09/23/2888

18:52

GEOFFREY ALPERT

8837777319

PAGE 82/28

Geoffrey P. Alpert
1905 Salem Church Rd. Irmo. South Carolina 29.083
Telephone: (803)732-1336. Feic: (803) 777-7319

September 23, 2008
RB: Fortner y CitY of Memphis
I am a Professor of Criminal Criminology and Criminallustice at the University of South
Carolina, and I have been ratmned by Ms. DeJois Fortner to provide my expert opinions
in this case. I have a Ph.D. in sociology from Washington State Univem1y, and have
conducted research on police policies and customs for the past twenty yean. I have
published extensively in the area, of criminal justice, including scholarly articles
concerning internal affairs, early warning systems and use of force. I have worked with
nmnerous police agencies to develop policies, conduct training, and provide them with
other consulting services. I am familiar with police operating procedures as well as the
custouis developed by practice. I base the statements contained herein on my education,
research, work experience, knowledge of police policies and customs, as wen as my
review of the documents and material provided to me for review set forth in·Exhibit G. I
have previously been accepted as an expert in an excessive force case by the appellate
courts in the Sixth Circuit in the published case of Champion v. Outlook NyybiJIs. Inc.
380 F.3d 893 (6th Cir. 2004). A copy of my CV setting forth my qualifications and
documents is attached as Exhibit A. A list of the cases that I have testified at trial or by
deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A copy of my fee schedule is attached as
ExhibitC.
I have previously been retained as an expert witness in civil rights C&\Ses against the City
of Memphis and reviewed extensive materials conccming the policies, practices and
customs of the MPD and have previously formulated opinions. In particular, I was
retained by the Plaintiff in the following cases to express opinions and prepare an expert
report: 1) Bo,yd v. City of Mpphis, et ai, No. 94-3077 HA; 2) Buckley y, MemRhis. et
al.. No. 03-2875; and 3) Ham.pton y. MemPhis. et. al, No. 04-2537. I also provided
consulting expert services in falazola v. McnmJis,et al. but did not prepare an expert
l'I'Port prior to the settJement of the case. I have also prepared an expert report in mmg
y. Memphis, 07-CV-02388 on September 16,2008, which I attach hereto as ExhJ.'bit D.
The information review in these cases and contained in these reports is also part of the
basis for my opinions and conclusions. In formulating my opinions, I have reviewed the
information identified in Exhibit E.

1

09/23/2888 18:52

GEOFFREV ALPERT

8837777319

PAGE

SUMMARY OF FACTS
Michael George Smith was a 17 year African Ammican male who was involved in an

incident with officers of the Memphis Police Department on July 14, 2006, who
ultimately died on July 22, 2006. On July 14, 2006, Michael Smith was with his brother
Jerome Fortner and his girlfriend. Erica ShetTa, who arc both juv~es. The three
juveniles had gone to the residence of Willie campbell to ask: advice about how to care
for the sick puppy. As the juveniles were leaving the residence ofWillie Campbell. they
ware encountered Officers Kay, Leslie and Goodwin who were patrolling in an un-

marked vehicle in plain-clothers. The circumstances surrounding the encounter with
police are disputed.

Accordingly tbe testimony, Officers Leslie, Kay and Goodwin were assigned to a plainclothes duty riding in a completely unmarked car with tinted windows. Given that it was
the weekend, this was not an unusual duty call as IIHIDY times many officers ride in plainclothes and undercover cars to p8.tro1 problem areas looking for criminal activity. In this·
particular incidence, two separate shifts combined their forces to saturate problem areas.
U Moffit and Lt. McCord were involved in this matter as supervising officers. In this
detail, the plain-clothes officers riding in unmarked cars were patrolling problem areas
looking for criminal activity. Once the undercover officers observed criminal activity,
they would routinely radio marked patrol units who would investigate the alleged
criminal aotivity. A paddy wagon was available in the event that arrests were made.
Officer Kay believed that the assignment was part of the MPD's Blue C1Usb Initiative
and that they were concentrating on certain high crime areas.
On July 14, 2006, the officers were driving the unmarked unit. Officer Leslie was
driving the vehicle, Officer Kay was in the ftont seat and Officer Godwin was in the back
seat. The officers were traveling in the area of Piney Woods Street and observed
suspected criminal activity and radioed patrol cars to investigate. After the officers
radioed patrol cars, they positioned their vehicle on the next street to be on the lookout in
case any potential suspect fled when ,the marked officers arrived. After they did not
observe any suspects fleeing, they drove down Dobbins Ferry Road. The officers
testified that they were traveling slowly down Dobbins Ferry Road when they observed
three individuals in the middle of the road, blocking traffic. These individuals were later
identified as Michael George Smith, Erica Sheffa and Jerome Fortner. The officers
testified that they kept inching up their un-marked vehicle when they encountered the
juveniles, but the individuals would not move. The officers testified that the reason for
,the making contact with juveniles was because they were obstructing a highway or •
passageway. The officers all admitted that if the juveniles were not in the road or
blocking a highway that there would have been justification to stop and question the
juveniles. (Goodwin, pp. 20-21; Kay, p. 24; Leslie, pp. 18). The circumstances of the
original stop are significant in analyzing thc conduct ofthe officers.
Based on the officer's testimony, the officers decided to stop the juveniles because they
were obstructing a highway or passageway. The offic," then exited the vehicle and
identified themselves as police officers. Michael Smith and Erica Sheffa began walking
2

B3/2B

09/23/2008

18:52

GECFFREV ALPERT

8037777319

PAGE 04/20

back towards the house and Jerome Fortner was walking in the other direction towards a
white car. Officer Kay conceqtrated 9n Jerome Fortner, Officers Leslie concentrated on
Erica Sheffa and Officer Goodwin concentrated on Michael Smith and Erica Shcffa. The
officers ordered the juveniles to halt and the juveniles complied. The officers did not
observe the juveniles holding any weapons. After ordering the juveniles to stop, Officer
Goodwin noticed that Michael Smith was holding a puppy and Officer Leslie became
aware that Michael Smith was holding a puppy after he heard Officer Goodwin stale
something about a pup~. Officer Goodwin did not note that Michael Smith was
speriencing any medical distress upon initial contact. Officer Goodwin testified that
Michael Smith went "limp" and his head and torso hit the vehicle. Officer Goodwin then
stated that he grabbed Michael Smith by the back of his pants to attempt to keep him
from bitting his head on the ground. However, while Officer Goodwin was attempting to
stop Michael Smith from ramUS to the ground, his bead did bit the ground. Officers Kay
and Leslie stated that they heard a "thud" and then saw Michael Smith sliding off the
front ofthe vehicle. Ofticer Kay then indicated that he told Jerome Fortner to stay seated
on the curb when he went to assist Officer Goodwin. The officers all testified that the
oonduct of the juveniles would not have justified any officer to use force by picking up
Michael Smith and slamming him on the hood of the vehicle and that any such conduct
would have been improper. (Kay, p. 37; Leslie, p. 25; Goodwin, p. 29). The officers
then testified that when Michael Smith was on the ground, he appeared to be in medical
distress, medical personnel were call and CPR was started after Lt. Moffit arrived. If this
version ofevents is believed, the officers aU acted appropriately.
However, the civilian witnesses and other evidence contradict the officers' version of
events. Based on statements Jerome Fortner and Erica Sheft'a, Michael Smith and Erica
Shetfa were not in the street when the officers' unmarked vehicle came driving down the
street at a high rate of speed. Jerome Fortner was walking in front on Michael Smith and
Erica Sheffa. As the officers' vehicle came down the s1reet at a. high rate of speed,
Jerome Fortner attempted to cross the road and was almost hit by the officers' vehicle.
At that time, the vehicle stopped and the officers exited the car and told the juveniles to
stop. The JUVeniles complied. However, an officer then pick up Michael Smith and
slammed his head onto the vehicle and Michael Smith went into medical distress. In
addition, Willie Campbell also gave a written statement indicating that the officers had
slammed Michael Smith's head onto the police vehicle.
In addition to the statements mentioned above, I have reviewed certain medical records
concerning the incident. After Michael Smith was found to be in medical distress, he was
not responsivc. Michael Smith was transported by ambulance to Delta Medical Center
for evaluation. Thereafter, Michael Smith was transported by ambulance to LeBonhuer
Hospital. The ambulance report indicates that Mr. Smith had an abrasion on his forehead
when transported to Delta Medical Center. The Delta Medical Center Emergency
Dcpartment Triage Record indicates: "17 year old witnessed [in] full arrest per MFD Unit
10. 'Officers pushed 17 year old against car roughly and child went down.' Officers
doing CPR on arrival of MFD." The Delta Medical Center Emergency Department
Nurse Assessment and Continuation Sheet indicates: e'17 year old black male witnessed
[in] mest per MFD Unit 10. Child pushed against car and child went down. Officers
3

09/23/2008

18:52

GEOFFREV ALPERT

8037777319

PAGE 05/20

doing CPR on anival of MFD." LeBonheur Hospital Neurology Consultant's Report
notes: "17 year old Afiican American male. Last evening was pushed against a car. Full
arrest noted." LcBonheur Hospital Consultant's Report notes: "17 year old African
American male brought to LeBonheur PICU from Delta Medical Center. He was in an
altercation last evening and collapsed, found to be in tW1 arrest by Mm." LcBoDheur
HospitallCU FellOW/Attending Admit Note indicates: "Patient is a 17 year old African
American Male who last evening was pushed against a car and reportedly went to the
ground. Child full arrested. CPR performed." LeBonheur Hospital Lab and Radiologic
findings notes: "17 year old black male sip :tb11 cardio reap. arrest Circumstances not
entirely clear. Collapsed during altercation with police." As Michael Smith was not
responsive, he could not have provided infonnation concerning the circumstances of his
encounter with poJice. Therefore, the medical records contradict the officers' version of
events.
The autopsy reports notes that Michael Smith had ulceration on his lip and small
abrasions on his arms. The cause of death determined by the medical examiner was
undetermined. However, the Affidavit of Dr. Kris Sperry refutes this contention and has
opined that Michael George Smith's death was caused by his encounter with officers of
theMPD.
After the incident, the MPD had its Inspectional Bureau Division inveStigate the incidmt
based on the fact that there were scnous injuries that occurred during an encounter with
MPD officers. The investigation was instigated administratively and not on the basis of
any complaint by the civilians. When a complaint is investigated, the file initially gets
assigned the disciplinary rule violation - DR 101 - Compliance with Regulations. While
Sgt. McNamee was nQt on duty at the time of the incident, the ISB file was assigned to
him. Sgt. McNamee did not make the scene or perform the initial investigation or
interviews.
After Mr. Fomta' was taken from the scene of the accident, ISB took
statements of civilians and the officers involved.
Despite thc fact that the civilians indicated that Michael Smith was slammed against the
hood of the police vehicle and the officers indicated that Michael Smith's head andlor
torso struck the police car, the vehicle was not immediately secured as evidence or tested
in any fashion. ISB had the vehicle tested four days after the incident for fingetprints or
evidence of blood or human fluids that turned out negative. This fact neither confinned
nor colTOborated either the civilian witnesses' or the officers' testimony that Michael
Smith's head struck the police vehicle. (McNam~, p 37).

Sgt. McNamee noted that his investigation concluded. that the soJe reason for the
encounter with the juveniles was because they were' standing in the street blocking the
roadway and there was no other justification for the stop. However, Sgt. McNamee
testified .that he did not focus on whether the initial stop was proper or improper.
(McNamee, p. 44-45, 53). Furthct, the manner in which the unmarkcd patrol car was
being driven by the officers on the night of the incident was not investigated.
(McNamee, p. 55). Sgt. McNamee testified that on the night of the incident, many
statements were done "live" and immediately transcribed.. (McNamee, p. 45). Jerome
4

09/23/2888

18:52

GEOFFREY ALPERT

8837777319

PAGE

Fortner and Erica Sheffa's statements werc taken that night as well as the officers'
statements. Sgt. McNamee testified that investigators spoke with a witness on the scene
whose statement was allegedly consistent with the officers' account, but this statement
was not recorded. The ISB investigation contained documents that reflect that MPD
investigators spoke with Michael Smith's physicians who informed the investigators that
a drug test performed on Michaal Smith tcste4 positive for THC, PCP and amphetamines.
The ISB file does not contain any document that provided the investigators with consent
to obtain Michael Smith's medical information or to speak with his physicians.
Significantly, the to'ticology tests completed by the medical examiner's officer noted that
Michael Smith did not have any drugs in his system.
Sgt. McNamee testified that the 'officers' statemClllts were consistent and acknowledged
that the civilian statements contradicted the officers' statements. In addition, Sgt.
McNamee testified that a civilian witness, Willie Campbell, gave an initial statement to
officers on the scene that was consistent with the officers' version of events. As noted,
this initial statement was not recorded or transcribed. However, the recorded statement
given by Willie Campbell contained in the ISB filed which was transcribed contradicted
the officers' version of events and indicated that hc gave the MPD investigators the same
infonnation on the night of the incident. Sgt. McNamee gave no explanation why the
original oral statement of Willie Campbell was DOt recorded. Sgt. McNamee noted that
all of the officers noted that Michael Smith had injuries after the encounter that were not
present prior to the encounter.
Officers Jay, Leslie and Goodwin did not complete sepuate incident reports of this
mattCll'. the IS8 file only contains an Offense Memo that was completed in part by
Officer Leslie and Officer Kay and a supervisory report completed by Ll Moffit about
his observations on the scene. Significantly, Officer Goodwin did not complete any
report about his participation in or observations ofthe events.
After his investigation, Sgt. McNamee concluded that the conduct of the officers was
apploptiate and in confonnity with the MPD policies. In reaching that conclusion, Sgt.
McNamee noted that the civilian CCwitness accounts of the incident are contradicted by the
results of the crime scene report and the DNA tests conducted by the TBP' which
indicated that there was no blood, fingetprints or other evidence on the officers' car
tested days after this incident Sgt. McNamee reached this conclusion despite the fact
that the lack of evidence on the vehicle also contradicted the officers' version of events
and is clear avidcnce ofthe bias ofthe investigation. (McNamee, pp 67-68). In reaching
his conclusion, Sgt. McNamee also discounted the testimony of Willie Campbell because
he testified that his recorded statement contTadicted his oral, unrecorded statement.
However, in Mr. Campbell's recorded statement, he indicated that he told the officers on
the scene the exact same information he gave Sgt. McNamee in his recorded statement.
Due to the fact that the officers did not record thc first statement of Mr. Campbell, this
conclusion cannot, be corroborated. Finally, Sgt. McNamee testified that he did not
believe that a "code of silence" exists where officers will stick together ~d not "snitch"
on fellow officer so he does not consider this in his investigations. This shows a clear

s

86/28

09/23/2BB8

18:52

8B37777319

GEOFFREY ALPERT

PAGE

lack of understanding of police misconduct investigations and illustrates a clear bias in
favor ofpolice officers in ISB investigations.

SUMMARY OF OPINIONS REGARDING OFFICERS' CONDUCT

Based on my review of the materials, there are two divergent versions of events. If the
officers' version of events is believed, the actions of the officers were entirely
appropriate. However, if the civilians' version of events is believed, then the officers
conduct was improper and amounted to an improper seizure through the use of excessive
force. Based on the civilian statements, the officers did not have any probable cause or
reasonable suspicion to initiate any citizen contact. Therefore, any stopping or seizure of
Michael Smith and the two other juveniles would have been inappropriate. The officers
in this case all acknowledged that if the juveniles were not in the street blocking the
roadway, there would not have been any legal justification to seize and question the
juveniles. Further, based on the civilian statements, the officers used excessive force by
slamming Michael Smith's head into the police car. According to an of the testimony in.
this case, Michael Smith and the two other juveniles complied with the officers'
cornmands and orders and did not act in a threatening manner or display any type of
weapon. In fact, Michael Smith was observed to be holding a puppy by Officer
Goodwin. Under nationally recognized police standards, an officer may use only that
degree of force that is necessary to dispel a threat. Given that Michael Smith and the
other juveniles were not posing any threat to the officers, any use of force would bave
been excessive. Again, the officers all testified that if Michael Smith's head was
slammed against the police vehicle, this conduct would have been improper and would
have amounted to the use ofexcessive force.
SUMMARY OF OPINIONS REGARDING MUNICIPAL LIABILITY
Municipalities have a duty to assure that their police agencies do not violate the
constitutional rights of citizens. The governing body must ensure that the department
operates in a manner which will ensure proper procedures and require adherence to
effective policies.
A police chief is an appointed department head, and is accountable to. the city officials for
the management and internal affairs of the department The J!!1! to ensure that
constitutional rights are protected by the police can not be delegated to the chic! Only the
responslbDitv of proper management can be delegated. This duty requires that the city
officials monitor the police agency for proper operation, and ensure that approved
policies and procedures are in place, and are being follOWed.
Every law enforcement agency, over the course of its history of operations, develops a
definable "culture" within its ranks that is unique to the organization. Some cultures
demonstrate reverence for the Constitution and adherence to standards of excellence in
police operations and training. Bad conduct is not tolerated in these departments, and the
mission statement is one that is embraoed by the majority of personnel at all levels.
Expectations are high, public perceptions are highly favorable, and personnel of the
6

B7I2B

09/23/2888

18:52

GEOFFREY ALPERT

8837777319

PAGE

department wear their uniforms and do their jobs with pride and excellent public support.
Morale is high. Often, the establishment of such a culture begins with the head of the
department, operating 1.D1der a mandate from the municipality. Characteristics of such
departments include a commitment to the formulation, enforcement, and continuous
evolution of written policies and procedures; specialized training; effective liaison with
other agencies and the prosecutor's office; thorough and objective investigation of
allegations ofmisconduct; effective supervision and discipline; and in~grity.
When these expectations arc not met, and there is no confonnity to ethics. the "culture"
that matures within a police agency can also be very poor. It takes a long time for these
institutional identities to develop, and once entrenched they are difficult to evict without a
long-term commitment to a new philosophy of doing business. While there is no one set
ofstandards for the determination ofwhether a department has allowed·a negative culture
to takc root, evidence of the existence of a custom and practice of deliberate indifFerence
to police misconduct that has become institutionalized within a corrupt law enforcement
agency can be found in:

a. Failute to set up properly running units and/or divisions
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

g.
h.
i.
j.

k.
1.
m.
n.

to properly train,
supervise, monitor and discipline officers that act according to written
procedures and protocols.
Failure to properly analyze data regarding officer conduct.
Failure to take civilian complaints and perform timely and thorough
investigations ofallegations ofpolice misconduct.
Negligence in the application of constitutfonal requirements and restraints in
the daily conduct ofpolice business.
Bad public relations and press relations.
Legitimate criticisms from invcstigative agencies or grand juries are ignored.
Subordinate personnel are poody or improperly supervised.
Evidence ofinternal cover-ups.
Officers plant evidence or deUberatc1y state untruthful infonnation and/or
willfully omit relevant information in official reports in order to strengthen
cucs and increase their arrest statistics.
Officers and supervisors conceal or destroy evidence ofofficial misdeeds.
Peer pressW'e to violate the law or Constitutional "constraints is commonplace.
Officers violate the rights of citizens in the presence of eyewitnesses with
impunity because thcy know they will not be disciplined.
Employees who observe serious misconduct do not report it, because they
have learned that they will be identified as ''rats'', and the report will be
officially ignored by executive management.
Officers are arrested for serious crimes.

