reporting period, EPSO developed and implemented training for officers on a suite of new policies developed to ensure that officers’ contact with community members is consistent with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and due process. These include policies regarding: • Arrests; • Contacts, Stops and Weapons Xxx Xxxxx; • Fair and Impartial Policing; • Field Interview Cards; • Miranda Warnings; • Search Warrants; and • Vehicle Stops. These were significant steps towards completing and implementing an updated policy manual to guide officers’ conduct in encounters with individuals in their community and complying with Agreement provisions. As of May 2022, however, EPSO has not provided DOJ or updated its website with copies of final, dated policies that have been distributed to and acknowledged by officers. DOJ reviewed over 75 body-worn camera videos and over 100 incident reports during this reporting period and did not detect any evidence that suggests officers have continued to use “investigative holds” or have relied on information known to be materially false or incorrect to justify law enforcement activities. However, in the course of its review, DOJ has identified failures by officers to follow these new EPSO policies in a number of other respects, including unnecessarily lengthening stops, conducting warrantless searches without justification, making inappropriate and unprofessional statements to civilians, and conducting pre-arrest strip searches in public areas. In particular, we reviewed six incidents in which officers violated EPSO policy and transformed routine traffic stops into needlessly invasive and burdensome encounters with motorists, and we reviewed three incidents where EPSO officers performed improper pre-arrest strip searches. For example: • In June 2021, EPSO officers stopped a vehicle for traveling in the left lane for too long. Officers ordered the driver out of the vehicle, questioning her about her driving and then asking her whether the female passenger was “her partner.” Officers continued questioning the driver about things unrelated to her driving, even making a racially insensitive comment about whether she played golf, saying that’s “some white people” stuff. The officers detained the driver and passenger for over 15 minutes before returning the driver’s and passenger’s identifications and releasing them without charges. • An EPSO supervisor stopped a driver f...
Beginning Compliance. 2020 Status Beginning Compliance Assessment During the Second Reporting period, EPSO trained officers on proper implementation of new policies and new documentation systems consistent with those policies. However, for part of this reporting period, EPSO failed to keep records sufficient to enable DOJ to fully assess compliance with this provision. Next Steps EPSO has resumed using its electronic record-keeping system, which EPSO in part to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement, for all booking records and other applicable jail activity. DOJ encourages EPSO to continue using its electronic record system to enable DOJ to assess compliance with these provisions. During the next reporting period, DOJ will: (1) continue to monitor implementation of the new policies; (2) audit documentation of law enforcement activity to assess compliance with these Agreement provisions; and (3) ensure that EPSO finalizes its new policies.
Beginning Compliance. 2020 Status Pending/Insufficient Information Assessment DOJ did not review any evidence during this reporting period that suggests that EPSO jail officials failed to ensure that arrested persons were allowed to use a telephone or send a message to family members, friends, or counsel after they were arrested. EPSO officials reported that arrested persons were allowed to use the telephone or send a message to friends or counsel after their arrests, unless EPSO officials identified evidentiary issues (i.e., multiple arrestees involved in a crime) that would delay access to these communication portals while EPSO staff members were gathering evidence. Next Steps EPSO shall update and implement policies and procedures that guide EPSO staff on arrest procedures, including jail communication-access protocols that staff will follow after arrested persons are brought into the jail.
Beginning Compliance. 2020 Status Pending/Insufficient Information Assessment In our review of E-Force data, we were able to determine that supervisors reviewed reports within 12 hours. However, these reviews were not thorough, objective and did not indicate that supervisors assessed narratives for legal sufficiency or policy compliance. Instead, EPSO supervisors appeared to review reports on the web-based system without determining whether officers’ activities were legally justified and in compliance with EPSO policy. In our review of incident reports and body-worn camera footage, we consistently found a pervasive practice where officers transformed short traffic stops into protracted encounters with motorists. And in several of these protracted encounters, we identified instances where EPSO officers were unprofessional - making inappropriate and unprofessional comments - and officers appeared to unreasonably intrude into motorists’ vehicles. These incidents are troublesome and raise Fourth Amendment concerns. Next Steps DOJ will continue to audit EPSO’s electronic-warrant system and ensure that EPSO documents supervisory reviews of officers’ activities and maintains thorough reports on these activities. We will also continue to monitor closely EPSO’s supervision of Fourth Amendment activities.
Beginning Compliance. 2020 Status Pending/Insufficient Information Assessment EPSO uses the WarrantNow platform to create, approve, and generate arrest and search warrant information. WarrantNow is a web-based system, designed to expedite the process of having judges review and approve warrants. We were able to review many of these court-approved warrants, and we found that supervisors appeared to review these warrants before they were submitted for court approval. While we are pleased that EPSO uses an electronic system to track and maintain warrant information, EPSO failed to provide any documentation verifying that supervisors consistently reviewed all documentation of Fourth Amendment activities (e.g., probable cause affidavits). EPSO also failed to provide any documentation that showed that it assessed and reported instances where persons were released because of lack of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Next Steps DOJ will continue to audit EPSO’s electronic-warrant system and ensure that EPSO documents supervisory reviews of warrants and maintains reports in its system, confirming that supervisors conduct thorough and objective reviews of officers’ reports. We will also continue to monitor closely EPSO’s supervision of Fourth Amendment activities. We recently learned that EPSO implemented CloudGavel, a cloud-based electronic-warrant provider, to initiate, document, and submit warrants to local judges for rapid review and approval.
