Citizen Police Advisory Review Board

 Letters to Chief Richard Miranda: 

2005
• April 21, 2005
• February 18, 2005

2004
• November 05, 2004
• March 16, 2004

April 21, 2005

Chief Richard Miranda
Tucson Police Department
270 S. Stone
Tucson, AZ 85701

Dear Chief Miranda,

BACKGROUND

In early 2004, CPARB developed a customer satisfaction survey in order to solicit citizens’ comments on their experience with TPD’s complaint process. The goal was to present feedback, positive and negative, with recommendations as appropriate, to TPD on their process.

The Board reviewed several surveys from other citizen oversight agencies throughout the country to formulate its form. Additionally, the Board met with Capt. Allen and Lt. McShea to get their perspective. The survey was approved in April 2004. It has five attitudinal questions presented asking citizens to express agreement or disagreement on a six-point scale. These questions inquire about satisfaction with four major areas of service: how well investigators listened to the citizen, explanation/timeliness of the process, information given to the citizen, and how quickly and thoroughly the complaint was handled. One question asks for an overall rating of the complaint process. Additionally, the survey poses two open-ended questions, requiring narrative responses. They ask for the strengths and weaknesses of the complaint process. In June 2004, Internal Affairs started distributing the survey to citizens whose complaints were investigated and closed.

In January 2005, CPARB formed a subcommittee with the charter to review and summarize the completed surveys, identify possible trends, and formulate recommended courses of action to the Board and TPD, as applicable. To that end, the Subcommittee, comprised of Ms. Bottka-Smith, Mr. Tor, Ms. Hart, and Lt. McShea, met twice in February 2005.


DISCUSSION

From June 2004 to January 2005, 227 surveys were mailed out by Internal Affairs. Of those, 19 were returned as undeliverable, and 29 were completed and sent to CPARB, for a 13% return rate. Attachment 1 provides all citizen responses and comments. Although 13% return rate is favorable, it is a relatively small sample from which to draw conclusions. However, the Subcommittee did note some possible trends.

With a few exceptions, most of the responses to the attitudinal questions were closely split between satisfied/very satisfied and dissatisfied/very dissatisfied. However, in response to satisfaction with information received (three questions in the category), citizens were more inclined to be dissatisfied or very dissatisfied--44 of 64 responses were in the negative. This was also the case for satisfaction with the thoroughness of how the complaint was handled--18 of 25 responses were in the negative. Additionally, the overall satisfaction with the complaint process was overwhelmingly in the very dissatisfied category, with 17 of the 26 citizens responding in the negative.

Results of the open-ended questions appear to be congruent with the attitudinal questions. When discussing strengths, citizens’ comments fell into three major themes. Eleven persons commented on the promptness with which their complaint was handled, using words such as prompt, immediate, and quick. Five persons identified being listened to as a strength and six persons felt TPD personnel were professional, using words such as understanding, helpful, polite, and well-mannered.

When discussing weaknesses, there were many comments about lack of communication and not receiving an explanation. A third of the respondents felt there needed to be more and better communication during the complaint process.

Additionally, four citizens voluntarily provided their complaint number. Since all had negative comments, the Board looked at their completed investigations in an effort to further identify and address their concerns. In the opinion of the Subcommittee, these cases were handled in a fair and thorough manner by TPD and did not reveal any issues warranting further review.

Survey comments also generated some policy and procedure questions which the Subcommittee discussed. These were questions about the mediation program, release of discipline information to citizens, and how community-wide concerns are addressed by TPD. Current policies and procedures seem to adequately address these issues.


RECOMMENDATIONS

The Board believes that the survey is a valuable tool, providing useful information. In order to increase the sample size, the Board recommends the continuing effort to gather citizen feedback by sending out surveys thru July 2005. At that time, the Subcommittee should review and re-evaluate results for further trends and recommendations.

In order to get a more accurate return rate, the City Clerk’s office should track and report to CPARB the number of surveys that are returned as undeliverable.