When characteristics such as those listed above are present, this is strong evidence that
there exists within an organization a long·standing and pervasive custom and practice
within the agency of deliberate indifference to the constitutional duties and
responsibilities ofthe agency in its operations and contacts with citizenry, which has been
established and is being papetuated by policy making officials at the highest levels. In
7

88/28

09/23/2888

18:52

GEOFFREV ALPERT

8837777319

PAGE

today's enlightened law enforcement environment, a contin~tion of such a pattern. and
practice of deliberate indifference can only be seen as intentional. This becomes a
primary causative factor in unconstitutional and illegal acts committed by officers acting
in their official capacity.
.
When illegal and unconstitutional acts are committed by officers and ignored by the
highe.~ officials who are charged with the duty to act, this sends a message to personnel
at all levels. The message is that police can do whatever they want and get away with it.
Officers and supervisors who are inclined towant abuse of their authority thrive in these
environments, and the public becomes frustrated and distcustful when it sees that
complaints and allegations of serious misconduct are ignored, ratified Of deliberately
covered up by administrators.
In rcwiewing the conduct and performance of a police department, it is important to
analyze the leadership of the department. As noted by Professor Joyce1yn M. Pollock in
Critipal IsSUes in Policinl- Fifth Edition, Chapter 16, p.292:
Most agree that the strongest correlate to the level of dishonesty among
employees is the level of dishonesty among administrators. If there is wide-scale
coInlption in a poli~ department, inevitably that corroption has reached high
levels of management that protected and even encouraged dishonesty on the part
of the part of the rank and file. What is also true though is that even honest
administrators and managers can foster and encourage corruption when they do
nothing about it. In most wide-scale colTUption scandals there was an attempted
cover-up from high in management ranks. There is an aversion to "airing dirty
laundry" in law enforcement that influences decisions to curtail investigations of
dirty cops and keep evidence of conuption under wraps. Ironically, this often
results in worse publicity in the long nm.
At the times in issue in this case, Larry Godwin was the Director of Police. During his
law enforcement career, Director Godwin was found guilty of violating the MPD's
truthfulness policy when he lied about his location to a dispatcher to cover-up the fact
that he was not at his assigned location, but at a lady friend's house. In order to maintain
the integrity ofpolice officers both in and out of court, all officers must aet with integrity
and truthfulness. The fact that Director of Police has been previously found guilty of
untruthfulness in performing his job duties is an indication that the MPD does not value
integrity as a necessary officer qualification. While Director Godwin's self interest may
have led him to testify that officers can still perfonn their job duties after being found
guilty of untruthiblness, this testimony was clearly refuted by other Cjty of Memphis
corporate representatives. (Tow, pp. 21~24; Winters, 3/3/08, pp. 105-106).
Further. it is significant to note that members of Director Godwin's own command staff,
Deputy Chief Bobby Todd and Major James Krepela.. were actually indicted for their
roles in changing police reports stemming from an accident involving the mayor's
daughter-in-law. Both men agreed to one year ofprobation for the charge of Destruction
or Tampering with Evidence. The fact that officers in the command staff have been
8

89/28

09/23/2888

18:52

PAGE 18/28

GEOFFREY ALPERT

8837777319

indicted for serious misconduct issues is compelling evidence that a negative culture has
been established at the MPD that makes officer misconduct foreseeable and predictable.
That a negative culture has been established at the MPD that make officer misconduct
foreseeable and predictable is further iJlustrated by a review of the disciplinary records of
the supervisory officers involved in this incident, Ll Moffat and Lt. McCord.
Lt. Moffatt originally applied for a position at the MPD but his application was denied
because he failed the psychological test. Despite failing the psychological testing, Lt.
Moffatt was encouraged reapply. After reapplying, Lt. Moffatt was hired as an officer
for the MPD where be rose through the ranks to become a Lieutenant and member ofthe
command staff. However, Lt Moffatt's disciplinary resume indicates that he had
numerous CODlplaints against him during his service with the MPD as follows:
Date
3121/1997
51311997
6/2/1997
6/14/2007

Charge
DR- 104 - Personal Conduct
DR-30t - Bxccssive Force
DR-301 - Excessive Force
DR-104 - Personal Conduct
DR.-803 - Rough or Careless
Handling ofEquipment

SOC #
MI03S-97
1012-06
S06-o57

Action
Unsubstantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unsubstantiated

Soc97-0611

Written Reprimand
8 brs Remedial
Driving

6124/1997

Unsubstantiated

8/19/1998
812812000

I-Day Sust-8 hrs.
R.emedial Driving
School
Unfounded
Written Reprimand

DR-I01- Compliance with
1118-97
ResrulatioDS
12/24/1997 DR-803 - Rough or Careless Soc97-1208
Handling ofEquipment

IN CUSTODY DEATH
DR-l04 - Personal Conduct
DR-120 - Neglect of Duty
12119/2002 DR-I04-Personal Conduct
5/20/2004 DR-l 04 - Personal Conduct
717/2006

S98-044
1128-00
S02·104
1108·04

DR-80J - Rough or Careless Soc06-0726
Handling ofEQuimnent

Not Sustained
Not Sustained
1012312006
Written Reprimand
912712007

The head of the MPD's early warning system, Betty Winters, testified that Lt. Moffatt's
disciplinary resume was troubling and should have raised questions concerning Lt.
Moffatt. (Winters, 8/19/08, p. 24). However, Betty Winters testified that the MPD's
eurrcnt early waining system would not have tagged Lt. Moffatt's conduct for evaluation.
Further, the following charges are contained in Ll McCord's disciplinary resume that
illustrate significant problems with Lt. McCord's service at the MPD:
Date

Charge

8/20/1991

DR-13O-Inventory &
Processiu Recovered Property
9

SOC #
1166-91

Action
Not Sustained

09/23/2008

18:52

PAGE

GEOFFREY ALPERT

8037777319

DR-301 - Excessive Force
DR-l04 - Personal Conduct
DR-I04 - Personal Conduct
DR-I04 - Personal Conduct
DR-3Ot - Excessive Force
DR-l04 - Personal Conduct
DR·104 - Personal Conduct
DR-301 - Excessive Force
1211011994 DR-130-Inventory &
Processing Recovered Property
DR-I04 - Personal Conduct
12/2811994 DR-101 - Compliance with
Regulations
111211995 DR-l04 - Personal Conduct
DR-130-Invcntory &
Prec
Recovered :::".." ....- •.l'
6/14/200S DR-I04 -Personal Conduct
7129/l99S DR-I04-Personal Conduct
9/1S/2oo5 DR-I07 - Courtesy
12120/1997 DR·104 - Personal Conduct
DR-13o-Inventory &
Recovered Property
Pro
7/14/1998 Theft of Property over SSOOT.C.A
8/1612000 DR-l04 - Personal Conduct
112512001 'I'heftof
-T.C.A.
4118/2001 DR-l 07 - Courtesy
612212003 DR-803 - Rough or Careless
H
ofBQuiDment
9/151200S DR-I07 - CoUll.QlY
111112007 DR-I01 - Compliance with
Regulations
DR-I07 - Courtesy
5/3012007 DR-101-Compliance with
Regulations
DR-104 - Personal Conduct
DR-120 - Neglect ofNeglect
6/20/2007 DR·104 - Personal Conduct
DR-108 - Truthfulness
DR-601 - Completing Official
Reports
12/411991
1116/1992
4118/1992
5/5/1993
512411994
6/1711994
6129/1994

MI05S~94

DropJ'ed
Not Sustained
Not Sustained
Not Sustained
Unfounded
Not Sustained
Dropped

1204-94

Not Sustained

Soc94-1210

Written Reprimand

1018-95

Not Sustained

80c95-0617
895-028
1163·0S
S98-030

Written Remimand
Not Sustained
Not8\1St8ined
S118peI1Sion-2 Day

898~038

Not Sustained

MI074~0

Not Sustained
Not Sustained
Not Sustained
Oral Reprimand

1201-91
MI003~92

MI041-92
MI031-93
'1073-94
1092-94

.

.

I-

801-014
MI032-01
Soc03-0S20

44'

1163-05
1011-07

Not Sustained
Both ~ot Sustained
07/11107

1102-07

101=10 Days,
120...30 Days,
104=Dismissed

1111-07

104-=Tenninated,
108 & 601 ==
Dismissed

Again, thc head of the MPD's early warning system, Betty Winters, testified that Lt.
McCord's disciplinary resume was not acceptable. (Winters, 8119/08, p. 24-27). Betty
Winters testified that Lt. McCord had been terminated, but has since regained his job.
10

11/20

09/23/2008

19:47

GECFFREV ALPERT

8037777319

PAGE 02/10

Betty Winters testified that she agreed with the termination of Lt McCord and is not
comfortablc that with his reinstatement as a supervisory officers at the MPD.
In addition, the U.S. Attorney's Office's c'Operation Tarnished Blue" has resulted in thc

indictment of numerous officers. While the MPD does not trac1c the number of officers
that have been who have bccn indicted, Sgt. Mullins compiled a list of 30 officers who
have been indicted or tenninated in recent times. However, Director Godwin testified
that the number ofofficer indicted in recent times could be 88 high as 45. This significant
number of indictments of polioe officers in recent times in unprecedented and is
significant evidence that a negative culture has .taken root at the MPD where police
misconduct and corruption are tolerated and accepted at the MPD.

Based on the evidence reviewed, it is clear the MPD, from the highest levels of
management, has allowed this negative culture to take root This is further evidenced by
the manner in which ot1icers are hired, supervised, monitored and disciplined.
Specifically, the City of Memphis' corporate representative testified that the recent rash
of indictments of MPD officers is the highest by sheer volume since he has been on the
since 1989. (Tow, p. 33). Further, the City of Memphis' corporate representative
also testified that he had serious issues with allowing officers who had failed a
psychological evaluation to reapply as set forth in a recruitment add placed in the
newspaper by the MPD. (Tow, p. 34-35). As previously noted, Lt. Moffatt had failed a
psychological test and was encouraged to re-apply. The corporate representative further
noted that a lot of the officers who were hired at the MPD in recent times did not have
integrity when hired and could have been weeded out in the application process. (Tow, p.
37). With respect to the problems with the hirins and recruitment process, the City of
Memphis' corporate representative testified ~ follows:

force

Q Okay. What I'm trying to talk about is the department, how the department
reacts. Number one, I think, based on your prior questions, is hopefully you can
weed a lot ofthem out in the application process, correct?
A Yes and no.
Q I mean, up until, I think, 2005 Memphis allowed people to get Post waivers?
A And, again, that's not the application process. That's the directives from the
12th floor and City Hall that they will hire bodies. So, to get 500 bodies, if you
only have 400 that pass and they say, no, 500 bodies, then they will get 500
bodies.
Q' SO if we start there, then according to that kind of example. we may have 100
bodies that we really didn't want?
A That's a fair statement You could look at that jIUltionwide. When you have

departments that hire a mass hiring within the yearsJ the cycle comes around and
they have mass firings.
.
Q I don't disagree with you. What rm trying to figUre out is what cycle we're in
at Memphis, and I want to. basically start with the premise that we're talking
about We ,may have had some situations where we had a lot of people and we

11

09/23/2008

19:47

GECFFREV ALPERT

8037777319

PAGE

hired too many people. We may be feeling some of the repercussions of it now.
Is that a fair statement?
A Yes, sir, we've hit that, yes, sir.
Q So we have a situation where, you know, you have somebody -- I'ln goins to
use your example and obviously the numbers aren't right We need SOO officers.
Wdve got 400 that we're happy with. We might have 100 that may not have
passed the test you'd like to apply, okay?
A Correct. (Tow, 38-39).
Basad on this testimony, it is clear that the MPD is experiencing serious problems with its
officers based on the failure to cnsure that aU officers hired had the necessary integrity
and qualities to perfbnn their important duties as law enforcement officers.
Early warning systems are essential to the proper operation of police department. An
early warning system is designed to identify officers whose behavior has establim.l a
pattenl or trend ofproblem behavior and tc) identify officers whose conduct needs to be to
be scrutinized to determine if they need any intervention to ensure that their behavior
conforms to their constitutional duties and obligations. If officers are provided an
intervention, the intervention needs to be docmnented and the effect of the intervention
needs to be evaluated. Further, in order to establish consistency within the department,
Uly _ly wamiDg system must be supported by proper written policy that covers the
essential elements of the early warning system which includes: 1) the selcedon criteria
for flagging officers; 2) the notification of officers; 3) intervention; and 4) evaluation of
the intervention.
.
The early warning system at the MPD is run entirely by Betty Winters who operates
without any lonnaJ written policy guidance. The lack of a written policy in the early
waming system fosters inconsistency and confusion regarding the structure and tbnction
of the early WIlDing system &om officers and supervisors alike. Without proper written
policies, the early warning system cannot function in a predictable or systematic fashion
and amollDts to a hodge-podge of gO~s and ideals without any etfective mechanism to
ensure that the goals of an early waming s~ are met. Without proper policy, the
early warning system run by the MPD fails to properly meet national standards and the
goals ofa properly fimctioning eatly warning system.

Prior to Betty Winters taking control of the early warning system, the MPD appeared to
have tracked six behaviors: 1) personal conduct; 2) duty perfonnance; 3) use offorce; 4)
use ofoquipment; S) reports and communications; and 6) dependability. Inexplicably,
when Betty Winters took over operating the early warning system, she reduced the
criteria to be evaluated by the early warning system to· reviewing only instances of
personal conduct and excessive force. Proper early warning systems track multiple
indicators of officer behavior and the net cast by the MPD is too limited. Further, it
appaars that this change to track fewer officer behaviors was a result of the MPD's
inability to link the previous data set together with the current system which is
inexcusable. In modern day policing, the trend is to track more aspects of officer

12

03110

09/23/2008

19:47

GEOFFREV ALPERT

8837777319

PAGE

behavior with early warning systems, not to reduce the points that are analyzed as has
occurred in the MPD.
Further, one of the most important aspects of early warning systems is the notification of
officers that they have been identified by the early warning system. The notification of
officers that they have been identified by the early warning system serves as a deterrent
to improper behavior. Without notification, this important deterrent effect of the early
warning system is lost In the MPD's early warning system, there is no requirement that
an officer be notified that he/she has been flagged by the early warning system and,
therefore, the deterrent effects ofthe program are lost.
Given the lack of a written policy in the early warning program, there are also no written
policies conceming the range ofinterventions to be provided to officers or the evaluation
of the intervention which is another systematic failure of the MPD's early warning
system.
Finally, Betty Winters testified that officers.flagged by the early waming system are
discussed at quarterly meetings with the command staff However, Betty Winters was
instructed that no notes of these meetings should be taken (Winters, 3/3/08, pp 141-144).
These are not the actions of a department concerned with providing assistanCe to officers
and ferreting out bad officers. Police departments should evaluate their officer's conduct
with transparency to ensure consistent and thorough evaluations. Without documentation
of the officers who were flagged, the specific interventions perfonned and an evaluation
of the specific interventions, the MPD's early warning system fails to. meet acceptable
police standards. Further, without proper documentation of the early warning meetings,
there is no way to effectively evaluate the MPD's early warning process.

Based on Betty Winter's own testimony, the creation of a properly functioning early
warning systCJl1 is essential to the operation ofa police department. Despite Ms. Winters'
b~c understanding of the requirements of a proper early warning system, it is clear that
the MPD does not have a properly ii.mctioning early warning system based on acceptable
police standards. Betty Winters testified that the majority of her work revolved around
the completion of disciplinary charts for use after a Statement of Charges has been
brought against an officer fur the purpose of a disciplinary action. This is not a function
of an early warning system, but a disciplinary matter. Therefore. by her own admission,
the majority of Betty Winters' work is not devoted to the early waming system. Finally,
bued on Betty Winters own testimony, it is clear that she did not have the resources or
staffing to properly run an effective early warning system.

In addition to properly recruiting officers and properly monitoring officers, a department
must thoroughly investigate all allegations of misconduct to prevent and deter police
misconduct. However, it is clear that the investigative process utilized by the MPD is
designed to favor the police officer and not seek the truth. The Standard Operation

Procedures ofthe MPD Inspectional Services Bureau is deficient based on the following:

13

84/18

09/23/2008

19:47

1.

2.

3.
4.

S.

GEO"' FREV ALPERT

8037777319

PAGE

ISB does not investigate anonymous complaints. In order for an investigation
to be commenced, it must be initiated by a citizen who must be physically
pteSent to sign a sworn complaint or the complaint must be initiated
administratively.
The complainant is not allowed to have an attorney present during an
interview. However, the officers are allowed to have a union representative
present during all questioning. whether being investigated as a witness or
principal. Many times all officers involved in an investigation are represented
by the same union representative.
The investigators do not review the officer's prior disciplinary record when
investigating a complaint However, the investigaton are entitled to review
the complainant's prior record during their investigation.
The principal officer being investigated is allowed to give his statement after
an the other statements have been completed.
There is no official burden or proof necessary to sustain a complaint. This has
resulted in a finding that a complaint is not sustained whenever thc
investigation is based solely on the testiw.ony of the complainant versus the

officer.
This method of investigating complaints heavily favors the officer's testimony and is not
designed to find thc truth. Most responsible law enforcement departments allow
complaints to be filed in any fom or fumon and do not require a complainant to file a
complaint in person without any assistance of counsel or other representatives. This
factor heavily discourages the filing of complaints against officers and the search for the
truth about police misconduct within any agency. A proper policy concerning the manner
in which complaints should be taken and investigations carried out is set forth in the U.S.
Department of Justice l s, Principles for Promoting Police Integrity, Examples of
Promising Police Practices and Policies, January 2001 which was attached as Exhibit 35
to Director Godwin's deposition. This systematic defect in the investigative process only
leads to further police misconduct as fewer complaints are investigated and sustained
which sends a message to police officers that such conduct is both protected and tolerated
which was aoknowledged by corporate representatives ofthe MPD as follows:

Q And when you're training people that waYl if the department does not give
significant discipline to officers who are guilty of corruption or untruthfUlness,
what does that instill in the officers?
A It opens the door for many things.
Q Just tell me some ofthem. It's kind of an open-ended question.
A Well, if the department doesn't deal with their ethics issues then the ethics
issues are going to continue to get worse.
Q So it creates a negative culture within the department?
A That's a fair statement.
Q Okay. And this negative culture is what you try to dispel with proper
training, correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q. Proper discipline, correct?
14

05/10

09/23/2008

19:47

GECF'FREV ALPERT

8037777319

PAGE

A Ycs, sir.
Q Proper policies?
A Yes, sir.
Q And without this kind of whole aspect of training, accountability, policies,
you have to keep that all functioning and working together, otherwise a negative
culture can grow within a department, would you agree?
A I believe that's a fair statement. (Tow, p. 35·36)
Q
And the department itself has to have systems in place that will evaluate
officer conduct and mete out appropriate discipline or investigations in order to
not let any type of that conuption or quote, unquote, code of silence, you know,
grow in the department. correct?
MR. KLBIN: Object to the form ofthe question.
A Ycs, sir, that's a fair statement. .
Q And if the departanentisn't doing its job in investigating officer misconduct, a
negative culture can grow within the department, correct?
MR. KLEIN: Objection. Asked and answered.
A I believe so, yes, sir. (Tow, 48-49).

Colonel Williams also testified:
Q. Now, when you had any issues or learned anything about the code ofsi)ence,
did you also understand that Security •• ISB in order to effectively ferret out, they
had to do prompt, thorough and fair investigations?
A. Correct.
Q. And when you got there in 2005, there was tbi~ backlog, right? .
A. Correct.
Q. And what does that have to do with respect to - I mean, does that have any
impact on officer conduct in yom opinion?
A. When you say conduct, what do you mean?
Q. Well, you know, what happens ifwe don't investigate things and hold officers
accountable to to complying with the policy?
A. Well, I would say definitely it would have an effect, not all officers, I would
say, like an officer that has caused some problems, I mean, while being
investigated might continue with that type ofaction. I would say that
Q. I'm having a bad time asking the right question. But if we don't properly hold
them accountable to their policies and investigate them thoroughly and discipline
them applopriately, that does not rule out the bad behavior. would you agree with
that?

A. I agree.
Q. And it allows bad behavior ifit has started to continue, right?
A. Comet.
Q. And what we arc trying to do with OUt investigations is to ferret out that
conduct and appropriately discipline the officer so that they know there are going
to be ramifications for misconduct, right?
A. Cotreet. (Williams, pp. 64-65).
IS

06/10

09/23/2008

19:47

PAGE

GEOFFREY ALPERT

8037777319

As acknowledged by the City of Memphis' corporate ~entatives, proper
investigations of complaints are necessary to discourage and ferret out police misconduct.
The investigations must not favor either the officers or complainant, but must be a search
for the truth. The investigations must be perfonned in a thorough and timely manner.
However, it is clear that the MPD does not have proper policies in place guide the
investigators seard! for the truth. Further, it is also clear that the MPD has failed to
perform its investigations in a thorough and timely manner and that only fosters more
police misconduct. .The official ISB policy requires investigations to be completed
within 45 days. However, it is clear that ISB lacks the manpower, resources and/or desire
to comply with this policy and it routinely takes much longer to complete the
investigations. Colonel Wi1tiams noted: 1) When he took over ISB in 2005, there was a
serious bacldog ofcases (over 200) (p. 61); 2) Despite the backlog, the MPD did not hire
additional investigators although ·'he wished" they' did (p. 61) and although he would
have liked to have more investigators (p. 69); and 3) As a result of the backlog, he made
pet'SOIlDe1 dumps and tried to bring in morc experienced investigators (30% to 40% of
the Internal Affairs investigators were changed) (p. 61--64, 67~68).
The systematic problems with the ISB policies and the failure to promptly investigate
complaints leads to further oftiger misconduct as it sends a message to officers that
misconduct is not taken seriously. It clear that the MPD bas failed to place a high priority
on police misconduct that has allowed it to thrive and has created a negative culture,
custom and practice oftoJerating police misconduct. This is especially problematic given
that the MPD has been experiencing a serious problem. with police corruption as
acknowledged by Colonel Williams as follows:
Q. Now, you talked about in the last three or four years there seems to be more
police colTUption, correct?
A. ColTCCl

Q. Has it been more pervasive in your opinion? I mean, do you know
Deputy Chief Bobby Todd indicted?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. And he's in the ~- was he under Director Godwin?
. A. Yes. (Williams, pp. 75~76).