Survey results should be shared with Internal Affairs staff in order to give kudos and encourage them to continue with their prompt and professionalism customer service, and at the same time, use the feedback to strategize in developing better and more communications techniques when handling citizen complaints.

CPARB should conduct a follow-up review on all cases in which the citizens give the complaint number. This was already discussed and approved at the Board’s March meeting.

During the review it was noted that many comments were cut off in the copying process. As such, we recommend the City Clerk’s office ensure surveys are copied in their entirety.

The Board appreciates TPD’s cooperation and commitment to solicit citizens’ comments and to identify areas of improvement and urges the Department to continue with these efforts.

Sincerely,

Vicki Hart
Chairperson

Attachment
1.  Community Satisfaction Survey Summary

cc: Mayor and Council
     Mike Hein, City Manager
     Captain Carla Johnson, TPD
     Lieutenant James McShea, TPD
     Liana Perez, IPA
     Michael Anderson, Senior Assistant City Attorney
     CPARB Board Members
     CPARB Advisory Board Members
     CPARB Ex-Officio Members

February 18, 2005

Chief Richard Miranda
270 S. Stone
Tucson, AZ 85701

Dear Chief Miranda,

At our November meeting, Officer O’Hara, Lieutenant Bay, and Irene Doran gave an interactive demonstration on the use of two Breathalyzer devices employed by TPD: the Intoxilyzer 5000 and Intoxilyzer 300. At our January meeting, the Board followed up with a discussion of TPD’s current policy regarding the administration of the Intox 300. In this letter, we convey two concerns that arose from that discussion and our subsequent recommendations.

During the presentation, several Board members gave breath samples using each of the Breathalyzer devices. The test scenarios went as follows: One member blew into the Intox 300 less than 2 minutes after rinsing with mouthwash; the device read ".400". That same member then waited an additional 10 minutes after which time she blew into the same device; at that point it read ".000".

In another scenario, a member rinsed with mouthwash and then immediately blew into the Intox 5000; that device read "Range Exceeded", suggesting that mouth alcohol interfered and skewed the results of the breath sample. After a 10-minute deprivation period, the Intox 5000 read ".000".

It is clear from these two tests that residual mouth alcohol causes the Intox 5000 to read "Range Exceeded", however, it results in a false positive reading on the Intox 300.

Officer O’Hara also informed the Board that, whereas the proper administration of the Intox 5000 requires a deprivation period of 15 minutes in order to prevent the interference of residual mouth alcohol or gastric gases, administration of the Intox 300 does not; whereas the Intox 5000 requires a duplicate test, the Intox 300 does not; whereas the results of the Intox 5000 are admissible in court, those of the Intox 300 are not; and, whereas every Intox 5000 device is maintained and tested on a monthly basis, the Intox 300 devices never are. Finally, we learned during the presentation that the technology contained within the Intox 5000 far exceeds that contained within the Intox 300, making the former more accurate than the latter. Our tests also found this to be true.

In spite of these important differences, although the precise reading of an Intox 300 may not be admitted in court, a positive reading alone may sufficiently justify an arrest for minor in possession of alcohol (MIP), a misdemeanor. Thus, as TPD policy currently stands, an officer may rightly issue an MIP even though it is clear -- as evidenced from the Board's tests of the Intox 300 -- that the device is not reliable, at least during the first 10 minutes after an individual consumes mouth alcohol. Again, mouth alcohol causes the Intox 300 to give a false-positive reading. This is the Board's first concern.

Our second concern centers on the way in which Intox 300 is administered. We suspect that a great majority of young adults do not fully recognize the extent of their rights. Specifically, we believe that many individuals feel compelled to submit to an Intox 300 test even though, in truth, no external pressures force them to do so. This is further compounded by the fact that TPD policy allows an officer to ask a citizen to submit to an Intox 300 breath test without also apprising that citizen of his or her right to refuse. (Without a change to TPD policy, we expect that no officer will candidly offer an individual this information.) This amounts to subtle coercion and is patently unfair.