~~

wam't

My review of numerous ISB files over the years and for this case, leads me to the

conclusion that the MPD has a practice and custom of not seriously investigating
misconduct against officers that has led to the establishment of a culture of misconduct
that is tolerated and fostered by the MPD.
Further, ISB has produced a spreadsheet that sets forth the number of use of force
complaints against the MPD over the past five years. During that period of time, the
chart contains 449 excessive force complaints. Of those complaints with results, the
complaint was sustained in only 14 cases. Therefore, the percentage of excessive force
complaints that have been sustained by the MPD over the five years covered by the chart
is approximately 3%. This percentage of sustained use of force complaints from the
16

07110

09/23/2008

19:47

GECFFREV ALPERT

8037777319

PAGE 08/10

MPD is far below the national average as compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice.
According to Department of Justice statistics, the national average percentage of
sustained complaints for use of force for large police departments such as the MPD was
6% to 8%. TherefOTe, it is clear that thc MPD rate of sustained complaints for use of
excessive force was far below the national average which can be traced to the s)'5tematic
deficiencies with the ISB's SOP which heavily favors the officers version of events.
When officers arrive at a scene, they should always be required to complete reports of
their participation in and observation ofthe events. Officers Jay, Leslie and Goodwin did
not complete separate incident reports of this matter. The ISB file only contains an
Offense Memo that was completed in part by Officer Leslic and Officer Kay and a
supervisory report completed by Lt. Moffit about his observations on the scene.
Significantly, Officer Goodwin did not complete any report about his participation in or
observations of the events. The failure to requiTe or ensure that all officers prepare
reports of their participation and involvement in an incident deprives the department of
critical infonnation and documentation ofofficer conduct
Further, properly fimctioning police departments that arc interested in ensuring that their
officer's use of force is in compliance with policy require that whenever an officer uses
force, a separate Use of Force Report is completed and then analyzed by the department
to hold officers accountable for misconduct and to ensure that the police department is
acting according to constitutional standards. Based on the testimony, the MPD did not
start utilizing Use of Force Reports until 2005. Further, the deposition testimony has
indicated that the MPD has not been able to properly analyze the data contained in the
Use of Force Reports. Therefore, while the City of Memphis has recently required its
officers to complete Use of Force Reports, it has been unable to use the infonnation in
these reports to come to any conclusions regarding the MPD's use offorce practices.
It is wen know in police work that officers are reluctant to report misconduct of fellow
officers. This has been extensively doeumanted and discussed in thc police literature and
has been referred to as the "code of silence" or the "thin blue wall." This has been
defined as an unwritten code that officers shall not provide information concerning other
officer's misconduct. Any responsible department should recognize the existence ofthis
police subculture and take affirmative steps to remove it. While many officers, including
Director Godwin, testified that they have never heard of the "code of silence," other
officers candidly acknowledged that it exists at the MPD. The fact that Director Godwin
and other officers testified that they has no knowledge ofthe "code of silence" and/or its
existence at the MPD shows either: 1) a complete lack of proper training or
understanding of issues of police management; or 2) evidence that the "code of silence"
exists at the City ofMempbis in the highest levels ofmanagement.
CONLCUSTON
After review of the materials set forth in Exhibit B, Thave formulated the following
opinions that have been more thorOUghly explained herein. It is my opinion that if the
officers version of events is believed, the officers acted entirely appropriately. However,
17

09/23/2008

19:47

GEOFFREV ALPERT

8037777319

PAGE

if the civiUans' version of events is believed. the officers conducted an improper seizure
through the use of excessive and unreasonable force against Michael George Smith.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, I have formulated the opinion that the MPD
bas, by custom and practice, created an atmosphere where improper conduct of police
officers is foreseeable, condoned and tolerated by the MPD. In fonnulating this opinion,
I have considered the following:
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

The leadership of the MPD has serious issues with integrity as Director
Godwin has been found guilty of untnlthfulness in his official capacity as
an officer ofthe MPD. Further, members ofthe command statfhave been
placed on probation for Destruction and Tampering with Evidence. The
lack of proper leadership is further illustrated by a review of the history
disciplinary resumes of the supervisory members of the command staff
who were involved in this incident, Lt. Moffatt and Lt McCord, which
were admitted to be troubling by the head ofMPD's early warning system.
The U.S. Attorney's Office has indicted numerous officers (30-45
officers) for official misconduct during the course of their official duties
with the MPD. This number of indictments of officers is unprecedented
and illustrates tliat a negative culture of conuption has taken root in the
MPD.
An effective early warning system is essential to a properly functioning
police depanment to predict' improper behavior and address officer
conduct before it becomes a problem. The MPD does not have a properly
functioning early warning system. The MPD's early warning system does
not even have any written policies or standards. The failure to have a
properly functioning early warning system has resulted in the failure ofthe
MPD to address problem officers and behaviors before they become
problematic which has led to the continuation of improper conduct by
MPD officers.
A properly functioning police depanment must have a mechanism for
promptly and thoroughly investigating complaints of police misconduct.
The Inspectional Services Bureau is charged with this function. ISB~s
standard operating procedures are flawed in that they discourage the filing
of complaints by citizens and heavily favor the officer's version of events.
As a result, most citizen complaints are not sustained which sends a
message to officers that their misconduct is accepted at the MPD and leads
to d1e continuation ofimproper conduct by officers
The MPD has failed to require it officers to complete formal reports of all
officer's participation in and observations on calls. As a result, the MPD
does not have sufficient documentation of officer actions in subsequent
investigations. Further, while the MPD has recently required officers to
complete separate Use ofForce Reports in 2005, the information gathered
from the Use ofForce Reports has not enabled the MPD to do any analysis
regarding its officers" use offorce.
It is my opinion that the "code of silence" exists among officers at the
MPD whereby officers have created a subculture where reporting fellow
18

09/10

89/23/2888 19:47

GEOFFREY ALPERT

8837777319

PAGE

officer misconduct is discouraged which wa.tt acknowled&ed by many
officers who testified in this action. However, the fact that many officers
did not even understand the concept of "code of silence" shows a lack of
understanding of proper police management at best and is compelling
evidence ofthe existence ofthe "code ofsilence" at the MPD. The failure
to understand and take steps to combat the "code of silence" at the MPD
directly results in the continuation of improper behavior among MPD
ofticars. The MPD's bas· failed to talce adequate, affirmative steps to
combat the "code ofsilence" and is a direct and proximate cause of future
misconduct of police officers and makes such misconduct both foreseeable
and predictable.
Based on the totality of the information available to me, it is my opinion that the jf the
conduct of the civilian witnesses is believed, the officers involved improperly seized
Michael George Smith through the usc of excessive and unreasonable force which was
proximately caused by the policies, practices and customs ofthe MPD set forth herein.

19

18/18

CURRICULUM VITAE
July 2008
NAME: Geoffrey P. Alpert
INTERNET SITE: www.deadlyforce.com
ADDRESS:

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Phone: (803) 777-6424 Cell: (803) 446.4139 Fax (803) 777-7319
e-mail: geoffa@mailbox.sc.edu

EDUCATION:

Ph.D.
M.A.
B.A.

Washington State University
University of Oregon Law School
University of Oregon
University of Oregon

1975
1974-1975
1970
1969

AWARDS & FELLOWSHIPS:
University of South Carolina Alpha Chapter of Mortar Board, Excellence in Teaching, 2006- 2007.
University of South Carolina Alpha Chapter of Mortar Board, Excellence in Teaching, 2000 - 2001.
University of South Carolina Educational Foundation Research Award, 1995.
Police Development and Training Fellowship, German Marshall Fund, Republic of Germany, 1992.
Senior Research Scholar, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC. 1991.
Directeur d'Etudes Associe, Maison des Sciences de L'Homme, Paris, France. 1985-1987.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE:
Chair, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. University of South Carolina. Columbia,
South Carolina. 2002 - 2007.
Director of Research, College of Criminal Justice. University of South Carolina. Columbia, South
Carolina. 1999 - 2002.
Director, Criminal Justice Program, Department of Sociology, University of Miami, Coral Gables,
Florida. 1985 - 1988.
Director, Center for Study of Law and Society, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. 19811988.

EXHIBIT

16

Legal Ombudsman, Lane County District Attorney's Office, Eugene, Oregon. 1978 - 1981.
Coordinator, Victim/Witness Bureau, El Paso County District Attorney's Office, Colorado Springs,
Colorado. 1979.
Director of Research, Georgia Department of Corrections, Atlanta, Georgia. 1971 - 1972.
TEACHING EXPERIENCE:
Professor, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, College of Criminal Justice, University
of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. August, 1988 - Present. Adjunct Professor
Department of Sociology.
Professor of Sociology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, 1985 - 1988.
Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. 1981 - 1985.
Assistant Professor of Sociology and Public Administration, University of Colorado, Colorado
Springs, 1978 -1979.
Assistant Professor of Sociology and Political Economy, School of Social Sciences, The University
of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas. 1975 - 1977.
Teaching Assistant, Department of Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.
1972 - 1976.
Instructor, Department of Sociology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia. 1971 - 1972.
RESEARCH EXPERIENCE:
Principal Investigator, A Multi-Method Evaluation of Police Use of Force Outcomes. National
Institute of Justice. 2005 - present.
Academic Affiliate, The Analysis Group. Development of a Methodology for Analysis of Los
Angeles Police Department Pedestrian and Motor Vehicle Stop Data. Los Angeles, CA. 2004 - 2007.
Principal Investigator, Assessing Police Officers Decision Making and Discretion. National
Institute of Justice. 2002 - 2005.
I

Principal Investigator, Investigating Racial Profiling in the Miami-Dade Police Department. MiamiDade County. 2000 - 2005.
Co-Principal Investigator, The Effect of Community Policing on Urban Violence. American
Statistical Association and Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2000 - 2002.

2

Associate Project Director, Promoting Police Accountability. Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services. 2000 - 2003.
Principal Investigator, The Lexington County Domestic Violence Court: A Partnership and
Evaluation. National Institute of Justice. 2000 - 2003.
Principal Investigator, An Analysis of the Force Factor: Measuring Police Use of Force Relative to
Suspect Resistance. National Institute of Justice. 1998 - 2001.
Member, Olympic Research Group. Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games and the State of
Georgia. 1996.
Principal Investigator, Facilitating Organizational Change: Shaping Philosophies Through Individual
and Organizational Evaluations. National Institute of Justice. 1996 - 1999.
Principal Investigator, An Analysis of Police Use-of-Force Data. National Institute of Justice. 1996 1998.
Principal Investigator, Police Pursuit Driving and Use of Excessive Force. National Institute of
Justice. 1994 - 1997.
Principal Consultant, State Evaluation Capacity Building Program. National Institute of Justice.
1992 - 1996.
Principal Investigator, Firearm Use and Analysis, Metro-Dade Police Department, 1994 - 1995.
Principal Investigator, Evaluation of Hi-Risk Police Activities. Insurance Reserve Fund. State of
South Carolina. 1995.
Member, Study Group on Criminal Justice Research and Outcome Measures. Princeton
University/Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1992 - 1994.
Co-Principal Investigator, Evaluation of Tactical Narcotics Team, Metro-Dade Police Department,
1991 - 1993.
Research Professor, Institute of Public Affairs, University of South Carolina. 1989 - 1996.
Principal Investigator, Police Officer Task Analysis, City of Columbia, 1989 - 1990.
Principal Investigator, National Survey of Security Needs, American Society of Industrial Security,
1989-1990.
Principal Investigator, Firearm Use and Analysis, Metro-Dade Police Department, 1988 - 1989.
Principal Investigator, Police Pursuit Project, U. S. Department of Transportation. 1987 - 1988.
3

Research Director, Police Pursuit Project, Dade Association of Chiefs of Police, Dade County,
Florida. 1985 - 1988.
Director, Review of Deadly Force Training and Policies of the Dallas Police Department. 1986 1987.
Co-Director of Research, School Dropout Prevention Center, University of Miami. 1985 - 1986.
Principal Investigator, Impact of Police Behavior in a Multi-Ethnic Setting, Metro-Dade Police
Department, Miami, Florida. 1985 - 1986.
Research Director, Use of Deadly Force Project, Dade Association of Chiefs of Police, Dade
County, Florida. 1983.
Consultant, Deadly Force Project, Police Foundation, Washington, D.C. 1983 - 1984.
Principal Investigator, Center for Business-Government Relations, Willamette University, Salem,
Oregon. 1978 - 1978.
Research Associate, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 1977.
Principal Investigator, Legal Aid to Prisoners Project, School of Social Sciences, University of
Texas at Dallas, 1976.
Research Associate, Southeastern Correctional and Criminological Research Center, Florida State
University. Tallahassee, Florida, 1971.

PUBLICAnONS:
Books and Monographs:
Noble, 1. and G. Alpert. Managing Accountability Systems for Police Conduct: Internal Affairs
and External Oversight. Prospect Heights, IL.: Waveland Press (2009).
Alpert, G., R. Dunham, and M. Stroshine. Policing: Continuity and Change. Prospect Heights, IL.:
Waveland Press (2006).
Alpert, G., and R. Dunham Understanding Police Use of Force: Officers, Suspects, and Reciprocity.
New York: Cambridge University Press (2004).
Smith, W. and G. Alpert. Management of Emergency Vehicle Operational Risks. Evanston,IL:
Northwestern University Center for Public Safety (2003).

4

Alpert, G. and 1. MacDonald. Understanding Social Science Research: Applications in Criminology
and Criminal Justice. Prospect Heights, IL.: Waveland Press (2001).

Alpert, G., D. Kenney, R. Dunham and W. Smith. Police Pursuits: What We Know. Washington,
DC: Police Executive Research Forum (2000).
Alpert, G. and A. Piquero (eds.). Community Policing: Contemporary Readings. Prospect Heights,
IL.: Waveland Press (1998) Second Edition (2000).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. The Force Factor: Measuring Police Use of Force Relative to Suspect
Resistance. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum (1997).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. Police Use of Deadly Force: A Statistical Analysis of the Metro-Dade
Police Department. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum (1995).
Kappeler, v., R.Sluder and G. Alpert. Forces of Deviance: The Dark Side of Policing. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1994) Second Edition (1998).
Alpert, G. and L. Fridel!. Police Vehicles and Firearms: Instruments of Deadly Force. Prospect
Heights, IL.: Waveland Press (1992).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. Police Pursuit Driving: Controlling Responses to Emergency Situations.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press (1990).
Hawkins, R. and G. Alpert. Adult Correctional Systems). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall (1989).
Dunham, R. and G. Alpert (eds.).Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1989). Second Edition (1993). Third Edition (1997). Fourth Edition
(2001), Fifth Edition (2005).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. Policing Multi-Ethnic Neighborhoods. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press
(1988).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. Policing Urban America. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1988).
Second Edition (1992) Third Edition (1997).
K. Haas and G. Alpert. The Dilemmas of Punishment: Readings in Contemporary Corrections.
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1986), Second Edition (1991), Third Edition, (1995).
Fourth Edition (1999), Fifth Edition (2006).

Alpert, G. The American System of Criminal Justice. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications (1985).
Alpert, G. (ed.). Legal Rights of Prisoners. (Volume 14, Sage Criminal Justice Systems Annuals5

editor). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications (1980).
Nissman, D., Barnes, B. and G. Alpert. Beating the Insanity Defense: Denying the License to Kill.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books (1980).
Alpert, G. Legal Rights of Prisoners: An Analysis of Legal Aid. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books
(1978). Selected for Lawyers Literary Club, March, 1979.
Articles, Book Chapters and Other Selected Publications:

Alpert, G. Eliminate Race as the Only Reason for Police-Citizen Encounters. 2007. Criminology &
Public Policy 6: 671 - 678.
Smith, M. and G. Alpert. 2007. Explaining Police Bias: A Theory of Social Conditioning and
Illusory Correlation. Criminal Justice and Behavior 34: 1262 - 1283.
Smith, M., R. Kaminski, 1. Rojek, G. Alpert and J. Mathis The Impact of Conducted Energy
Devices and Other Types of Force and Resistance on Officer and Suspect Injuries. 2007. Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 30: 423 - 446.
Alpert, G., R. Dunham and M. Smith. Investigating Racial Profiling By The Miami-Dade Police
Department: A Multimethod Approach. Criminology & Public Policy 6: 25 - 56 (2007).
Alpert, G. Review Essay - Investigating the Investigators: Social Science and the Police. Criminal
Justice Ethics 25: 39 - 43 (2006)
Smith, M, M. Makarios, and G. Alpert. Differential Suspicion: Theory Specification and Gender
Effects in the Traffic Stop Context. Justice Quarterly 23: 271 - 295 (2006).
Parker, K., 1. MacDonald, W. Jennings and G. Alpert. Racial Threat, Urban Conditions and Police
Use of Force: Assessing the Direct and Indirect Linkages Across Multiple Urban Areas. Justice
Research and Policy 7: 53 -79 (2005).
Alpert, G., 1. MacDonald and R. Dunham. Police Suspicion and Discretionary Decision Making
During Citizen Stops Criminology 43: 407 - 434 (2005).
Dunham, R., G. Alpert, M. Stroshine, and K. Bennett. Transfonning Citizens Into Suspects: Factors
That Influence the Fonnation of Police Suspicion. Police Quarterly 8:366 - 393 (2005).
Alpert, G. Police Pursuits. Pp. 352 - 353 in Sullivan, Larry and Dorothy Moses Schultz (eds.)
Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 2005.
Dunham, R. and G. Alpert. The Foundation of the Police Role in Society. Pp. 1-17 in Critical Issues
in Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R. and G. Alpert, eds). Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press (2005).
6

Alpert, G. Short, James. F. Pp. 1529 - 1531 in Encyclopedia of Criminology. New York:
Routledge. 2005.
Alpert, G., R. Dunham, and 1. MacDonald. Interactive Police-Citizen Encounters that Result in
Force
Police Quarterly 7: 475 - 488 (2004).
Smith, M., G. Alpert and R. Dunham. Towards a Better Benchmark: Assessing the Utility of Not-atFault Traffic Crash Data in Racial Profiling Research. Justice Research and Policy 6: 44 - 692004).
Walker, Sand G. Alpert. Early Intervention Systems: The New Paradigm. Pp. 221 - 235 in
Hickman, M., A. Piquero and J. Greene (eds.) Police Integrity and Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Group. 2004.
Wilson, G., R. Dunham and G. Alpert. Prejudice in Police Profiling: Assessing An Overlooked
Aspect in Prior Research. American Behavioral Scientist 47: 896 - 909 (2004).
Dunham, R. and G. Alpert. The Effects of Officer and Suspect Ethnicity in Use-of-Force Incidents.
Pp. 102 - 114, in Karen Terry and Delores Jones-Brown (eds.), Policing and Minority Communities:
Bridging the Gap. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall (2004).
Parker, K., 1. MacDonald, G. Alpert, M. Smith, and A. Piquero. A Contextual Study of Racial
Profiling: Assessing the Theoretical Rationale for the Study of Racial Profiling at the Local Level).
American Behavioral Scientist 47: 943 - 962 (2004).
Gover, A., 1. MacDonald and G. Alpert. Combating Domestic Violence: Findings from an
Evaluation of a Local Domestic Violence Court. Criminology and Public Policy 3: 109 - 132
(2003).
Terrill, W., G. Alpert, R. Dunham and M. Smith A Management Tool for Evaluating Police Use of
Force: An Application of the Force Factor. Police Quarterly 6: 150 - 171 (2003).
MacDonald, 1., P. Manz, G. Alpert and R. Dunham Police Use of Force: Examining the Relationship
Between Calls for Service and the Balance of Police Force and Suspect Resistance. Journal of
Criminal Justice 31: 119 - 127 (2003).
Smith, M., and G. Alpert. Searching for Direction: Courts, Social Science, and the Adjudication of
Racial Profiling Claims Justice Quarterly 19: 673 - 703 (2002).
Alpert, G. Effective Use of Expert Witnesses in Police Misconduct Cases: The Changing Role of the
Expert Witness. Proceedings. 2002 Annual Convention of the Association of Trial Lawyers of
America. Pages 1817- 1825 (2002).
Alpert, G. Deadly Force. Vol. 2, Pp. 471 - 472. Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. Thousand
7

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (2002).
Alpert, G. Police Pursuits. Vol. 3, Pp. 1181 - 1184. Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (2002).
Walker, S. and G. Alpert. Early Warning Systems as Risk Management for Police. Pp. 219-230 in
K. Lersch (ed.) Policing and Misconduct. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall (2002).
Alpert, G. Police Pursuit Driving, Chapter 4, Proceedings Texas State Bar Association Suing and
Defending Governmental Entities. Austin, TX. 2002.
Alpert, G., D. Flynn and A. Piquero. Effective Community Policing Performance. Justice Research
and Policy 3:80 - 94 (2001).
Walker, S. G. Alpert and D. Kenney. Early Warning Systems: Responding to the Problem Officer
National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief. July 2001.
Reprinted Pp. 95 - 101 in Victor, Joseph and Joanne Naughton, Criminal Justice: Annual Editions.
Guilford, CT: McGraw-Hill. 2003.
Reprinted Pp. 152 - 164 in Thurman, Quint and Jihong Zhao (eds.) Contemporary Policing:
Controversies, Challenges and Solutions. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co. 2004.
Alpert, G. and MacDonald. Police Use of Force: An Analysis of Organizational Characteristics.
Justice Quarterly 18: 393 - 409 (2001).
MacDonald, 1., R. Kaminski, G. Alpert and A. Tennenbaum) The Temporal Relationship Between
Police Killings of Civilians and Criminal Homicide: A Refined Version of the Danger-Perception
Theory Crime and Delinquency 47: 155 - 172 (2001).
Walker, S. and G. Alpert. Early Warning Systems for Police: Concept, History and Issues. Police
Quarterly 3: 132-152 (2000).
Alpert, G. and D. Flynn. Community Policing and Major Special Events: A Case Study of Super
Bowl XXXIII. Pp. 169 - 185 in Brito, Corina and Eugenia Gratto (eds.) Problem Oriented Policing.
Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. 2000.
Walker, S. and G. Alpert. Police Accountability and Early Warning Systems: Developing Policies
and Programs. Justice Research and Policy 2: 59 - 72 (2000).
Alpert, G., D. Kenney and T. Oettemier. Performance Measures Shape Officers Actions. National
Institute of Justice Journal July: 26-27 (2000).
Alpert, G. and K. Coxe. The Role of Women in Policing: Assignments and Specialization. Page 165
Encyclopedia of Women and Crime. Phoenix: The Oryx Press (2000).
Smith, M. and G. Alpert. Pepper Spray: A Safe and Reasonable Response to Suspect Verbal
8