Surely, TPD is as concerned about curbing underage drinking as it is about ensuring procedural fairness. To be sure, this Board is deeply concerned about ensuring fair treatment of all individuals, regardless of age. As such, we recommend the following changes:

• Submission to an Intoxilyzer 300 breath test must be preceded by a 15-minute period of the sort required before submitting to an Intoxilyzer 5000.
   
• Officers must inform individuals that submission to an Intoxilyzer 300 test is voluntary and that a refusal to submit will have no negative consequences.

Because the pain and hassle of a misdemeanor -- namely an MIP -- can be timely, costly, and emotionally traumatizing, we urge TPD to employ methods that ensure that no innocent individual will be arrested. We urge TPD to adopt the above-mentioned changes.

Thank you,

Vicki Hart
Chairperson

November 05, 2004

Chief Richard Miranda
City of Tucson
270 S. Stone Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85701

Dear Chief Miranda:

• Two recent cases the CPARB Board reviewed once again brought attention to what appear to be troubling procedures/policies practiced by the Tucson Police Department's Internal Affairs Division (IAD). The Board has on many occasions and for a very long time, discussed both of these issues and has expressed its concern to Tucson Police Department staff attending the meetings. Unfortunately, it appears that these practices have been so entrenched and institutionalized that a willingness to entertain change is greatly diminished.
   
• The first practice to which we refer is categorizing officers who are a subject of a complaint as "unknown" when the complaint is not deemed to have "risen to a level of a complaint" and is closed by IAD without chain of command review. This "unknown" categorization is misleading because in fact, the subject of the complaint is known and the name of the officer is specifically given by the citizen complainant. We find this practice disconcerting for several reasons:
  
  
  1. As with one of the recent cases (0400142), this wasn’t the first time the officer had a complaint filed against him. However, as with the current complaint, the previous complaint also categorized the subject of the complaint as "unknown." Therefore a search for the previous complaint indicated no prior complaints against the officer. Further research found that the complaint was filed under the name of the complainant. In this instance, the complainant was the same in both cases making the connection a fairly easy one. However, there is no way of knowing if there are other complaints, filed by different citizens, against the officer in which the employee is categorized as "unknown." This practice makes it impossible to know if there are trends with a particular officer.
      
  2. It has been explained to the Board that this procedure is used to protect the officer’s due process and that it would be unfair to have complaints in an officer’s record that were not "valid" complaints which were not investigated through the chain of command. While we understand and support each officer’s right to due process, it is the Board’s position that this practice may compromise the ability of IAD to do a fair and thorough job. We have been briefed about the new tracking system and early identification of problems officers may be having or repeating. We find that when officers are listed as "unknown," even when it is very clear who they are, that the system simply doesn’t work.
      
  3. As a result of the above concerns, the Board strongly recommends that all identified officers in complaints be named. We believe that the disposition of the complaint will speak for itself and sufficiently indicate whether the complaint was "valid" or not and if the officer was found not to be in violation of a particular department policy. We too are concerned with the protection of officers’ rights. However, that right must be balanced with the protection of the citizens and the community. Simply put, it is imperative that the Tucson Police Department have accurate data available to identify possible trends.
      
• The second practice the Board finds disturbing is the use of the phrase "does not rise to a level of a complaint" when referring to complaints filed by citizens. As we understand it, this phrase is used when IAD makes a decision to close a complaint at their level, without an investigation by the chain of command.
  
  
  1. It is the opinion of the Board that when citizens express concerns in good faith, it is a "complaint." To not recognize it as such is insulting to the citizen and the community.
      
  2. If there is a need to differentiate complaints that have not been investigated by the chain of command, the Board suggests the use of a different phrase; one that acknowledges that a complaint has been filed but it did not require other than IAD review.
      