Resistance. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 23: 233-245
(2000).
Walker, S. and G. Alpert. Early Warning Systems for Police: A New Approach to Accountability
International City Management Association, IQ Service Report 32: I - II (2000).
Alpert, G. and M. Smith. Police Use-of-Force Data: Where We Are and Where We Should Be
Going. Police Quarterly 2: 57-78 (1999).
Greene, 1. and G. Alpert. Police: Overview. Pp. 531-539. Violence in America: An Encyclopedia.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons (1999).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. The Force Factor: Measuring and Assessing Police Use of Force and
Suspect Resistance. Pp. 45-60 in National Institute of Justice Research Report, Use of Force by
Police: Overview of National and Local Data. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and
Bureau of Justice Statistics (1999).
Reprinted Pp. 97 -117 in Tautman, Neal. Police Work: A Career Survival Guide. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall (2005).
Madden, T and G. Alpert. Toward the Development of a Pursuit Decision Calculus: Pursuit Benefits
versus Pursuit Cost. Justice Research and Policy 1: 23-41 (1999).
MacDonald, 1., G. Alpert and A. Tennenbaum) Justifiable Homicide by Police and Criminal
Homicide: A Research Note Journal of Crime and Justice XXII 153-166 (1999).
MacDonald, 1. and G. Alpert. Public Attitudes Toward Police Pursuit Driving. Journal of Criminal
Justice 26: 185-194 (1998).
Reprinted in A. Del Carmen. Perspectives: Criminal Justice. Coursewise Publishing: St. Paul, MN
(1999).
Reprinted Pp. 170-182 in W. Palacios, P. Cromwell and R. Dunham (eds.) Crime and Justice in
America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall (2001).
Alpert, G., and A. Clarke. County of Sacramento v Lewis: Its Impact and Unanswered Questions.
Police Forum 8: I - 9 (1998).
Alpert, G. Helicopters in Pursuit Operations. National Institute of Justice, Research in Action.
August 1998.
Alpert, G. A Factorial Analysis of Police Pursuit Driving Decisions Justice Quarterly 15: 347-359
(1998).
Alpert, G., R. Dunham and A. Piquero. On the Study of Neighborhoods and the Police. Pp.309-326
in Community Policing: Contemporary Readings (G. Alpert and A. Piquero eds.). Prospect Heights,
IL.: Waveland Press (1998).
9

Alpert, G., MacDonald, J. and Gover. The Use of Helicopters in Policing: Necessity or Waste?
Police Forum 8: 9-14 (1998).
Dunham, R., G. Alpert, D. Kenney and P. Cromwell. High Speed Pursuit: The Offender's
Perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior 20: 30-45 (1998).
Alpert, G. and A. Clarke. County of Sacramento v Lewis: A Look at its Impact and Unanswered
Questions. Subject to Debate 12: 1, 3, 4 - 5 (1998).
Alpert, G., D. Kenney and R. Dunham. Police Pursuits and the Use of Force: Recognizing and
Managing "the Pucker Factor." Justice Quarterly 14: 371-385 (1997).
Reprinted Pp. 291 - 303 in M. Palmiotto (ed.) Police Misconduct) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall (2001).
Alpert, G., A. Clarke, and W. Smith. The Constitutional Implications of High Speed Police Pursuits
Under a Substantive Due Process Analysis: Homeward Through the Haze The University of
Memphis Law Review 27: 599-662 (1997).
Kenney, D, and G. Alpert. A National Survey of Pursuits and the Use of Police Force: Data from
Law Enforcement Agencies. Journal of Criminal Justice 25: 315-323 (1997).
Reprinted in D. Kenney and R. McNamara (eds.) Police and Policing: Contemporary Issues.
Westport, CT: Praeger (1999).
Reprinted Pp. 200 - 209 in Thurman, Quint and Jihong Zhao (eds.) Contemporary Policing:
Controversies, Challenges and Solutions. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co. 2004.
Alpert, G. Police Pursuit: Policies and Training. National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief.
May 1997.
Dunham, R. and G. Alpert. Police Shootings: Myths and Realities. Pp. 115-123 in Paul Cromwell
and Roger Dunham (Eds). Crime and Justice in America. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall (1997,
2001).
Alpert, G. Pursuit Driving: Planning Policies and Action from Agency, Officer, and Public
Information. Police Forum 7: 1-12 (1997).
Alpert, G., W. Smith, A. Clarke and M. Cosgrove. The Case for a Post-Arrest Use of Force
Continuum: Constitutional and Practical Implications of Police Restraint Procedures. Criminal Law
Bulletin 32: 49-61 (1996).
Crouch, B. and G. Alpert. The American Prison Crisis. Pp. 121-136 in C. Calhoun and G. Ritzer,
Perspectives on Criminal Justice. McGraw-Hill: New York (1996).
Dunham, R. and G. Alpert. Controlling the Use of Force: An Evaluation of Street-Level Narcotics
Interdiction in Miami. American Journal of Police XV (No.1): 83-100 (1995).
Reprinted Pp. 189-204 in D. Kenney and G. Cordner (eds.) Managing Police Personnel. Cincinnati:
10

Anderson publishing Co. (1996).
Dunham, R. and G. Alpert. Multi-Ethnic Communities: Interactive Model. Pp. 436-440 in W.
Bailey (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Police Science. New York: Garland Publishing. Inc. (1995).
Kappeler, V., R. Sluder and G. Alpert. Breeding Deviant Conformity: Police Ideology and Culture.
Pp. 243 - 262 in V. Kappeler (ed.). The Police in Society: Touchstone Readings. Prospect Heights,
IL: Waveland Press (1995).
Reprinted Pp. 284-301 in Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R. and G.
Alpert eds.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1997, 2005).

Alpert, G. and T. Madden. Police Pursuit Driving: An Empirical Analysis of Critical Decisions.
American Journal of Police XIII (No.4): 23-45 (1994).
Crouch, B., G. Alpert, 1. Marquart and K. Haas The American Prison Crisis: Clashing Philosophies
of Punishment and Crowded Cellblocks. Pp. 64 - 80 The Dilemmas of Corrections: Contemporary
Readings (Haas, K and G. Alpert, eds.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1998). Pp.84-100
(1998).
Alpert, G. The Management of Police Pursuit Driving. pp. 599-609 in W. Bailey (ed.) The
Encyclopedia of Police Science. New York: Garland Publishing Inc. (1995).
Reprinted Pp. 547-564 in Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R. and G.
Alpert, eds.). 3rd. Edition Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1997).
Alpert, G. and W. Smith. How Reasonable is the Reasonable Man?: Police and Excessive Force.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 85: 481-501 (1994).
Alpert, G. and W. Smith. Developing Police Policy: An Evaluation of the Control. American Journal
of Police 13 (#2): 1-20 (1994).
Reprinted Pp. 237-251 in Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R. and G.
Alpert, eds.). 2nd. Edition Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1993).
Smith, W., and G. Alpert. Risky Business: Exposure Under Section 1983. Public Risk 8: 6-9 (1994).
Reprinted Pp. 3-4 in ALERT International Newsletter January and March 1995.
Alpert, G.and M. Moore. Measuring Police Performance in the New Paradigm of Policing . Pp. 109142 in Bureau of Justice Statistics, Performance Measures for the Criminal Justice System.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1993.
Reprinted Pp. 265-281 in Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R. and G.
Alpert, eds.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1997).
Reprinted Pp. 215-232 in Community Policing: Contemporary Readings (Alpert, G. and A. Piquero,
eds). Prospect Heights, IL.: Waveland Press (1998).
Alpert, G. and M. Smith. The Police and the Americans with Disabilities Act - Who is Being
II

Discriminated Against? Criminal Law Bulletin 29: 516-528 (1993).
Apospori, E. and G. Alpert. The Role of Differential Experience with the Criminal Justice System in
Changes in Perceptions of Severity oflegal Sanctions over Time. Crime and Delinquency 39: 184194 (1993).
Smith, W. and G. Alpert. Policing the Defective Centurion: Decertification and Beyond. Criminal
Law Bulletin 29: 147-157 (1993).
Reprinted Pp. 355 - 366 in M. Palmiotto (ed.) Police Misconduct. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall (200 1).
Apospori, E., G. Alpert and R. Paternoster)The Effects ofInvolvement with the Criminal Justice
System: A Neglected Dimension of the Experience and Perceptions Relationship. Justice Quarterly
9: 379-392 (1992).
Greene, 1., G. Alpert and P. Styles. Values and Culture in Two American Police Departments:
Lessons from King Arthur. Contemporary Criminal Justice 8: 183-207 (1992).
Reprinted Pp. 179-207 in Law Enforcement Operations and Management (Edited by Marilyn
McShane and Frank Williams) New York: Garland Publishing. 1997.
Alpert, G. and W. Smith. Police Policy: Is the Control Principle out of Control? Police and Security
News 8: 2, 30-33 (1992).
Alpert, G., W. Smith and D. Watters. Implications of the Rodney King Beating. Criminal Law
Bulletin 28: 469-479 (1992).
Alpert, G. and W. Smith. A Critical and Constructive Look at the Defensibility of Police Pursuit
Training. Pp. 172-193 in 1. Bizzack (ed.) Issues in Policing: New Perspectives. Autumn House
Publishing: Lexington, Ky (1992).
Alpert, G. The Importance of Data Quality for Research and Practice. Proceedings ofthe National
Conference on Improving the Quality of Criminal History Records: 34-35 (1992).
Dunham, Rand G. Alpert. Understanding the Dynamics of Officer Age and Gender in Police
Pursuits. American Journal of Police 10: 51-61 (1991).
Alpert, G. and W. Smith. Beyond City Limits and Into the Wood(s): A Brief Look at the Policy
Impact of City of Canton v Harris and Wood v Ostrander. American Journal of Police 10: 19-40
(1991).
Alpert, G. Analyzing Police Pursuit. Criminal Law Bulletin 27: 358-367 (1991).
Alpert, G. Hiring and Promoting Police Officers in Small Departments: Limiting the Role of
Psychological Testing. Criminal Law Bulletin 27: 261-269 (1991).
Reprinted Pp. 96-105 in Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R. and G.
12

Alpert, eds.). 2nd. Edition Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1993).
Alpert, G. Cross-Gender Guarding, Personal Privacy and Institutional Security: Perspectives of Jail
Inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior 18: 304-317 (1991).
Alpert, G. Establishing Roadblocks to Control the Drunk Driver. Criminal Law Bulletin 27: 51-58
(1991).
Alpert, G. Controlling Pursuit Driving: The Need for Policy and Training. Police and Security News
6: 6-13 (1990).
Alpert, G. and W. Smith. Defensibility of Law Enforcement Training. Criminal Law Bulletin 26:
452-458 (1990).
Haas, K. and G. Alpert. Drug Testing at Work. Criminal Justice Policy Review 3: 376-390 (1989).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. Policing Hot Pursuits: the Discovery of Aleatory Elements. Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 80: 521-539 (1989).
Alpert, G. City of Canton v Harris and the Deliberate Indifference Standard. Criminal Law Bulletin
25: 466-472 (1989).
Alpert, G. and K. Haas. American Prisoners and the Right of Access to the Courts: A Vanishing
Concept of Protection. Pp. 65-87 in Lynn Goodstein and Doris MacKenzie (eds.) The American
Prison: Issues in Research and Policy New York: Plenum (1989).
Reprinted Pp. 223-246 in Haas, K. and G. Alpert (eds.) The Dilemmas of Corrections:
Contemporary Readings (Haas, K. and G. Alpert, eds). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press Third
Edition (1995). Fourth Edition, Pp. 244-267 (1998).
Alpert, G. Judge David Bazelon: Questioning Authority (Review Essay) Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology 79: 1381-1388 (1989).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. Research on Police Pursuits: Applications for law Enforcement.
American Journal of Police 7: 123-131 (1988).
Alpert, G. Police Pursuit: Linking Data to Decisions Criminal Law Bulletin 24: 453-462 (1988).
Lang, G., R. Dunham and G. Alpert. Factors Related to the Academic Success and Failure of
College Football Players: The Case of the Mental Dropout) Youth and Society 20: 210-222 (1988).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. Neighborhood Differences in Attitudes Toward Policing: Evidence for a
New Approach to Policing in a Multi-Ethnic Setting. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 79:
504-523 (1988).
Reprinted, in part, Pp. 57 - 60 in R. Mutchnick and B. Berg, Research Methods for the Social
Sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 1996.
Mills, R., R. Dunham and G. Alpert. Working with High-Risk Youth in Prevention and Early
13

Intervention Programs) Adolescence 23: 643-660 (1988).
Zimmerman, R., T. Biggers and G.Alpert. Nursing, Nursing Education and Anxiety. Journal of
Nursing Education 27: 411-417 (1988).
Alpert, G. and B.Crouch. Sports Violence: History, Overview and Suggestions for Reduction. The
Journal of Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics 3: 101-119 (1988).
Alpert, G., R. Dunham, and L. Lewis. Police and Drug Testing) Criminal Law Bulletin 24: 155-166
(1988). Reprinted Pp. 298-310 in Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R.
and G. Alpert, eds.).
Alpert, G. Questioning Police Pursuit in Urban Areas. Journal of Police Science and Administration
17: 298-306 (1987).
Reprinted Pp. 216-229 in Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R. and G.
Alpert eds). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1989).
Sullivan, P., Dunham, R. and G. Alpert. Attitude Structures of Different Ethnic and Age Groups
Concerning Police. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 78: 501-521 (1987).
Dunham, R. and G. Alpert. Keeping Juvenile Delinquents in School: A Prediction Model.
Adolescence 23: 45-57 (1987).
Alpert, G. and M. Llabre. Social Scientists as Expert Witnesses. The Florida Bar Journal 60
(November) 10: 31-34 (1986).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. Community Policing. Journal of Police Science and Administration 14
(September): 212-222 (1986).
Reprinted Pp. 432-450 in Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R. and G.
Alpert, eds.). 2nd. Edition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1993).
McBride, D. C. Habermeil, D. Chitwood and G. Alpert. Drugs and Homicide.Bulletin of the New
York Academy of Medicine 62: 447-508 (1986).
Alpert, G. and P. Anderson. The Most Deadly Force: Police Pursuits Justice Quarterly 3 (March: 115 (1986).
Reprinted in R. Homant and D. Kennedy (eds.) Police and Law Enforcement (Volume 5) New
York: AMS Press (1988).
Reprinted Pp. 304 - 315 in M. Palmiotto (ed.) Police Misconduct 0 Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall (2001).
Alpert, G. R. Dunham and DJ. Conners. Black Representation on Juries in Miami: a Research Note.
Justice System Journal 11 (Spring): 79-88 (1986).
Alpert, G. and DeFoor, A. Telephone Search Warrants: A Proposal for Florida. The Florida Bar
14

Journal 60 (March): 61-63 (1986).
Dunham, R. and G. Alpert. Keeping Marginal Youth in School: a Prevention Model. Youth and
Society 17: 346-361 (1986).
McClellend, K. and G. Alpert. Factor Analysis Applied to Magnitude Estimates of Punishment
Seriousness: Patterns ofIndividual Differences. Journal of Quantitative Criminology I: 307-317
(1985).
Alpert, G. and T. Petersen. The Grand Jury Report. Justice Quarterly 2: 23-50 (1985).
Haas, K. and G. Alpert. Judicial Rulemaking and the Fourth Amendment: Cars, Containers and
Exclusionary Justice. Alabama Law Review 35: 231 (1984).
Crouch, B., G. Alpert and R. Huff. Prison Reform by Judicial Decree: The Unintended
Consequences of Ruiz v Estelle, Justice System Journal 9: 291-305 (1984).
Reprinted Pp. 258-271 in Haas, K. and G. Alpert (eds.) The Dilemmas of Corrections Third Edition,
Prospect Heights: Waveland Press (1995). Fourth Edition Pp. 309-323 (1999).
Alpert, G. The Needs of the Judiciary and Misapplications of Social Research: the Case of Female
Guards in Men's Prisons, Criminology 22: 441-456 (1984).
Reprinted Pp. 154-166 in P. Anderson and T. Winfree (eds.) Expert Witnesses. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press (1987).
DeFoor, A. and G. Alpert. Florida's Invisible Jails. The Judges' Journal 23: 33,46 (1984).
DeFoor, A. and G.Alpert. Telephone Search Warrants, University of Miami Law Review 38: 625636 (1984).
Alpert, G. and R. Huff. Defending the Accused: Competence and Strategies. pp. 247-271 in William
McDonald (ed.) The Defense Counsel. Beverly Hills: Sage (1983).
Alpert, G. Women Prisoners and the Law: Which Way Will the Pendulum Swing? Journal of
Criminal Justice 10: 37-44 (1982).
Reprinted Pp. 171-182 in B. Price and N. Sokoloff (eds.) The Criminal Justice System and Women.
New York: Clark Boardman (1982).
Alpert, G. and B. Crouch. Sex and Occupational Socialization: A Longitudinal Study of Prison
Guards. Criminal Justice and Behavior 9: 139-176 (1982).
Alpert, G. and R. Huff. Organizational Compliance with Court-Ordered Reform: the Need for
Evaluation Research. Pp. 115-124 in M. Morash (ed.) Implementing Criminal Justice Policies.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications (1982).
Alpert, G., R. White and P. Geisel. The Intervention of Business Leaders. pp. 155-173 in Charles V.
15

Willie and Susan Greenblatt (eds.) Community Politics and Educational Change. New York:
Longman (1981).
Alpert, G. Criminal Defense Attorneys: A Typology of Defense Strategies, Criminal Law Bulletin
17: 381-404 (1981).
Alpert, G. and R. Huff. Prisoners, the Law and Politics: Planning for Legal Aid. New England
Journal on Prison Law 7: 304-340 (1981). First prize, 1981 National Writing Competition, New
England School ofLaw.
Alpert, G. and R. Dukes. Criminal Victimization from a Police Perspective. Journal of Police
Science and Administration 8: 21-30 (1980).
Alpert, G. and B. Crouch. Prison Guards' Attitudes Toward Components of the Criminal Justice
System. Criminology 18: 227-236 (1980).
Alpert, G. Inadequate Defense Counsel: An Empirical Analysis of Prisoners' Perceptions The
American Journal of Criminal Law 7: 1-21 (1979).
Alpert, G. Recent Developments in the Office of the Prosecutor The Prosecutor 14: 341-344 (1979).
Alpert, G. Patterns of Change in Prisonization: A Longitudinal Analysis, Criminal Justice and
Behavior 6: 159-174 (1979).
Alpert, G. and G. Noblit. Advocacy and Rehabilitation in Women's Prison. Law and Policy
Quarterly 1: 207-222 (1979).
ReprintedPp. 272-284 in K. Haas and G.P. Alpert (eds.) The Dilemmas of Punishment. Prospect
Heights: Waveland Press (1986).
Alpert, G. Institutional Diversity and Prisonization: A Longitudinal Analysis, LAE Journal of the
American Criminal Justice Association 41: 31-39 (1979).
Alpert, G. Legal Ombudsman: New Roles for an Old Office, Victimology: An International Journal
4: 268- 278 (1979).
Alpert, G. and D. Hicks. Patterns of Social Change and Adaptation in Prisons. Social Science
Quarterly 59: 37-50 (1978).
Alpert, G. The Determinants of Prisoners' Decisions to Seek Legal Aid New England Journal of
Prison Law 4: 309-325 (1978).
Alpert, G. and N. Miller. Legal Delivery Systems to Prisoners. The Justice System Journal 4: 9-26
(1978).
Alpert, G. A Comparative Study of the Effects ofIdeology on Prisonization, LAE Journal of the
American Criminal Justice Association 41: 77-86 (1978).

16

Alpert, G., 1. Finney and 1. Short. Legal Services, Prisoners' Attitudes, and 'Rehabilitation.' Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology 69: 616-626 (1978).
Alpert, G. and D. Hicks. Prisoners' Attitudes toward Components of Legal and Judicial Systems.
Criminology 14: 461-482 (1977).
Reprinted Pp. 31-52 in D. MacNamara and F. Montanino (eds.) Incarceration: The Sociology of
Imprisonment. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1978.
Alpert, G. Prisons as Formal Organizations: Compliance Theory in Action Sociology and Social
Research 63: 112-130 (1978).
Alpert, G. Collective Violence Behind Bars. pp. 21-34 in M. Reidel and P. Vales (eds.) Treating the
Offender: Problems and Issues. Praeger Publishers: New York (1977).
Alpert, G. A Comparative Look at Prisonization: Sex and Prison Culture Quarterly Journal of
Corrections I: 29-34 (1977).
Alpert, G. Prisoners' Right of Access to Courts: Planning for Legal Aid, Washington Law Review 51
(July) 3: 653-675 (1976).
Reprinted Pp. 314-335 in D. Petersen and C. Thomas (eds.) Corrections: Problems and Prospects.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall (1980).

GRANTS, CONTRACTS AND AWARDS:
A Study on the Effects of Tasers on Humans. Miami-Dade County, Florida. 2007.
A Multi-Method Evaluation of Police Use of Force Outcomes. National Institute of Justice. 2005.
Assessing Police Officers' Decision Making and Discretion. National Institute of Justice. 2001.
The Lexington County Domestic Violence Court: A Partnership and Evaluation. National Institute
of Justice. 2000.
Promoting Police Accountability: A Technical Assistance Program. Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services. Washington, DC. 2000.
Investigating Racial Profiling in the Miami-Dade Police Department. Miami-Dade County, Florida.
2000.
The Effect of Community Policing on Urban Violence. American Statistical Association, Committee
on Law and Justice. 2000.
Carolinas Institute for Community Policing. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. 1999,
17

2000.
The Force Factor: Measuring Police Use of Force Relative to Suspect Resistance. National Institute
of Justice. 1998.
Facilitating Organizational Change: Shaping Philosophies Through Individual and Organizational
Evaluations. National Institute of Justice. 1996.
An Analysis of Police Use-of-Force Data. National Institute of Justice. 1996.
Firearm Use and Analysis for the Metro-Dade Police Department. Metropolitan Dade County,
Florida. 1994.
Evaluation of Hi-Risk Police Activities. Insurance Reserve Fund. State of South Carolina. 1994.
Police Pursuit Driving and Use of Excessive Force. National Institute of Justice. 1994.
Evaluation of Tactical Narcotics Team, Metro-Dade Police Department, 1991.
Police Report Writing. Wackenhut Services, Savannah River Site, Aiken, Sc. 1990.
Police Officer Task Analysis. City of Columbia. 1989.
National Survey of Security Needs. American Society ofIndustrial Security Foundation. 1989.
Firearm Use and Analysis for the Metro-Dade Police Department. Metropolitan Dade County,
Florida. 1988.
Review of Deadly Force Training and Policies of the Dallas Police Department. City of Dallas,
Texas. 1987.
Police Pursuits: Integrating the Empirical Research with Policy. U.S. Department of Transportation.
1987.
Police Use of Deadly Force Project - An Update. City of Miami. 1987.
Impact of Police Behavior in a Multi-Ethnic Setting. Metro-Dade County, Florida. 1985.
Police Use of Deadly Force, City of Dallas, Texas. 1984.
Police Use of Deadly Force, City of Miami. 1983.
Establishment of Prisoners' Rights Project - Oregon Division of Corrections. 1980.
Integrated Victim Assistance. L.E.A.A. - U. S. Department of Justice. Written for the 4th Judicial
18

District Attorney's Office (Colorado) 1980.
Comprehensive Career Criminal Program. L.E.A.A. - U. S. Department of Justice. Written for the
Lane County (Oregon) District Attorney's Office. 1979.
Evaluation of Parole Decision Guidelines. National Institute of Corrections. 1978.

SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS:
The Charleston Area Crime Summit Report. Prepared for the North Charleston and City of
Charleston Police Departments. November 2007.
Pedestrian and Motor Vehicle Post-Stop Data Analyses Report. Prepared for the City of Los
Angeles. July 2006. www.analysisgroup.com/AnalysisGroup/article.aspx?id= 1811
Miami-Dade Police Department Racial Profiling Study. November 2004, Released, May 2005.
Not-At-Fault Traffic Crash Data Pp. 66-75 in Amy Ferrall, Jana Rumminger and Jack McDevitt
(eds.) New Challenges in Confronting Racial Profiling in the 21 st Century. Northeastern University.
2005.
Proposed Pedestrian and Motor Vehicle Stop Data Analyses Methodology Report. Prepared for the
City of Los Angeles. January 2005. www.lacity,org/lapdstops
Rapport, D'Enquete de Coronor. Bureau du Coronor Quebec. 2004.
Assessing Police Officers' Decision Making and Discretion. A Final Report to the National Institute
of Justice. 2004.
Police Pursuits. Pp. 122-123 in William Geller and Darrel Stephens (eds.) Local Government Police
Management. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association. 2003.
Early Intervention Systems for Law Enforcement Agencies: A Planning and Management Guide. A
Final Report to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 2003.
Evaluation of the Local Initiated Research Partnership Program. A Final Report to the National
Institute of Justice. 2003.
The Lexington County Domestic Violence Court: A Partnership and Evaluation. A Final Report to
the National Institute of Justice. 2003.
Early Intervention Systems for Law Enforcement Agencies: A Planning and Management Guide. A
Final Report to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 2002.
The Effect of Community Policing on Urban Violence. A Final Report to the American Statistical
19

Association and Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2002.
The Force Factor: Measuring Police Use of Force Relative to Suspect Resistance. A Final Report to
the National Institute of Justice. 2001.
Community Policing Performance Measures. An Essay and Curriculum for the Carolinas Institute
for Community Policing. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. 2000.
Ethics and Integrity in Community Policing. An Essay and Curriculum for the Carolinas Institute
for Community Policing. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. 2000.
Responding to the Problem Police Officer: A National Study of Early Warning Systems. A Final
Report to the National Institute of Justice. 1999.
Policy and Training: the First Two Building Blocks of a Pursuit Plan for the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police. A Final Report to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints
Commission. 1999. Published in Police Pursuits and Public Safety. A Report by the RCMP Public
Complaints Commission. Autumn, 1999.
Facilitating Organizational Change: Shaping Philosophies Through Individual and Organizational
Evaluations. A Final Report to the National Institute of Justice. 1998.
An Analysis of Police Use-of-Force Data. A Final Report to the National Institute of Justice. 1998.
Helicopters and their Uses in Police Pursuit. A Final Report to the National Institute of Justice.
1997.
Police Pursuit and the Excessive Use of Force. A Final Report to the National Institute of Justice.
1996.
A Critical Function Assessment ofthe Aiken County Sheriff's Office. 1995.
Violent Crime in South Carolina: The Influence of Race, Gender and Age. Reports Prepared for the
South Carolina Department of Law Enforcement and the NAACP. December 1992 and February
1994.
Pursuit Driving: Balancing Public Safety and Law Enforcement, Testimony to United States House
of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations Sub-Committee on Government
Information Justice and Agriculture. July 1992.
Developing Pursuit Policy Guidelines and the Assessment of Risk. Remarks made to the House
Safety Committee, State of Massachusetts. March 1992.
Developing a Decentralized Police Department from a National Police Force: A Report to the
Bundeskriminalamt and the German Marshall Fund. March 1992.
20

Police Pursuit: An Assessment of Risk and Need for Policy. Remarks made to the Senate
Transportation Committee, State of Pennsylvania. February 1992.
Policy, Practice and Training in the Police Use of Deadly Force. Montgomery County, Maryland
Grand Jury. July, 1991.
The Frequency ofIntersection Accidents During Police Vehicle Emergency Runs. Police Executive
Research Forum. (1991).
An Analysis of Pursuit Driving: Duval County (FL) Grand Jury (Spring 1989).
Metro-Dade Police Department Discharge of Firearm Study, 1984-1988. Dade County, Florida
(1989).
Police Pursuit: A Comprehensive Review and Empirical Assessment. Dade Association of Chiefs of
Police. Dade County, Florida (1988).
L'Impact d'Immigration Des Algeriens a Paris. La Maison des Sciences de L'Homme. Paris (1987).
Review of Deadly Force Training and Policies of The Dallas Police Department. City of Dallas
(1987).
Police Use of Deadly Force in Miami 1980-1986. Miami Police Department (1987).
Crime Analysis and Recommendations for Criminal Justice Resource Management. Criminal Justice
Council, Dade County, Florida (1986).
Civilian Attacks on Police Officers. Dade County Police Benevolent Association. Miami (1985).
Mentally III Criminals in Dade County. Citizens' Crime Commission, Miami, Florida (1985).
Youth Gangs in Dade County. Final Report of the Grand Jury, Dade County, Florida (Fall 1984).
Police Use of Deadly Force in Dallas, Texas: 1980-1983. Dallas Police Department, Dallas, 1984.
School Dropouts in Dade County. Final Report of the Grand Jury, Dade County, (Spring 1984).
Final Report, Overtown Blue Ribbon Committee, Miami, Florida. 1983.
Police Use of Deadly Force. Final Report of the Grand Jury, Dade County, Florida (Spring 1983).
Legal Rights of Correctional Officers. Florida Department of Corrections, (October 1982).
The Grand Jury Looks at Itself: A Follow-Up Study. Final Report of the Grand Jury, Dade County,
Florida (Fall 1982).
21

The Impact of Mariels and other Entrants on South Florida. Final Report of the Grand Jury, Dade
County, Florida (Spring 1982).
BOOK REVIEWS:
American Journal of Police
Criminology
Criminal Justice Review
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
Sociology: Reviews of New Books
EDITORIAL EXPERIENCE:
Editorial Board, The Justice System Journal
Associate Editorial Consultant, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
Editorial Board, American Journal of Criminal Justice.
Contributing Editor, Criminal Law Bulletin.
Board of Editors, Sociological Inguiry.
Associate Editor, Criminology.
Advisory Board, Police Liability Review.
Advisory Board, Annual Editions: Criminal Justice (Dushkin).
Editor, Georgia Journal of Corrections.
Editor, American Journal of Police
Associate Editor, Justice Quarterly
Editor, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management
Associate Editor, Justice Research and Policy
Editorial Board, Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Executive Board, Journal of Crime and Delinquency
Series Editor, Wadsworth Publishing

Special Reader:
American Journal of Criminal Justice
American Journal of Police
American Journal of Sociology
American Sociological Review
Crime & Public Policy
Criminal Justice and Behavior
Criminology: An International Journal
Journal of Crime and Delinquency
Journal of Criminal Justice
Journal of Justice Issues
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
Journal of Quantitative Criminology
Judicature
Justice Quarterly

1994 - 1998
1990 - 1998
1989 - 1998
1987 - 1995
1987 - 1998
1980 - 1984.
1989 - 1998.
1988 - 1994.
1971 - 1972.
1995 - 1997.
1995-1998.
1997 - 1999.
1998 - 2001
2004 -2005.
2000present.
2000- 2007.

Police Quarterly
Law and Society Review
Sociological Inquiry
Sociological Focus
Social Problems
Social Science Quarterly
Cambridge University Press
McGraw Hill Publishing Company
Praeger Press
Sage Publications
Wadsworth Publishing
West Publications

22

Justice System Journal
Law and Human Behavior
SELECTED PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES:
Instructor, FBI National Academy. FBI Academy, Quantico, VA. May 2008.
Member, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Committee on Use of Force. 2008 - present.
Member, California POST Study Group on Driver Training. 2008 - present.
Presenter, Suing and Defending the Police. Annual Meeting of the Police Executive Research
Forum. Miami, April 2008.
Keynote Speaker, Seattle Police Department. Investigating and Evaluating a Police Pursuit:
Reducing Exposure and Liability. Seattle, WA. February 2008.
Keynote Speaker, Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission. Offender Pursuit
Seminar. Bothell, WA. February 2008.
Presenter, Charleston Police Department. Seminar for Pursuit Management. Charleston, sc.
February 2008.
Instructor, FBI National Academy. FBI Academy, Quantico, VA. December 2007.
Presenter, The Charleston Area Crime Summit. North Charleston, Sc. November 2007.
Presenter, To Protect and to Serve ... Police and Policing in an Age of Terrorism and Beyond.
Ministry of Public Security and National Institute of Justice. Jerusalem, Israel. October 2007.
Presenter, Police Driver Trainers' Seminar. Peel Regional Police, Brampton, Ontario
Canada. August 2007.
Presenter, Major Cities Chiefs of Police Task Force on Internal Affairs. Dallas, TX. May 2007.
Instructor, FBI National Academy. FBI Academy, Quantico, VA. May 2007.
Presenter, Scott v Harris: The Supreme Court revisits police use of deadly force. Annual Meeting of
the Police Executive Research Forum. Chicago. April 2007.
Consultant, Advisory Committee on Police Standards (Racial Profiling). State of New Jersey.
January, 2007.
Member, Research Advisory Committee, Police Foundation. Washington, DC. 2007 - present.
23

Invited Participant, Workshop on Policing Research. National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC.
November 2006.
Presenter, New Developments in Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention Conference, University of
Shanghai, Shanghai, China. October, 2006.
Instructor, Early Identification Systems. International Association of Chiefs of Police. Maple
Grove, MN. September 2006.
Instructor, Police Use of Force and Pursuits. Pharr, TX. Police Department. June, 2006.
Instructor, FBI National Academy. FBI Academy, Quantico, VA. May 2006.
Instructor, National Summit on Police Use of Force. Institute for Law Enforcement Administration.
Plano, TX. January 2006.
Invited Participant, Strategies for Resolving Conflict and Minimizing the Use of Force. PERF, San
Diego, CA. December 2005.
Senior Advisor, Major Cities Chiefs of Police Task Force on Internal Affairs. Los Angeles, CA.
2005 -2008.
Invited Participant, Symposium on Conducted Electronic Devices. PERF, Houston, TX. October
2005.
Guest Editor, Police Quarterly. Vol. 8 Number 3, September 2005.
Invited Participant, 14th World Congress of Criminology. University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia,
PA. August 2005.
Invited Participant, Less-Lethal Technology Symposium. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington,
DC. April 2005.
Member, South Carolina Law Enforcement Training Advisory Council. Department of Public
Safety. Columbia, South Carolina. 2005 - 2006.
Invited Participant, Best Practices in Managing Police Use of Force. Los Angeles Police
Department. Los Angels, CA. March 2005.
Presenter, Early Identification Systems: A Changing Paradigm. Internal Affairs. Institute for Law
Enforcement Administration. Plano, TX. November 2004.
Presenter, By the Numbers: How to Analyze Race Data from Vehicle Stops. Kansas City, Police
Executive Research Forum. August 2004.
Presenter, The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. Washington, DC.
24

July 2004.
Presenter, Pursuit Driving, Executive Management Program. Northwestern University Center for
Public Safety. May 2004.
Consultant, Coroner's Office. Inquest on Police Pursuit Driving. Quebec, Canada. 2004.
Presenter, Western Regional Racially Biased Policing Summit. Sacramento Police Department.
Sacramento, CA. February 2004.
Panelist, Pursuit Driving Training Symposium. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Glynco,
GA. (Sites throughout the United States) 2002 - 2004.
Consultant, Citizen Advisory Panel on Pursuit Policy. Orlando Police Department. Orlando, FI.
December 2003.
Presenter, Enrichment Retreat. Royal Bahamas Police Force. Nassau. November 2003.
Presenter, The Annual Conference on Racial Profiling. Northwestern University. Chicago.
November 2003.
Presenter, The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. Washington, DC
July 2003.
Invited Participant, Minority Trust and Confidence in the Police. National Institute of Justice.
Washington, DC. July 2003.
Presenter, Community Oriented Police Services Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: June 2003.
Presenter, Promoting Cooperative Strategies to Prevent Racial Profiling. Sacramento Police
Department. Sacramento, CA. June 2003.
Presenter, Confronting Racial Profiling in the 21 st. Century: New Challenges and Implications for
Racial Justice. Northeastern University. Boston, MA. March 2003.
Moderator and Panel Member, Racial Profiling Conference, The Foley Institute for Public Policy
and Public Service. Washington State University. February 2003.
Presenter, Pursuit Driving. Rocky Mountain Criminal Justice Conference. Gatlinburg, TN.
November 2002.
Invited Participant, Minority Trust and Confidence in the Police. National Institute of Justice.
Washington, DC. October 2002.
Panelist, Racial Profiling. Smith College, Northhampton, MA. September 2002.
25

Presenter, State Bar of Texas Suing and Defending Governmental Entities Course. Galveston, TX.
August 2002.
Panelist, Excessive Force Demonstration. State Bar of Texas Suing and Defending Governmental
Entities Course. Galveston, TX. August 2002.
Presenter, Annual Convention of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Atlanta, GA. August
2002.
Presenter, Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. National Research
Council. Washington, DC. April 2002.
Presenter, Racial Profiling: Setting the Research Agenda. Center for Studies in Criminology and
Law. University of Florida. October 2001.
Presenter, Racial Profiling, Bureau of Justice Statistics/Justice Research & Statistics Association
Annual Meeting. New Orleans, LA October 2001.
Presenter, Early Warning Systems and the Police. Pasadena, California Police Department, October
2001.
Presenter, \\ Pursuit Driving - Dynamics and Liability." High Liability Trainers Conference.
Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Orlando, FL. August 2001.
I

Presenter, The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. National Institute
of Justice. Washington, D.C. July 2001.
Academic Community Liaison, National Commission on Law Enforcement Integrity. 2001 - 2005.
Invited Participant, Ethics and Integrity Curriculum Development. Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services. Washington, DC: May 2001.
Presenter, Early Warning Systems and the Police. School of Professional Studies, Johns Hopkins
University. Baltimore, MD. April 2001.
Panelist, Pursuit Driver Training Symposium. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Glynco,
GA. March 2001.
Presenter, Speed Enforcement/Aggressive Driving Conference. Institute of Police Technology and
Management. Orlando, FL. March 2001.
Invited Participant: Early Warning System Curricula Development Meeting. Regional Community
Policing Institute for New England. Boston Police Department. Boston, MA: January 2001.

26

Presenter, Working Session on Police Practices. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: November
2000.
Presenter, The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. National Institute
of Justice. July 2000.
Invited Participant: Police Pursuit Issues for Managers and Supervisors: Curriculum Development
Conference. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Glynco, GA. May 2000.
Presenter, Police Use of Force in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Miami-Dade County Criminal
Justice Council. Miami, Fl: November 1999.
Presenter and Moderator, Building Accountability into Police Operations. Department of Justice.
Washington, DC: November 1999.
Presenter, The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. National Institute
of Justice. July 1999.
Invited Participant: Homicide Clearance Rate Project. Implementation Group Meeting. Justice
Research and Statistics Association. Washington, DC. May 1999.
Presenter, Less than Lethal Force: A Safe and Reasonable Response to Suspect Resistance, Law
Enforcement Applications of Non-Lethal Weapons. Quantico, VA. May 1999.
Presenter, Measuring Police Use of Force Relative to Suspect Resistance. International Association
of Chiefs of Police Annual Conference. Salt Lake City, October 1998.
Presenter, The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. National Institute
of Justice. July 1998.
Keynote Speaker, Seminar on Risk Management: Police Use of Deadly Force and Pursuit Driving.
Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute. Dallas, Texas. November 1995, May 1996, May 1998.
Presenter, Locally Initiated Research Partnership Program Conference. National Institute of Justice.
February 1998.
Presenter, Pursuit Policy and Practice. International Association of Women Police Conference.
Dallas, November 1997.
Presenter, Meeting the Challenges of Crime and Justice: The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice
Research and Evaluation. Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice. Washington, DC: July
1997.
Presenter, Locally Initiated Research Partnership Program Conference. National Institute of Justice.
January 1997.
27

Faculty, Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute Management College. Dallas, Texas. January
1977.
Presenter, State and Local Partnership Training for Criminal Justice. Bureau of Justice Assistance.
January 1997.
Presenter, Lessons Learned form the 1996 Olympic Games. Special Events Planning and
Management Symposium. Metro-Dade Police Department. September 1996.
Member, National Criminal Justice Network Consumer Advisory Network. 1996.
Presenter, and Workshop Director, Building a Safer Society: The Annual Conference on Criminal
Justice Research and Evaluation. Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice. Washington,
DC: August 1996.
Police in Pursuit: Policy and Practice. Research in Progress Series (Video). National Institute of
Justice. July 1996.
Presenter, Use-of-Force Cluster Conference. National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: April
1996.
Discussant, Measuring What Matters, National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: November
1995, May 1996.
Presenter, Police Pursuits and the Use of Force: Recognizing and Managing "the Pucker Factor."
The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. National Institute of Justice.
Washington, DC. July 1995.
Invited Participant, Police Use of Force Focus Group. National Institute of Justice/Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Washington, DC: May 1995.
Presenter, Hi-Risk Police Activities and Managing Their Risks. South Carolina Sheriffs
Association. May 1995.
Presenter, Police Pursuits. Making Policy Decisions. Transportation Research Board. Washington,
DC. January 1995.
Invited Participant, Strategic Planning Workshop: Developing a Police Research and Evaluation
Agenda. National Institute of Justice. December 1994.
Presenter, Special Events Planning and Management Symposium. Metropolitan Police Institute.
Miami, October 1994.
Invited Participant, Justice Research & Statistics Association Annual Meeting. Atlanta, October
1994.
28

Pursuit Driving and Risk Assessment Seminar. Indiana Police Chiefs Association. Anderson, IN.
September 1994.
Principal Evaluator, State Evaluation Capacity Building Program. National Institute of Justice. 1992Present.
Invited Participant, Focus Groups Sessions on Community Policing and the Crime Bill. National
Institute of Justice, Washington, DC. July - August 1994.
Presenter, Use of Force and Pursuit Risks, Southeastern Campus Safety Institute. Long Beach,
Mississippi, August 1994.
Invited Speaker, South Carolina City and Coupty Management Association Annual Meeting, Hilton
Head, July 1994.
Member, Pursuit Guidelines Development Advisory Committee, California Peace Officer Standards
and Training, 1994.
Facilitator, Pursuit Policy Workshop. Criminal Justice Institute, St. Petersburg Community College.
February 1994.
Presenter, Frontiers of Legal Thought Conference. Duke Law School. Durham, North Carolina.
January 1994.
Keynote Speaker, Seminar on Risk Management: Police Use of Deadly Force and Pursuit Driving.
Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute. Dallas, Texas. May 1993.
Keynote Address, Police Vehicle Pursuits: Policy Implications and Liability. Illinois State
University and the Traffic Institute, Northwestern University. Normal, n. April 1993.
Invited Lecturer, Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University. Cambridge, England. March
1993.
Presenter, Reducing the Risk of Emergency Vehicle Operations, Risk Management Services, South
Carolina Budget and Control Board. Columbia, South Carolina. December 1992.
Invited Participant, Bureau of Justice Statistics/ Justice Research and Statistics Association 1992
Annual Conference. New Orleans, September 1992.
Testimony on police pursuit to United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government
Operations Sub-Committee on Government Information Justice and Agriculture. July 1992.
Faculty, Graduate Course on Victimology. The Free University. Amsterdam, July 1992.
Invited Participant, Annual Conference on Evaluating Drug Initiatives. Washington, DC. July 1992.
29

Curriculum Development for the Bachelor's Degree in Law Enforcement. State of Minnesota 1992.
Testimony on police pursuit to the House Safety Committee, State of Massachusetts, March 1992.

Developing a Decentralized Police Department from a National Police Force. Presented to
Bundeskriminalamt Wiesbaden, Germany. March 1992.
Managing a Community-Oriented Police Department. Presentation to the Wiesbaden Police. March
1992.
Testimony on police pursuit to the Senate Transportation Committee, State of Pennsylvania.
February 1992.
Pursuit Driving Policy Development Seminar. Texas Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
Training. Austin, TX. May and November 1991.
Keynote Speaker, Risk Management and Pursuit Driving. Texas Municipal League. Arlington,
Texas. August 1991.
Invited Participant, National Field Study on Gangs and Gang Violence. U.S. Department of Justice.
Dallas, June 1991.
The Importance of Data Quality for Practice and Research. National Conference on Improving the
Quality of Criminal History Records. Washington, DC. June 1991.
Keynote Speaker, Training Versus Education in Law Enforcement. Virginia Criminal Justice
Educators Annual Conference. Leesburg, VA. May 1991.
Pursuit Driving and Risk Assessment Seminar. Indiana Police Chiefs Association. Jasper, IN. April
1991.
Invited Participant, Attorney General's Summit on Law Enforcement Responses to Violent Crime:
Public Safety in the Nineties. Washington, DC. March 1991.
Matching Structure to Objective. Law Enforcement Management Institute of The Texas Commission
on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education. San Antonio, Texas. February 1991.
Managing Risk: The Case of Pursuit Driving. National A.L.E.R.T. Conference. Columbia, Sc.
February 1991.
Invited Speaker, Risk Assessment, Pursuit Driving and Police Use of Deadly Force. South Carolina
Association of Counties. Columbia, December 1990.

30

Invited Speaker, Pursuit Driving: Analyzing Risk. National Municipal Lawyers Organization.
Boston, September 1990.
Keynote Speaker, Police Pursuit Driving. Texas Municipal League. San Antonio, TX. July 1990.
Consultant, Monroe County (Florida) Sheriffs Department, Key West, FL. June - July 1990.
Keynote Speaker, Seminars on Pursuit Driving. Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute. 19891990.
Commencement Speaker, Charleston County Police Academy, Charleston, SC. September 1989.
Consultant, Duval County (FL) Grand Jury. April - July 1989.
Invited Speaker, Civil Disorders and Police Use of Deadly Force, Southwestern Law Enforcement
Institute, Dallas, Texas, March 1989.
Invited Participant, Cross-Gender Supervision, National Academy of Corrections, Boulder.
December 1988.
Invited Participant, Workshop on Communities and Crime Control, National Research Council,
Miami. January 1988.
Conferencier, La Maison des Sciences de L'Homme, Paris. December 1987.
Invited Speaker, Criminal Law Section, Annual Meeting of the Oregon State Bar. Seaside, Oregon.
September 1987.
Board of Directors, Adolescent Chemical Dependency Program. Dade County, Florida.l987 - 1988.
Keynote Speaker, Sports and Violence. The American College of Sports Medicine. Las Vegas. May
1987.
Keynote Research Address, Police Pursuit Seminar. Empirical Determinants of Police Pursuits. The
Police Foundation. Los Angeles. March 1987.
Educational Consultant, G. Gordon Liddy Institute of Corporate Security and Private Investigation.
Miami, Florida. 1986.
Consultant, Dade County (Florida) Grand Jury. February, 1982 - August 1986.
Board of Directors, Citizens' Crime Commission. Miami, Florida. March 1985 - August 1988.
Member, Dade County Community Task Force on Jury Selection. May 1984 - December 1984.
Member, Dade County Mayor's Committee to Develop an Action Plan for Social and Economic
31

Development for the Black Community. May 1983 - January 1984.
Member, City of Miami Blue-Ribbon Committee to Study Racial Unrest. Jan. 1983 - July 1984.
Invited Speaker, John Jay College of Criminal Justice. New York. Police Use of Deadly Force in
Miami. April 1984.
Consultant, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, Florida. January 1982 - June 1984.
Consultant and Trainer, National Street Law Institute, Georgetown University Law Center,
Washington, DC. 1982 - 1984.
Member, Dallas Criminal Justice Task Force, Dallas, TX. October 1975 - December 1977.

COURSES TAUGHT:
Graduate
Criminal Justice
Social Control
Criminology
Formal Organizations
Juvenile Delinquency
Law and Society
Policing in America
Research Methods
Politics of Crime

Undergraduate
Criminal Justice
Corrections
Criminology
Juvenile Delinquency
Law and Society
Police and the Community
Social problems
Sociology of Organizations
Survey Research Methods

Law Enforcement
Accountability Systems
Police Use of Force
Police Use of Deadly Force
Performance Measures
Pursuit Driving Decisions
Report Writing
Ethics and Integrity

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIAnONS:
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
American Bar Association
Committee on Corrections
American Sociological Association
American Society of Criminology
Student Affairs Committee

1980

1989-1990
32

Publications Committee
Site Selection Committee
Chair, Site Selection Committee
Chair, Local Arrangements Committee
Committee on Criminal Justice Education
Membership Committee
Program Committee
Statewide Policy Committee
National Policy Committee
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Ethics Training Sub-Committee
Justice Research and Statistics Association
Board of Directors
Western Society of Criminology
Vice-President
Executive Secretary
Chair, Program Committee

33

1985-1986
1984-1985
1983-1984
1978
1977-1978
1975-1977
1995-1997
1995- 1997
1996- 1998
1997-1999
2004-2005
1979-1980
1977-1978
1976-1977

Prior Testimony of Geoffrey Alpert
(2005 - 2008):

Petraski y Thedos et al. (Emergency Response, Deposition, February 2005, Trial May 2006).
Attorney: Francis Murphy, Chicago, IL.
Parsons y Tishomingo, Co. (Pursuit, Deposition, February 2005). Attorney: Drayton Berkeley.
Memphis, TN.
Huang y City of Chicago (Pursuit, Deposition, May 2005, Trial, October 2005). Attorney:
Michael Baird. Chicago, IL.
Isham y City ofFt. Lauderdale (Pursuit, Deposition, September 2005). Attorney: W. Clay
Mitchell. Orlando, FL.
Sheets y Pieere Co. (Pursuit, Deposition, October 2005). Attorney: Rogers Wilson. Tacoma,
WA.
Villaita v Waller et al. (Use of Force, Trial, November 2005). Attorney: Tom Mumgaard, City
Attorney's Office, Omaha, NE.
Ruch v City of Normal (Pursuit, Use of Deadly Force, Deposition, January 2006). Attorney:
David Doris, Normal, IL.
Scarbrough v Pima County (Pursuit, Deposition, February 2006). Attorney: Elliot Glicksman,
Tucson, AZ.
Best v Cobb County (Pursuit, Deposition, April 2006). Attorney: George Shingler, Atlanta, GA.
Harris v City of Circleville (Use of Force, Deposition, July 2006). Attorney: Charles H. Cooper,
Jr., Columbus, OH.
Johnson v District of Columbia (Pursuit, Deposition, August 2006). Attorney: Melissa Rhea,
Washington, DC.
Monroy v Los Angeles Police Department (Response to Call for Service, Deposition, September
2006). Attorney: R. Rex Parris, Lancaster, CA.
Cepulionis v Village of Blue Island Police Department (Pursuit, Deposition, November 2006).
Attorney: Thomas F. Boleky, Chicago, IL.

EXHIBIT

I~

Timberlake v Dugger et ai. (Pursuit, Deposition, December 2006). Attorney: Rebecca Royals,
Richmond, VA.
Kingdom v City of Riviera Beach (Pursuit, Deposition, February 2007). Attorney: Andrea
McMillan, Palm Beach, FL.
Parker v Stanhope (Deadly Force, Deposition, February 2007). Attorney: Jeffrey Boyd
Jackson, TN.
Sharp v Fischer et aI., (Pursuit, Deadly Force Deposition, February 2007). Attorney: Henry
Garrard, Athens, GA.
Hobley v Burge et aI., (Use of Force, Deposition, April 2007). Attorney: Dan Noland, Chicago,
IL.
Fox v Goodwine et a1.(Pursuit, Deposition, May 2007). Attorney, Arthur Blue, Carthage, NC.
Baker v Ross Township Police Department (Pursuit, Deposition, July, 2007). Attorney: Marc
Mezibov, Cincinnati, OH.
McCants v Georgetown (Police Procedure, Deposition, August, 2007). Attorney: Tom Nelson,
Mt. Pleasant, SC.
Wilson v City of College Park (Pursuit, Deposition, September 2007). Attorney: William C.
Lanham, Atlanta, GA.
Wolfanger v Laurel County (Deadly Force, Deposition, October 2007). Attorney: Jack Ruzicho,
Lexington, KY.
Terranova v New York State Police (Roadblock, Deposition, October 2007). Attorney: Michael
Grace, Yorktown Heights, NY.
Smith v Clayton County Police Department (Pursuit, Deposition, April 2008). Attorney: Richard
Hendrix, Atlanta, GA.

2

Geoffrey P. Alpert
1905 Salem Church Rd. Irma, South Carolina 29063-8543
Telephone: (803) 446.4139 W Fax: (803) 777-7319

Contract and Fee Schedule for Consulting and Expert Services
My fees include a non-refundable retainer of $5000 for case review. I charge for all time spent on
a case, including research, reading documents, preparing affidavits, reports, consultations and travel from
door-to-door at a rate of$275 per hour. During travel, I charge for all expenses incurred including air
fare, hotel, meals, and parking and other miscellaneous expenses. All air travel will be first class. My
other customary fees include a $2500 charge for deposition or trial testimony that lasts four hours or less.
There is an additional $2500 fee for each additional four hour (or less) block of deposition or trial
testimony. Travel expenses and deposition and trial testimony fees are to be paid before the beginning of
any testimony. No amendment to this agreement or change in the aforementioned rates or charges shall be
enforceable unless it is expressly agreed to by the parties, reduced to writing and signed by all parties.
Invoices will be sent periodically and prompt payment will be made within 30 calendar days from
the day the bill was sent. After 30 days, interest will be added at the rate of I Yi% per month, compounded
monthly, on the outstanding balance, computed on the date of the invoice. The contacting attorney
expressly states that he is an authorized agent to enter into this agreement on behalf of his/her firm and
his/her client(s). The contracting attorney, individually and as an authorized agent for the contracting
attorney's firm and client(s), agrees to obligate him/her, his/her firm and his/her client(s) for payment of
all fees and expenses billed for the consulting and expert services of Geoffrey P. Alpert. It is expressly
understood that the prompt payment of bills for the fees and expenses by Geoffrey P. Alpert is in no way
contingent on the agreement or arrangement between the contracting attorney, hislher firm and his/her
client. Further, it is expressly understood that the prompt payment of all fees and expenses billed
by Geoffrey P. Alpert is in no way contingent on the ability to pay of the client of the contacting attorney
and his/her firm. Accordingly, by entering into this agreement, the contracting attorney expressly
obligates himself/herself and his/her firm to promptly pay all bills for fees and expenses of Dr. Alpert.
By entering into this agreement, the contracting attorney, his/her firm and his/her client(s)
expressly agree to the jurisdiction of the courts in Columbia, South Carolina. Should it become necessary
for Geoffrey P. Alpert to institute an action to collect money due under this agreement, the contracting
attorney, hislher firm and his/her client(s) agree that the courts in Columbia, South Carolina shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over such action and the interpretation and enforcement of this agreement. Further,
the contracting attorney, his/her firm and hislher client(s) agree that they will be responsible for all
expenses and attorney fees associated with any action brought by Geoffrey P. Alpert to collect money due
under this agreement or to enforce this agreement.
Entered into this the _ _ day of

, 2008, by:

Contracting Attorney, Individually

Contracting Attorney, As Authorized Agent for Firm

Contracting Attorney, As Authorized Agent for Client(s)

EXHIBIT

I C.

Geoffrey P. Alpert

f

1905 Salem Church Rd. Irmo, South Carolina 29063
Telephone: (803) 732.133611 Fax: (803) 777-7319

"-f

September 16, 2008

RE: Bland v City ofMemphis
I am a Professor of Criminal Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South
Carolina, and I have been retained by Mr. David Bland to provide my expert opinions in
this case. 1 have a Ph.D. in sociology from Washington State University, and have
conducted research on police policies and customs for the past twenty years. I have
published extensively in the area of criminal justice, including scholarly articles
concerning internal affairs, early warning systems and use of force. I have worked with
numerous police agencies to develop policies. conduct training, and provide them with
other consulting services. I am familiar with police operating procedures as well 8.,0:; the
customs developed by practice. I base the statements contained herein on my education,
research, work experience, knowledge of police policies and customs, as well as my
review of the documents and material provided to me for review set forth in Exhibit G. I
have previously been accepted as an expert in an excessive force case by the appellate
courts in the Sixth Circuit in the published case of Champion v. Outlook Nasvhille, Inc.
380 F.3d 893 (6th Cir. 2004). A copy of my CV setting forth my qualifications and
documents is attached as Exhibit A. A list of the cases that I have testified at trial or by
deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A copy of my fee schedule is attached as
.E7Chibit C.
I have previously been retained as an expert witness in civil rights cases against the City
of Memphis and reviewed extensive materials concerning the policies, practices and
customs of the MPD and have previously fonnulated opinions. In particular, 1 was
retained by the Plaintiff in the following cases to express opinions and prepare an expert
report: 1) Boyd v. City of Mempbis, et al, No. 94-3077 HA (Report Attached as Exhibit
D); 2) Buckley v. Memphis. at at.. No. 03-2875 (Report Attached as Exhibit E); and 3)
Hampton v. Memphis. ct, al, No. 04-2537 (Affidavit attached as Exhibit F). I also
provided consulting expert services in Palazola v. Memphis. et aI. but did not prepare an
expert report prior to the settlement of the case. Finally, I have been retained by the
Plaintiffto express an opinion in the following case: 1) Fortner v. City of Memphis. et aI,
No. 2:07-cv-02526 which I am CUITently in the process of completing. The infonnation
review in these cases and contained in these reports is also part of the basis for my
opinions and conclusions. In fonnulating my opinions, I have reviewed the infonnation
identified in Exhibit G.
EXHIBIT

j

p

SUMMARY OF FACTS
At the time oftbe incident giving rise to this lawsuit, the Plaintiff, Mr. David Bland, was
an 81 year old legally blind man, residing at the Memphis Towers located at 1081 Court
Ave, Apartment # 22S(b), Memphis, Tennessee. Mr. Bland has also indicated that he has
arthritis in his shoulders and arms and poor circulation in his left leg. (Bland p. 41)
On May 19, 2006, the Memphis Police Department (MPD) received a call from a citizen,
Mr. Antos, who was complaining that Mr. Bland was playing his musicrrv loudly and
smoking with his door open, which was creating a disturbance at the Memphis Towers.
Mr. Antus indicated to the dispatcher that the residents of the Memphis Towers were all
disabled in one way or another and that he just wanted an officer come to the scene and
talk to Mr. Bland. Mr. Antus also indicated that he was leaving the scene to go to work
and would not be able to meet with the responding officer. Accordingly, the call that was
received by the MPD was a low priority call.

After receiving the call, the MPD dispatcher placed a call over the radio for an officer to
investigate the call at the Memphis Towers. Officer Peacock, who was driving in a oneman unit, responded to the call. Officer Peacock testified that he was aware that many
people living in the Memphis Towers were elderly and/or disabled. Given this fact,
Officer Peacock was required to appreciate and understand the special needs of persons
suffering from disabilities in his handling of the call. Further, given that this was a lowpriority service call, time was not of essence which would allow Officer Peacock
sufficient time to adequately investigate the complaint and assess t1:J,e situation.
According to the ISB file, when Mr. Peacock arrived on the scene,he infonned the
security guard that be was going to Room 225(b) and that he would talk to her when he
returned. However, Officer Peacock failed to attempt gather any further intelligence
about the complaint or Mr. Bland from the security guard or other building personnel
prior to going up to Mr. Bland's apartment. Given that this was a low priority call and
Officer Peacock's knowledge that many residents of the Memphis Towers are elderly
and/or disabled, Officer Peacock should have spoken with the security guard and/or
building personnel to find out more infonnation about the situation and Mr. Bland's
condition to assist him in responding to the call. Had Officer Peacock simply spoken
with the security guard and/or building personnel, he would have gathered valuable
infonnation to assist him in his handling of the call, including infoxmation about the
complainant, the specifics of the call and Mr. Bland's condition and disabilities. Further)
Officer Peacock could have also requested that the security guard and/or building
personnel accompany him to Mr. Bland's room to assist with dealing with Mr. Bland)s
disabilities and to diffuse any potential situation. Despite Officer Peacock's failure to
gather important intelligence, he entered the elevator to go to the second floor to respond
to the call.

to

Acconiing to Mr. Bland's statements, when Officer Peacock arrived at Mr. Bland's
apartment, Mr. Bland was walking to his front door to close it. Mr. Bland denies that
2

Officer Peacock announced his presence or that he was a police officer before Officer
Peacock entered his apartment. Mr. Bland stated that he and Officer Peacock bumped
iilto eaCh other in his apartment when he was attempting to close his door. Mr. Bland then
asked for the person to identify himself and Officer Peacock stated that he was the police.
Based on this statement, Mr. Bland thought that Officer Peacock was the MIFA meal
person who regularly delivers food to Mr. Bland and often tells Mr. Bland that he is "the
police." Believing that the MIFA representative was about to serve him lunch, Mr. Bland
stated, uBring it on," Officer Peacock immediately placed a handcuff on Mr. Bland's left
hand. After placing a hand-cuff on Mr. Bland's left hand, Officer Peacock attempted to
get Mr. Bland to place his right hand behind his back and ordered Mr. Bland to place his
right arm behind his back. However, Mr. Bland told Officer Peacock that he could not
put ms band behind his back because he had arthritis. When Mr. Bland was unable to
place his right hand behind his back, Officer Peacock sprayed Mr. Bland in the face with
OC Spray. After being sprayed with OC Spray, Mr. Bland began clawing at the air in
front of his face because he did not know what was going on and was trying to protect
himself as he could not appreciate any potential threat due to his blindness. Mr. Bland
testified that he tried to cooperate with Officer Peacock and did not resist Officer
Peacock, but that he was unable to comply with Officer Peacock's dem.ands due to his
disabilities.
While Officer Peacock was attempting to handcuff Mr. Bland, Officer Peacock called his
dispatcher and requested another car. Because Officer Peacock did not respond to
numerous radio calls, numcrous other officers from the MPD responded to the call for
assistance. Officers Kellum, Brown and Lewis were the first officers to ani.ve on the
scene and came off the elevator at the same time. Officer Kellum exited the elevator with
his baton drawn and was followed down the hall by Officer Brown and then Officer
Lewis.

It is undisputed that Officer Kellum struck Mr. Bland with a baton. While Officer
Kellum indicated that he struck Mr. Bland .with a baton, the ISB file does not contain any
Use of Force R.eport completed by Officer Kellum which is a clear violation of MPD
policy. Officer Kellum stated that he struck Mr. Bland one time with the baton in the calf
which dropped him to tbe floor. However, Officer Lewis testified that Officer Kellum
struck Mr. Bland several times with a baton above the mee. (Lewis p. 44-45). Further,
when Officer Lewis observed Mr. Bland witb Officer Peacock in the hallway, he did not
observe Mr. Bland with a weapon and did not see Mr. Bland strike or use any force
against Officer Peacock. Based on Officer Lewis' testimony, there was no justification
for the use of a baton because Mr. Bland was not presenting a danger to the officers.
Finally, Officer Lewis noted that he heard Mr. Bland screaming that he was blind during
the mest. (Lewis ISB Statement, p. 3).
After Officer Kellum struck Mr. Bland with his baton, Mr. Bland was taken to the
ground. Officers Kellum, Brown and Lewis tben handcuffed Mr. Bland by joining
together two sets of handcuffs. Mr. Bland stated that he was struck after he was
handcuffed.

3 .

After Mr. Bland was handcuffed, numerous other officers from the MPD arrived on the
scene, including Officers Stone, Sloan, Ngien and Renfroe. However, not every officer
who mived 011 the scene was identified during the ISB investigation, including the
identity of one officer who exited the elevator carrying a shotgun. The only documents
completed by officers on the scene were: 1) a computer generated Incident Report
completed by Officers I<.ellUJ.n and Peacock; 2) Record of Arrest completed by Officers
Kellum and Peacock; 3) Use of Force Report completed by Officer Peacock; and 4) OJI
Report completed by Officer Peacock. The other t?fficers who arrived on the scene did
not fill out any reports setting forth their participation or observa.tions on the scene.
Shortly after the incident, Mr. Bland was taken into his room where his face was washed
with water. Mr. Bland was patted down and a pistol was located in his pocket. However,
none of the officers testified that they observed the pistol until after the scene was
secured and Mr. Bland was patted down. Mr. Bland was then transported to the hospital
where he received treatment for injuries that he sustained in the incident. Excluding
Officer Lewis, all officers testified that they did not know that Mr. Bland was blind or
had arthritis during the incident. However, this testimony is refuted by David Bland's
testimony, the statements ofother residents of the Memphis Towers and Officer Lewis.
During this incident, residents of Memphis Towers witnessed some of the events
including Anthony Richards~ Sandra Nash, Tracey Taylor and Barbara Smith. The
statements indicate the following:

Mr. Richards stated that he heard Mr. Bland yelling in the hallway that he was being
beaten. Mr. Richards saw a police officer wrestling with Mr. Bland in the hallway. Mr.
Richards stated that he told the officer that Mr. Bland was blind and to leave him alone.
However, the officer then pepper sprayed Mr. Bland. He then saw additional officers
.anive, strike Mr. Bland in the leg with a baton and then jump on Mr. Bland.

J,

Ms. Nash stated that she was in the room of Tracey Taylor and heard a police officer
stating, "Put you bands behind your back." She then heard Ms. Taylor telling' the officers
that Mr. Bland was blind.
Tracey Taylor stated that she heard Mr. Bland screaming that he was being beaten and
she then got into her wheelchair and looked outside her door. When she saw Mr. Bland
with police officers out in the ball, she started screaming to the officers that Mr. Bland
was blind and he could not· see. Ms. Taylor heard Mr. Bland screaming that he had
artbritis and tbat he could not put his hand behind his back. She then saw the police
officers spray mace in his face. She then saw additional offioers arrive on the scene and
strike Mr. Bland about the legs with a baton more than once and take him to the floor.
Ms. Barbara. Smith stated that she heard someone yelling for help in the hallway and she
looked into the hallway. SlJe saw the officers trying to put handcuffs on Mr. Bland and
heard Mr. Bland saying that he could not put his hands behind his back due to arthritis.
Ms. Smith then saw additional officers arrive on the scene. Ms. Smith noted a short
white officer with a baton who tackled Mr. Bland to the ground. Ms. Smith noted there
4

r:

~.