• As mentioned before, these two issues have been long-standing. It is our belief that they can be corrected with minimal effort and would result in a positive impact on both TPD and the community.

Thank you for your consideration.


Sincerely,

Vicki Hart
Chairperson

March 16, 2004

Chief Richard Miranda
Tucson Police Department
270 South Stone Avenue
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1917

Dear Chief Miranda:

At the February 2004 meeting we, the Citizen Police Advisory Review Board, discussed the issue of red tag enforcement policy by the Tucson Police Department. The issue of red tag enforcement has been a long-standing concern of the Board. It has been discussed and addressed several times in the past during our meetings. The Board continues to be concerned that practices haven’t changed and it appears that TPD is not fairly and equally enforcing Tucson City Code Sec. 16-32.

Captain Bill Washington provided the Board with the frequency distribution of red tags and repeat locations within four police divisions (ODS, ODW/ODD, ODM, and ODE). The Board noted a disproportionately high number of red tags issued to residents in ODM: in 2003, 432, or 78%, of the 551 red tags distributed by TPD were given to residents in ODM.

Assistant Chief John Leavitt noted the figure as evidence that the police are responding to the public’s complaints. As a matter of general principle, we do not dispute this claim and recognize that a red tag is issued only after a complaint is made. What we do dispute is the fairness of how these red tags are issued within ODM. In fact, the Board asserts that the lack of fairness is the cause of the disparity previously mentioned.

Our concern is based on anecdotal reports from various parts of the city as well as the above statistics. We are hearing that persons in the University area are not given the same opportunities to comply with the ordinance prior to receiving a red tag as are the residents of the Eastside. When a red tag is issued to a resident in ODM he or she should be treated with the same level of fairness and respect as a resident in any other division. If, for example, an officer offers individuals in ODE a warning before issuing a citation then the same should be done for individuals in ODM. Any inconsistency in this regard is, quite simply, unfair and has the appearance of discrimination.

It appears that since many of the residents in ODM are college students they receive most of the red tags. This begs the questions: why are so many red tags given to students? Is it because they refuse to comply with a warning?

The best evidence that college students are willing and responsible enough to comply with a warning is highlighted by the same statistics provided by Captain Washington. By examining the number of repeat locations within the divisions we noted the following rates of repeat violators: ODS 11%, ODE 11%, ODM 9%, and ODW/ODD 8%. Surprisingly, the rate in ODM is lower than those in ODS and ODE. This data suggests that residents in ODM are less likely to be cited a second time than residents in ODE and ODS. Once college students are given a citation and, hence, made aware their conduct is causing a disturbance, they take the initiative to prevent a disturbance a second time. It is probable they would do this after a verbal warning versus a red tag citation.

Why, then, are warnings not given more often before issuing a red tag? Not only would this save students the hassle and consequences of a red tag in the first place, but it would foster a better relationship among students and officers.

When police officers institute a policy of no-tolerance toward college students with regard to the issuance of red tags, a hostile environment is created which in turn fosters resentment and malcontent among students. This inevitably leads to a veritable cycle of antagonism.

A positive relationship between the Department and the community is our aim; respect for students is a prerequisite for better police-community relations. With better relations comes better compliance, less antagonism, and fewer crimes.

Furthermore, the students of today will be the citizens, elected officials, and officers of tomorrow. They will be our courts’ jurors, jurors whose negative interaction with police officers will affect how much credibility they give the testimony of those police officers.

It is to the benefit of the entire community that the Department institutes a red tag policy enforcement that is fair, equitable, and respectful of all of its citizens.


Sincerely,

Vicki Hart
Chairperson

cc: Mayor and Council
     James R. Keene, City Manager
     Captain Sharon Allen, TPD
     Lieutenant James McShea, TPD
     Liana Perez, IPA
     Mike Anderson, Senior Assistant City Attorney
     Board Members
     Advisory Members
     Ex-Officio Member