I

were a number of officers piled up on Mr. Bland. Ms. Smith saw more officers arrived
including an officer with a shotgun. Ms. Smith stated that she and other people were
telling the officers than Mr. Bland was blind. Ms. Smith saw an officer hitting Mr. Bland
with a nightstick.
Many of the officers acknowledged that there were witnesses to the events that occurred
in the hallway. In particular, Officer Renfroe mived on the scene and noted. that a
number of residents from the apartments were in the hallway. Officer Renfroe noted that
the residents in the hallway were agitated and stated that "the police were wrong, that the
man didn't do anything." Officer Renfroe stated that he kept the residents back from the
scene. However, Officer Renfroe did not fill out any report concerning the statements of
the residents or communicate this infonnation to his supervisors.
SUMMARY OF OPINIONS REGARDING OFFICERS' CONDUCT
The complaint which precipitated this event was a low priority service call to a location
known to house elderly people and people with disabilities. Specifically, the
complainant, Mr. Antus indicated that Mr. Bland was playing his TV/music loudly and
smoking with his door open. Ms. Antus specifically infonned the dispatcher that Mr.
Bland probably had a disability as everyone at the Memphis Towers was disabled in one
way or another. Mr. Antus then noted that he was leaving the scene to go to work and
would not be present to meet with an officer. Mr. Antus noted that he simply wanted an
officer to speak to Mr. Bland. Based on the call, there was no indication that anyone was
in danger or that this was anything other than a low priority service call.
After receiving the call, the dispatcher placed a request for an officer to respond to the
Memphis Towers to investigate the complaint. In the call, the dispatcher stated, "422
disturbance at Memphis Towers, 1081 Court. Darrell Antus is advising a male is playing
loud music and smoking with his door open causing a disturbance and aggravating the
health conditions of others." This was a request by the dispatcher for a two man unit to
respond to the scene. (peacock, p. 42). Approximately 5-6 minutes after the first call by
the dispatcher for an officer to respond to the Memphis Towers, the dispatcher again
placed a call for an officer to respond to the Mempbis Towers. In this dispatch, the
dispatcher noted that the complainant had left and wanted an officer to speak with Mr.
Bland about his loud TV/music and smoking.
Officer Peacock's call number on this date was 462 and he was riding as a one-man unit.
Despite the dispatcher's request for a two·man unit, Officer Peacock responded to the
scene. Given that Officer Peacock actually knew that many of the people who resided in
the Memphis Towers were elderly andlor disabled and that there was no urgency, it was
incumbent on Officer Peacock to learn as much infonnation about the call as possible.
This would include any additional infonnation he could discover about the call, the
complainant and Mr. Bland. Officer Peacock could have discovered this infonnation by
speaking with the sec\Jrity guard located in the lobby of the Memphis Towers or building
personnel. Had Officer Peacock simply discovered that Mr. Bland was blind and had
arthritis, this whole incident could have been avoided as Officer Peacock could have
5

avoided any contact with Mr. Bland, which

~eated

the circumstances that precipitated

this incident. As Mr. Bland was blind, it is clear that th.e contact between himself and

Officer Peacock started the sequences of events that led to Mr. Bland's injuries.
Therefore, Officer Peacock clearly created the dangerous condition that directly led to his
use physical force and pepper spray against Mr. Bland.
Aocording to the testimony of Mr. Bland, OfficeT Peacock was infonned that Mr. Bland
was unable to place his hands behind his back due to arthritis. As Mr. Bland was
suffering from this disability, Officer Peacock had an obligation to consider this fact
when attempting to arrest Mr. Bland as Mr. Bland's physical inability to place his hands
behind his back does not justify the use of any force against Mr. Bland, unless he poses
some sort of threat to the officer. According to Mr. Bland, he was not resisting, but
physically unable to comply with Officer Peacock's request. Therefore, the use of pepper
spray against Mr. Bland amounted to the use of excessive force. Further, Officer
Peacock's use of pepper spray in a confined area against an elderly man living in an
apartment complex which housed numerous sick and disabled persons was a questionable
use of force under the circumstances and applicable police standards. Finally, the manner
in which Officer Peacock used his OC Spray (i.e. shooting the pepper spray back at Mr.
Bland's face while standing behind Mr. Bland) was not in compliance with applicable
police standards and training.
As noted, had Officer Peacock complied with his obligation to gather additional
infonnation about Mr. Bland's disabilities and condition, this whole situation could have
been avoided. By failing to discover information about Mr. Bland's condition, Officer
Peacock created the situation that led to Officer Peacock's use force, which amounted to
excessive force, against Mr. Bland. Officer created jeopardy must be considered in
evaluating an officer's use of force. Officer Peacock's own behavior created the need for
force that could have been avoided had he investigated the circumstances of the
complaint, situation and potential suspect.

After Officer Peacock called for another car, numerous other officers arrived on the
scene. Officers Kellum, Brown and Lewis were the first group of officers to arrive. It
was appropriate foI' a number of officers to arrive «:m the scene in response to the call. It
appears that the responding officers did not gather any infonnation about Mr. Bland but
quickly responded to the request for assistance. Further, while a number of officers
arrived on the scene, these officers failed to complete any report ~hich would indicate
their participation in and observations of the incident.
While Officer Peacock clearly should have gathered additional infonnation prior to his
encouoter with Mr. Bland, it is also clear that both Mr. Bland and numerous civilian
witnesses infonned Officer Peacock and other officers about Mr. Bland's disabilities. At
this time, the officers were required to take into consideration Mr. Bland's age and
disabilities in assessing any possible threat posed by Mr. Bland when utilizing force.
According tp the testimony ofMr. Bland, he was not resisting Officer Peacock during the
encounter but trying to protect himself from uncertain threats that he experienced when
6

he was pepper sprayed as a result of Mr. BlandJs blindness. Officer Lewis confinned that
Mr. Bland was not posing any threat to Officer Peacock when he arrived on the scene
with Officers Kellum and Brown. Therefore, Officer Kellum's use of a baton to strike
Mr. Bland clearly amount~ to the use of excessive force. Under nationally recognized
police standards, an officer may use only that degree of force which is necessary to dispel
a threat. As Mr. Bland was not posing a threat to the officers, the striking of Mr. Bland
with a baton by Officer Kellum amounted to the use of excessive force.

Further, the circumstances of Officer Kellum's use of force are disputed by the
statements of Mr. Bland, Officer Lewis and civilian witnesses. While Officer Kellum
states that he only struck Mr. Bland one time in the calf with his batonJ Officer Lewis
testified that Mr. Kellum struck Mr. Bland in the thigh area numerous times. Further, the
civilian witnesses indicated that Mr. Bland was struck with a baton more than once.
Finally, Officer Kellum was required to fill out a use of force report upon the use of a
baton. However, no such report exists.

It is clear that there were numerous civilian witnesses who observed the incident and
complained about the manner that Mr. Bland was treated by the officers. In particularJ
when Officer Renfroe arrived at the scene, he indicated that the civilian witnesses were
agitated and complaining about how Mr. Bland was handled. However, Officer Renfroe
failed to inform his supervisors of these complaints or complete a report documenting
their statements. Had Officer Renfroc informed his supervisors about these complaints,
an immediate investigation could have been commenced. A failure to report complaints
of misconduct of fellow officers is an indication that a "code of silence" exists. Officer
Renfroe's failure to inform his $upervisors about the civilian's complaint nor document
these statements in a police report is an indication that the ucode of silence" exists at the
MPD.
While Mr. Bland was at the hospital recovering from his injuries, Mr. Bland signed a
swom complaint against the officers who arrested him. During the coursc of the
in'Vesti.gatio~ the MPD condu~ed interviews with civilian witnesses and the officers on
the scene. lnadditiolJ? the investigation collected the dispatcher's tape, the video tape of
the elevators at the Memphis Towers and all reports of the incident. Based on the ISB
file, Officer Peacock was the only officer inve.c;tigated for the use of excessive force. The
investigation failed to consider that other officers could have used excessive force or
violated Mr. Bland's constitutional rights.
In addition, there were numerous
discrepancies between the officer's and civilian's version of the events regarding the
officer's lmowledge of Mr. Bland's disabilities and the use of force. Based on the
testimony of Mr. Bland and the civilian witnesses, it is clear that the officers were
infanned that Mr. Bland was blind and had arthritis and that the officers used excessive
force. However, the ISB investigation conclud.ed that Officer Peacock acted according to
the policies, practices and customs of the MPD and did not use excessive force during
Mr. Bland's arrest. To come to this conclusion, the ISB investigation had to disregard the
statements of Mr. Bland and the civilian witnesses. Further, it is unclear why Officer
Kellum was not a target of the investigation. Officer Kellum admitted to striking Mr.
Bland with a baton and failed to complete a Use of Force Report as required by policy.
7

Therefore, Officer Kellum's use of force and failure to complete a Use of Force Report
should have been thoroughly investigated. Despite clearly violating the policy with
respect to the completion of Use afForce Reports, Officer Kellum was not disciplined.

SUMMARY OF OPINIONS REGARDING MUNICIP At LIABILITY
Municipalities have a duty to assure that their police agencies do not violate the
constitutional rights of citizens. The governing body must ensure that the department
operates in a manner which will ensure proper procedures and require adherence to
effective policies.
A police chief is an appointed department head, and is accountable to the city officials for
the management and internal affairs of the department. The duty to ensure that
constitutional rights are protected by the police can not be delegated to the chief. Only the
responsibiH,!y of proper management can be delegated. This duty requires that the city
officials monitor the police agency for proper operation, and ensure that approved
policies and procedures are in place, and are being followed.

Every law enforcement agency, over the course of its history of operations, develops a
definable "culture" within its ranks that is unique to the organization. Some cultures
demonstrate reverence for the Constitution and adherence to standards of excellence in
police operations and training. Bad conduct is not tolerated in these departments, and the
mission statement is one that is embraced by the majority of personnel at all levels.
Expectations are high, public perceptions are highly favorable, and personnel of the
department wear their uniforms and do their jobs with pride and excellent public support.
Morale is high. Often, the establishment of such a culture begins with the head of the
department, operating under a mandate from the municipality. Characteristics of such
departments include a commitment to the fOmlulation, enforcement, and continuous
evolution of written policies and procedures; specialized training; effective liaison with
other agencies and the prosecutor's office; thorough and objective investigation of
allegations ofmisconduet; effective supervision and discipline; and integrity.
When these expectations arc not set, and there is DO confonnity to ethics, the "culture"
that matures within a police agency can also be very poor. It takes a long time for these
institutional identities to develop, and once entrenched they are difficult to evict without a
long-term commitment to a new philosophy of doing business. While there is no one set
ofstaodards for the determination of whether a department has allowed a negative culture
to take root, evidence of the existence of a custom and practice of deliberate indifference
to police misconduct that has become institutionalized within a conupt law enforcement
agency can be found in:

a Failure to set up properly ~nning units and/or divisions to properly train,
supervise, monitor and discipline officers that act according to written
procedures and protocols.
b. Failure to properly analyze data regarding officer conduct.

8

c. Failure to take civilian complaints and perform timely and thorough
investigations of' allegations of police misconduct.
d. Negligence in the application of constitutional requirements and restraints in
the daily conduct ofpolice business.
e. Bad public relations and press relations.
f. Legitimate criticisms from investigative agencies or grand juries are ignored.
g. Subordinate personnel are poorly Dr improperly supervised.
h. Evidence ofinternal cover-ups.
i. Officers plant evidence or deliberately state untruthful infonnation and/or
willfully omit relevant infonnation in official reports in order to strengthen
cases and inerease their arrest statistics.
j. Offieers and supervisors conceal or destroy evidence of official misdeeds. .
k. Peer pressure to violate the law or constitutional constraints is commonplace.
1. Officers violated the rights of citizens in the presence of eyewitnesscs with
impunity beca~e they know they will not be disciplined.
m. Employees who observe serious misconduct do not report it, because they
have leamed that they win be identified as "rats", and the report will be
officially ignored by executive management.
n. Officers are arrested for serious crimes.
When characteristics such as those listed above are present, this is strong evidence that
there exists within an organization a long~sta:nding. and pervasive custom and practice
within the agency of deliberate indifference to the constitutional duties and
responsibilities of the agency in its operations and contacts with citizenry, which has been
established and is being perpetuated by policy making officials at the highest levels. In
today'sen1;ghtened law enforcement environment, a continuation of such a pattern and
practice of deliberate indifference' can only be seen as intentional. This becomes a
primary causative factor in unconstitutional and illegal acts committed by officers acting
in their official capacity.
When illegal. and unconstitutional acts are committed by officers and ignored by the
highest officials who are charged with the duty to act, this send8 a message to personnel
at all levels. The message is that police can do whatever they want and get away with it.
Officers and supervisors who are inclined toward abuse of their authority thrive in these
environments, and the public becomes fiustTatcd and distrustful when it sees that
complaints and allegations of serious misconduct are ignored, ratified or deliberately
covered up by administrators.
In reviewing the conduct and perfonnancc of a police department, it is important to
analyze the leadership of the department. As noted by Professor Joycelyn M. Pollock in
Critical Issues in Policing~ Fifth Edition, Chapter 16, p.292:
Most agree that the strongest correlate to the level of dishonesty among
employees is the level of dishonesty among administrators. If there is wide-scale
corruption in a police department, inevitably that corruption has reached high
levels of management that protected and even encouraged dishonesty on the part
9

of the part of the rank and file. What is also true though is that even honest
administrators and managers can foster and encourage corruption when they do
nothing about it In most wide-scale corruption scandals there was an attempted
cover-up from high in management ranks. There is an aversion to "airing dirty
laundry." in law enforcement tl1at influences decisions to curtail investigations of
dirty cops and keep evidence of corruption under wraps. Ironically, this often
results in worse publicity in the long run.
At the times in issue in this case, Larry Godwin was the Director of Police. Durin.g his
law enforcement career, Director Godwin was found guilty of violating the truthfulness
policy when he lied about his location to a dispatcher to cover-up the fact that he was not
at his assigned location, but at a lady friend's house. In order to maintain the integrity of
police officers both in and out of court, all officers must act with integrity and
trutbfulne..~.
The fact that Director of Police has been previously found guilty of
untruthfulness in performing his job duties is an indication that the MPD does not value
integrity as a necessary officer qualification. While Director Godwin's self interest may
have led him to testify that officers can still perform their job duties after being found
guilty of untruthiWness, this testimony was clearly refuted by other City of 'Memphis
corporate representatives. (Tow, pp. 21-24; Winters, 3/3/08, pp. 105-106).
Further, it is significant to note that members of Director Godwin's own command staff,
Deputy Chief Bobby Todd and Major James Krepela, were actually indicted for their
roles in changing police reports stemming from an accident involving the mayor's
daughter-in-law. Both men agreed to onc year of probation for the charge of Destruction
or Tampering with Evidence. The fact that officers in the command staff have been
indicted for serious misconduct issues is compelling evidence that a negative culture has
been established at thc MPD which makes officer misconduct foreseeable and
predictable.
Tn addition, the U.S. Attorney's Office's ((Operation Tarnished Blue" has resulted in the
indictment of numerous officers. While the MPD does not track the number of officers
that have been who have been indicted, Sgt. Mullins compiled a list of 30 officers who
have been indicted or tenninated. in recent times. However, Director Godwin testified
that the number of officer iridicted in recent times could be as high as 45. This significant
number of indictments of police officers in recent times in unprecedented and is
significant evidence that a negative culture has taken root at the MPD where police
misconduct and corruption are tolerated and accepted at the MPD.
Based on the evidence reviewed, it is elear the MPD, from the highest levels of
allowed this negative culture to take root. This is further evidenced by
the manner in which officers are hired, supervised, monitored and disciplined.

managcmen~ has

Specifically, the City of Memphis' coxporate representative testified that the recent rash
of indictments of MPD officers is the highest by sheer volume sillce ,he has been on the
force since 1989. (Tow, p. 33). Furtber, the City of Memphis' corporate representative
also testified that he had serious issues with allowing officers who had failed a
10

I

psychological evaluations to reapply as set forth in a recruitment add placed in the
newspaper by the MPD. (Tow, p. 34-35). The corporate representative further noted that
a lot of the officers who were hired at the MPD in recent times did not have integrity
when hired and could have been weeded out in the application process. (Tow, p. 37).
With respect to the problems with the hiring and recruitment process, the City of
Memphis' corporate representative testified as follows:

Q Okay. What I'm trying to talk about is the department, how the department
reacts. Number one, I think, based on your prior questions, is hopefully you can
weed a lot ofthem out in the application process, correct?
A Yes and no.
Q I mean, up until, I think, 2005 Memphis allowed people to get Post waivers?
A And, again, that's not the application process. That's the directives from the
12th floor and City Hall that they will hire bodies. So, to get 500 bodies, if you
only have 400 that pass and they say, no, 500 bodies, then they will get 500
bodies.
Q So ifwe start there, then according to that kind of example, we may have 100
bodies that we really didn't want?
A That's a fair statement. You could look at that nationwide. When you have
departments that hire a mass hiring within the years, the cycle comes around and
they have mass firings.
Q J don't disagree with you. What I'm trying to figure out is what cycle we're in
at Memphis, and I want to basically start with the premise that we're talking
about. We may have had some situations where we had a lot of people and we
hired too many people. We may be feelin.g some of the repercussions of it n.ow.
Is that a fair statement?
A Yes, sir, we've hit that, yes, sir.
.
Q So we have a situation where, you know, you have somebody -- I'm going to
use your example and obviously the numbers aren't right. We need 500 officers.
We've got 400 that we're happy with. We might have 100 that may not have
passed the test you'd like to apply. okay?
A Correct. (Tow, 38-39).
Based on this testimony, it is clear that the MPD is experiencing serious problems with its
officers based on the failure to ensure that all officers hired bad the necessary integrity
and qualities to perfonn their important duties as law enforcement officers.
Early warning systems are essential to the proper operation of police department. An
early warning system is designed to identify officers whose behavior has established a
pattern or trend ofproblem behavior and to identify officers whose conduct needs to be to
be scrutinized to determine if they need any intervention to ensure that their behavior
conforms to their constitutional duties and obligations. If officers are provided an
intervention, the intervention needs to be documented and the effect of the intervention
needs to be evaluated. Further, in order to establish consistency within the department,
any early warning system must be supported by proper written policy that covers the
essential elements of the early warning system which includes: 1) the selection criteria
11

for flagging officers; 2) the notification of officers; 3) intervention; and 4) evaluation of
the iritervention.

The early warning system at the MPD is run entirely by Betty Winters who operates
without any fonnal written policy guidance. The lack of written policy in the early
warning system fosters inconsistency and confusion regarding the structure and function
of the early warning system from officers and supervisors alike. Without proper written
policies, the early warning system cannot function in a predictable or systematic fashion
and amounts to a hodge-podge of goals and ideals without any effective mechanism to
ensure that the goals of an early warning system are met. Without proper policy, the
early warning system run by the MPD fails to properly meet national standards and the
goals of a properly functioning early warning system.
Prior to Betty Winters taking control of the early warning system, the MPD appeared to
have tracked six behaviors: 1) personal conduct; 2) duty performance; 3) use of force; 4)
use of equipment; 5) reports and communications; and 6) dependa;bility. Inexplicably,
when: Betty Winters took over operating the early warning system, she reduced tbe
criteria to be .evaluated by the early ,warning system to reviewing only instances of
personal conduct and excessive force. Proper early warning systems track multiple
indicators of officer behavior and the net cast by 1he MPD is too limited. Further, it
appears that this change to track fewer officer behaviors was a result of the MPD's
inability to link the previous data set together with the current system which is
inexcusable. In modern day policing, the trend is to track: more aspects of officer
behavior with early warning systems, not to reduce the points that are analyzed as has
occurred in the MPD.
Further, one ofthe most important aspects of early warning systems is the notification of
officers that they have been identified by the early warning system. The notification of
officers that they have been identified by the early warning system serves as a deterrent
to improper behavior. Without notification, this important deterrent effect of the early
warning system is lost. In
MPD's early warning system, there is no requirement that
an officer be notified that he/she has been flagged by the early warning system and,
therefore, the deterrent effects of the program are lost.

the

Given the lack of written policy in the early warning program, there are no written
policies concerning the range of interventions to be provided to officers or the evaluation
of the intervention which is another systematic failure of the MPD's early warning
system.
Finally, Betty Winters testified that officers flagged by the early warning system are
discussed at quarterly meetings with the command staff. However, Betty Winters was
instructed that no notes ofthese meetings should be taken (Wint~ 3/3/08, pp 141-144).
These are not the actions of a department concerned with providii'lassistance to officers ./1,..
and ferreting out bad officers. Police departments should evaluate their officer's conduct
with transparency to ensure consistent and thorough evaluations. Without documentation
of the officers who were flagged, the specific interventions perfOImed and an evaluation
12

of the specific interventions, the MPD's early warning system fails to meet acceptable
police standards. Further, without proper documentation of the early warning meetings,
there is no way to effectively evaluate the MPD' s early warning process.

,.~.
~

,

Based on Betty Winter's own testimony, the creation of. a properly functioning early
warning system is essential to the operation of a police department. Despite Ms. Winters'
basic understanding of the requirements of a proper early warning system, it is clear that
the MPD does not have a properly functioning early wamingsyste1n based on acceptable
police standards. Betty Winters testified that the majority of her work revolved around
the completion of disciplinary charts for use after a Statement of Charges has been
brought against an officer for the purpose of a disciplinary action. 'This is not a function
of an early warning system, but a disciplinary matter. Therefore, by her own admission,
the majority of Betty Winters' work is not devoted to the early warning system. Finally,
based on Betty Winters own testimony, it is clear that she did not have the resources or
staffing to properly run an effective early warning system.
In addition to properly recruiting officers and properly monitoring officers, a department
must thoroughly investigate all allegations of misconduct to prevent and deter police
misconduct. However, it is clear that the investigative process utilized by the MPD is
designed to favor the police officer and not seek the truth. The Standard Operation
Procedures ofthe MPD Inspeotional Services Bureau is deficient based on the f'Ollowing:

1.

2.

3.

4.
5.

ISB does not investigate anonymous complaints. In order for an investigation
to be commenc~ it must be initiated by a citizen. who must be physically
present to sign a sworn oomplaint or the complaint must be initiated
administratively.
The complainant is not allowed to have an attorney present during an
interview. However, the officers are allowed to have a union representative
present dUring all questioning, whether being investigated as a witness or
principal. Many times all officers involved in an investigation are represented
by the same union representative.
The investigators do not review the officer's prior disciplinary record when
investigating a complaint. However, the investigators are entitled to review
the complainant's prior record during their investigation.
The principal officer being investigated is allowed to give his statement after
all the other statements have been completed.
There is no official burden or proofnecessary to sustain a complaint. This has
resulted in a finding that a complaint is not sustained whenever the
investigation is based solely on the testimony of the complainant versus the
officer.

This method of investigating complaints heavily favors the officer's testimony and is not
designed to find the truth. Most responsible law enforcement departments allow
complaints to be filed in any fonn or fashion and do not require a complainant to file a
complaint in person without any assistance of counsel. This factor heavily discourages
the filing of complaints against officers and the search for the truth about police
13

misconduct within any agency.. A proper policy concerning the manner in which
complaints should be taken and investigations carried out is set furth in the U.S.
Department of Justice's, Principles for Promoting Police Integrity, Examples of
Promising Police Practices and Policies. January 2001 which was attached as Exhibit 35
to Director Godwin's deposition. This systematic defect in the investigative process only
leads to further police misconduct as fewer complaints are investigated and sustained
which sends a message to police officers that such conduct is both protected and tolerated
which was acknowledged by corporate representativeS ofthe MPD as follows:
Q And when you're training people that way, if the department does not give
significant discipline to officers who are guilty of corruption or untruthfulness,
what does that instill in the officers?
A It opens the door for many things.
Q Just tell me some of them. It's kind of an open-ended question.
A Well, if the department doesn't deal with their ethics issues then the ethics
issues are going to continue to get worse.
Q So it creates a negative culture within the department?
A That's a fair statement.
Q
Okay. And this negative culture is what you try to dispel with proper
training, correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q. Proper discipline, correct?
A Ycs, sir.
Q Proper policies?
A Yes, sir.
Q And without this kind of whole aspect of training, accountability, policies,
you have to keep that all functioning and working together, otherwise a negative
culture can grow within a department, would you agree? .
A I believe that's a faiT statement. (Tow, p. 35-36)

Q And the department itself has to have systems in place that win evaluate
officer eonduct and mete out appropriate discipline or investigations in' order to
not let any type of that corruption or quote, unquote, code of silence, you mow,
grow in the department, correct?
MR. KLEIN: Object to the fonn of the question.
A Y cs, sir, that's a fair statement.
Q And if the department isn't doing its job in investigating officer misconduct, a
negative culture can grow within the department, correct?
MR. KLEIN: Objection. Asked and answered.
A I believe so, yes, sir. (Tow, 48-49).
Colonel Williams also testified:
Q. Now, when you had any issues or learned anything about the code of silence,
did you also understand that Security -- ISB in order to effectively ferret out, they
had to do prompt, thorough and fair investigations?

14

A.
Q.
A.
Q.

COlTect.

And when you got there in 2005, there was this backlog, right?
COlTect.

And what does that have to do with respect to _. I mean, does that have any
impact on officer conduct in your opinion?
A.·· When you say conduct, what do you mean?
Q. Well, you know, what happens if we don't investigate things and hold officers
.accountable to to complying with the policy?
A. Well, I would say definitely it would have an effect, not all officers, I would
say, like an officer that has caused some problems, I mean, while being
investigated might continue with that type of action. I would say that.
Q. rm having a bad time asking the right question. But if we don't properly hold
them accountable to their policies and investigate them thoroughly and discipline
them appropriately, that does not rule out the bad behavior, would you agree with
that?
A. I agree.
Q. And it allows bad behavior if it has started to continue, right?
A. Correct.
.
Q. And what we are trying to do with our investigations is to ferret out that
conduct and appropriately discipline the officer so that they know there are going
to be ramifications for misconduct, right?
A. Correct. (Williams, pp. 64-65).
As acknowledged by' thc City of Memphis' corporate representatives, proper
investigatiol1$0fcomplaints are necessary to discourage and ferret out police misconduct.
The investigations must not favor either the officers or complainant, but must be a search
for the truth. The investigations must be performed in a timely manner. However, it is
clear that the MPD does not have proper policjes in place guide the investigators search
for the truth. Further, it is also clear that the MPD had failed to perform its investigations
in a timely manner that only fosters police misconduct. The official ISB policy requires
investigations to be completed within 45 days. However, it is clear that ISB lacks the
manpower and resources to comply with t11i5 policy and routinely takes mucl~ lon§~~ /J" c:,
iSi' arenDle i99S. Colonel Williams noted: 1) When he took over ISB ~~6«ras a "d/-serious backlog of cases (over 200) (p. 61); 2) Despite the backlog, the MPD did not hire
additional investigators although uhe wished" they did (p. 61) and although he would
have liked to have more investigators (po 69); and 3) As a result of the backlog, he made
personnel changes and tried to bring in more experienced investigators (30% to 40% of
the Internal Affairs investigators were changed) (p. 61-64, 67-68).

The systematic problems with the ISB policies and the failure to promptly investigate
complaints further leads to officer misconduct as it sends a message to officers that
misconduct is not taken seriously. It clear that the MPD has failed to place a high priority
on police misconduct which has allowed it to thrivc and created a negative culure and
custom and practice of tolerating police misconduct. This is especially problematic given
that the MPD has been experiencing a serious problem with police conuption as
acknowledged by Colonel Williams as fonows:
15

Q. Now, you talked about in the last three or four years there seems to be more

police corruption, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Has it been more pervasive in your opinion? I mean, do you know -- wasn't
Deputy ChiefBobby Todd indicted?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. And he's in the -- was he under Director Godwin?
A. Yes. (Williams, pp. 75-76).
My review of numerous ISB files over the years and for this case, leads me to the
conclusion that the MPD has a practice and custom of not seriously investigating

misconduct against officers that has led to the establishment of a culture of misconduct
which is tolerated by the MPD.
Further, 19B has produced a spreadsheet that sets forth the number of use of force
complaints against the MPD over the past five' years. During that period of time, the
chart contains 449 excessive force complaints. Of those complaints with results, the
complaint was ... sustained in 14 cases. Therefore, the percentage of excessive force
complaints that nave been sustained by the MPD over the five years covered by the chart
is approximately 3%. This percentage of sustained use of force complaints from the
MPD is far below the national average as compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice.
According to Department of Justice statistics, the national average percentage of
sustained complaints for use of force for large police departments such as the MPD was
6% to 8%. Therefore, it is clear that the MPD rate of sustained complaints for usc of
excessive force was far below the national average which can be traced to the systematic
deficiencies with the 1SB' s SOP which heavily favors the officers version of events.
When officers arrive at a scene, they should always be required to complete reports of
their participation in and observation of the events. As noted previously, the numerous
officers who arrived on the scene failed did not complete reports oftheir participation and
observations other than Officer Peacock and Officer Kellum. The failure to requjre or
ensure that all officers prepare reports of their participation and involvement in an
incident deprives the department of critical infonnation and documentation of officer
conduct.
Further, properly functioning police departments that are interested in ensuring that their
officer's use of force is in compliance with policy require that whenever an officer uses
faroe, a separate Use of Force Report is completed and then analyzed by the department
to hold officers accountable for misconduct and to ensure that the police department is
acting according to constitutional standards. Based on the testimony, the MPD did not
start utilizing Use of Force Reports until 2005. Further, the deposition testimony has
indicated that the MPD has not been able to properly anal}l7;e the data contained in the
.Use of Force Reports. Therefore, while the City of Memphis has recently required its
officers to complete Use of Force Reports, it has been unable to use the infonnation in
these reports to come to any conclusions regarding the MPD's use offorce practices. It is
16

significant to note that Officer Kellum admittedly used a baton against Mr. Bland which
would require the completion of a Use of Force Report. However, the ISB investigatioin
did not find a Use of Force Report completed by Officer Kellum in this incident and be
received no discipline. Therefore, even though the MPD requires officers to complete
Use of Force Reports by policy, it is unclear whether the officers in the field are properly
completing these fonus for analysis.
It is well know in police work that officers are reluctant to report misconduct of fellow
officers. This has been extensively documented and discussed in the police literature and
has been referred to as the "code of silence" or the "thin blue wall." This has been
defined as an unwritten code that officers shan not provide infonnation concerning other
officer's misconduct. Any responsible department should recognize the existence of this
police subculture and take ,affinnative steps to remove it. While many officers, including
Director Godwin, testified that they have never heard of the "code of silence," other
officers candidly acknowledged that it exists at the MPD. The fact that Director Godwin
and otber officers testified that they has no knowledge of the "code of silence" and/or its
existence at the MPD shows either: 1) a complete lack of proper training or
understanding of issues of police management; or 2) evidence that the "code of silence"
exists at the City ofMemphis in the highest levels ofmanagement.

Finally, the City of Memphis had infoxmation pertaining to the principal officers
(Officers Peacock and Kellum) involved that should have placed them on notice
misconduct was foreseeable. In particular, Officer Peacock'_ disciplinary chart noted 4'9
that he was previously charged with the following violations:
Charge
DR 101 - Compliance with
Regulations; DR
104 Personal Conduct; DR - 120 NeJdect ofDuty
2/27/99 DR·400 - Fireanns
7/1/04
DR 1106 - Sick Abuse Policy
1012/0S DR 120-· Neglect ofDuty;
DR 104 - Personal Conduct
3/31106 ,DR 1106 - Sick Abuse Policy

Date
4/4/98

-

SOC#
1067-98

Action
Not Sustained

800-99
SOC04-0701
1178-05

Justified
Oral Reorimand
Not Su.c;tained

SOC06-0313

1 Day Suspension

Further, Officer Peacock was relieved of duty pending a fitness for duty evaluation on
December 7, 2005. Officer Peaoock testified that at this time he was going through a
divorce and attempted to ccself-medicate" himself with some Jack Daniels and he did not
wake up to go to work. As a result of this incident, Officer Peacock was off work for
about one week and was required to visit witl1 MPD psychiatrist and then put back on
duty. Consideration of charges for violation of a sick abuse policy and being relieved of
duty are two important factors to consider in predicting problems with the proper
supervision of officers. Prior to this incident, Officer Peacock was not informed that he
was flagged by early warning. While Officer Peacock did not meet the criteria for being
flagged by the early warning system prior to this incident, Bet1y Winters testified that he
17

was discussed at quarterly meetings, but there is no record of any interventions or follow
up by the MPD to address any potential problems that Officer Peacock was experiencing
other than the initial referral to the police psychologist/psychiatrist, Dr. Turner. (Winters,
3/3/08, pp. 83-84)
Officer Kellum's disciplinary chart reveals the following violations
Char9;e
Date
DR
- 104 - Personal Conduct;
10/24/98
DR - 120 - Neglect of Duty
DR104 - Personal Conduct
12/8/98
12/10/99 DR 800 - Uniforms and
Equipment
1/14/00 DR 107 - Courtesy
DR 101 - Compliance with
7/4/00
Regulations;
DR 104 - Personal Conduct
7/22/00 DR 301 - Excessive Force;
DR 101 - Compliance with
Rep;ulations
DR
104 - Personal Conduct
3110/01
4/2/01
DR 104 - Personal Conduct;
DR 301 - Excessive Force
10/20/01 DR 402 - Careless Handling of
Fireanns
12/4/01 DR 104 - Personal Conduct;
DR 101 - Compliance with
Regulations;
DR 134 - Intimidation
10/21/02 DR 104 - Personal Conduct;
DR 301 - Excessive Force
11119/02 DR 104 - Personal Conduct;
DR 301 - Excessive Force
6/22/03 DR 404 - Discharging Firearms
417/04
DR 101 - Compliance with

SOC #
1229-98

Action
Not Sustained

M1129-98

MIOOS-OO
1096-00

Sent to Precinct
Counseling
Precinct
Not Sustained
Not Sustained

1036-01

Not Sustained

1047-01
1069-01

Not Sustained
Not Sustained

S044-01
1268-01

Written Reprimand
Firearm Training
Not Sustained

1223·02

Not Sustained

1273-02

Not Sustained

S029·03
S016-04

Justified
Justified

at

Re~lations

5/20/04

DR 101 - Compliance with Soc04-0552
Re1!Ulations

Dismissed

6/8/07

Based on Officer Kellum's disciplinary chart, Betty Winters testified that she could have
used his disciplinary chart in training to show officers an example of an unacceptable
disciplinary chart. (Winters, 3/3/08, pp. 161-163). As a proper functioning early warning
system is designed to predict and foresee problem officers to provide intervention, this
statement by Betty Winters is compelling evidence regarding the foreseeability of future
misconduct by Officer Kellum.
•
18

CONLCUSION
After review of the materials set forth in Exhibit 0, I have fonnulated the following
opinions that have been more thoroughly explained herein. It is my opinion that Officers
Peacock and Kellum used excessive and unreasonable force against Mr. Bland. Based on
the totality of the circumstances, I have fonnulated the opinion that the MPD has, by
custom and practice, created an atmosphere where improper conduct of police officers is
foreseeable, condoned and tolerated by the MPD. In formulating this opinion, I have
considered the following:
1.

2.

The leadership of the MPD has serious issues with integrity as Director
Godwin has been found guilty of untruthfulness in his official capacity as
an officer ofthe MPD. Further, members of the command staffhave been
placed on probation for Destruction and Tampering with Evidence.
The U.S. Attorney's Office has indicted numerous officers (30-45
officers) for official misconduct during the course of their official duties
with the MPD. This number of indictments of officers is unprecedented
and illustrates that a negative culture of corruption has taken root in the

MPD.
An effective early warning system is essential to a properly functioning
polioe department to predict improper behavior and address officer
conduct before it becomes a problem. The MPD does not have a properly
functioning early warning system. The MPD's early warning system does
not even have any written policies or standards. The failure to have a
properly functioning early warning system has resulted in the failure ofthe
MPD to address problem officers and behaviors before they become
problematic which has led to the continuation of improper conduct by
MPD officers.
4.
A properly functioning police department must have a mechanism for
promptly and thoroughly investigating complaints of police misconduct.
The Inspectional Services Bureau is' charged with this function. ISB's
standard operating procedures are flawed in that they discourage the filing
of complaints by citizens and heavily favor the officer's version of events.
As a result, most citizen complaints are not sustained which sends a
message to officers that their misconduct is accepted at the MPD and leads
to the continuation ofimproper conduct by officers
S.
The MPD has failed to require it officers to complete formal reports of all
officer~ participation in and observations on calls. As a result, the MPD
/Ih. does~tave sufficient documentation of officer actions in subsequent
investigations. Further, while the MPD has recently required officers to
complete separate Use: of Force Reports, it cannot be detennined whether
the officers are properly completing these forms when force is used as
Officer Kellum was not disciplined for failing to complete a Use of Force
Report in this incident. At the present time, the information gathered from
the Use of Force Reports has not enabled the MPD to do any analysis
regarding its officers' use offorce.
3.

19

6.

It is my opinion that the "code of silence" exists among officers at the

MPD whereby officers have created a subculture where reporting fellow

7.

officer misconduct is discouraged which wa.c; acknowledged by many
officers who testified in this action. However, the fact that many officers
did not even understand the concept of "code of silenceu shows a lack of
understanding of proper police management at best and is compelling
evidence of the existence oftbe "code of silence" at the MPD. The failure
to understand and take steps to combat the "code of silence" at the MPD
directly results in the continuation of improper behavior among Ml?
officers.
The MPD had sufficient lmowledge and infonnation concerning Officers
Peacock and Kellum to make their misconduct in this matter foreseeable.

Based on the totality of tile infonnation available to me, it is my opinion that the conduct
of Officers Peacock and Kellum was foreseeable and proximately caused by the policies,
practices and customs ofthe MPD set forth herein.

~t!~

f?af-

Geoffrey P. Alpert.

20

CURRICULUM VITAE
July 2008
NAME: Geoffrey P. Alpert
INTERNET SITE: www.deadlyforce.com
ADDRESS:

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Phone: (803) 777-6424 Cell: (803) 446.4139 Fax (803) 777-7319
e-mail: geoffa@mailbox.sc.edu

EDUCATION:

Ph.D.
M.A.
B.A.

Washington State University
University of Oregon Law School
University of Oregon
University of Oregon

1975
1974-1975
1970
1969

AWARDS & FELLOWSHIPS:
University of South Carolina Alpha Chapter of Mortar Board, Excellence in Teaching, 2006- 2007.
University of South Carolina Alpha Chapter of Mortar Board, Excellence in Teaching, 2000 - 2001.
University of South Carolina Educational Foundation Research Award, 1995.
Police Development and Training Fellowship, German Marshall Fund, Republic of Germany, 1992.
Senior Research Scholar, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC. 1991.
Directeur d'Etudes Associe, Maison des Sciences de L'Homme, Paris, France. 1985-1987.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE:
Chair, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. University of South Carolina. Columbia,
South Carolina. 2002 - 2007.
Director of Research, College of Criminal Justice. University of South Carolina. Columbia, South
Carolina. 1999 - 2002.
Director, Criminal Justice Program, Department of Sociology, University of Miami, Coral Gables,
Florida. 1985 - 1988.
Director, Center for Study of Law and Society, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. 19811988.

Legal Ombudsman, Lane County District Attorney's Office, Eugene, Oregon. 1978 - 1981.
Coordinator, Victim/Witness Bureau, El Paso County District Attorney's Office, Colorado Springs,
Colorado. 1979.
Director of Research, Georgia Department of Corrections, Atlanta, Georgia. 1971 - 1972.
TEACHING EXPERIENCE:
Professor, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, College of Criminal Justice, 'University
of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. August, 1988 - Present. Adjunct Professor
Department of Sociology.
Professor of Sociology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, 1985 - 1988.
Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. 1981 - 1985.
Assistant Professor of Sociology and Public Administration, University of Colorado, Colorado
Springs, 1978 - 1979.
Assistant Professor of Sociology and Political Economy, School of Social Sciences, The University
of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas. 1975 - 1977.
Teaching Assistant, Department of Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.
1972 - 1976.
Instructor, Department of Sociology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia. 1971 - 1972.
RESEARCH EXPERIENCE:
Principal Investigator, A Multi-Method Evaluation of Police Use of Force Outcomes. National
Institute of Justice. 2005 - present.
Academic Affiliate, The Analysis Group. Development of a Methodology for Analysis of Los
Angeles Police Department Pedestrian and Motor Vehicle Stop Data. Los Angeles, CA. 2004 - 2007.
Principal Investigator, Assessing Police Officers' Decision Making and Discretion. National
Institute of Justice. 2002 - 2005.
Principal Investigator, Investigating Racial Profiling in the Miami-Dade Police Department. MiamiDade County. 2000 - 2005.
Co-Principal Investigator, The Effect of Community Policing on Urban Violence. American
Statistical Association and Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2000 - 2002.

2

Associate Project Director, Promoting Police Accountability. Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services. 2000 - 2003.
Principal Investigator, The Lexington County Domestic Violence Court: A Partnership and
Evaluation. National Institute of Justice. 2000 - 2003.
Principal Investigator, An Analysis of the Force Factor: Measuring Police Use of Force Relative to
Suspect Resistance. National Institute of Justice. 1998 - 2001.
Member, Olympic Research Group. Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games and the State of
Georgia. 1996.
Principal Investigator, Facilitating Organizational Change: Shaping Philosophies Through Individual
and Organizational Evaluations. National Institute of Justice. 1996 - 1999.
Principal Investigator, An Analysis of Police Use-of-Force Data. National Institute of Justice. 1996 1998.
Principal Investigator, Police Pursuit Driving and Use of Excessive Force. National Institute of
Justice. 1994 - 1997.
Principal Consultant, State Evaluation Capacity Building Program. National Institute of Justice.
1992 - 1996.
Principal Investigator, Firearm Use and Analysis, Metro-Dade Police Department, 1994 - 1995.
Principal Investigator, Evaluation of Hi-Risk Police Activities. Insurance Reserve Fund. State of
South Carolina. 1995.
Member, Study Group on Criminal Justice Research and Outcome Measures. Princeton
University/Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1992 - 1994.
Co-Principal Investigator, Evaluation of Tactical Narcotics Team, Metro-Dade Police Department,
1991 - 1993.
Research Professor, Institute of Public Affairs, University of South Carolina. 1989 - 1996.
Principal Investigator, Police Officer Task Analysis, City of Columbia, 1989 - 1990.
Principal Investigator, National Survey of Security Needs, American Society of Industrial Security,
1989 - 1990.
Principal Investigator, Firearm Use and Analysis, Metro-Dade Police Department, 1988 - 1989.
Principal Investigator, Police Pursuit Project, U. S. Department of Transportation. 1987 - 1988.
3

Research Director, Police Pursuit Project, Dade Association of Chiefs of Police, Dade County,
Florida. 1985 - 1988.
Director, Review of Deadly Force Training and Policies of the Dallas Police Department. 19861987.
Co-Director of Research, School Dropout Prevention Center, University of Miami. 1985 - 1986.
Principal Investigator, Impact of Police Behavior in a Multi-Ethnic Setting, Metro-Dade Police
Department, Miami, Florida. 1985 - 1986.
Research Director, Use of Deadly Force Project, Dade Association of Chiefs of Police, Dade
County, Florida. 1983.
Consultant, Deadly Force Project, Police Foundation, Washington, D.C. 1983 - 1984.
Principal Investigator, Center for Business-Government Relations, Willamette University, Salem,
Oregon. 1978 - 1978.
Research Associate, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 1977.
Principal Investigator, Legal Aid to Prisoners Project, School of Social Sciences, University of
Texas at Dallas, 1976.
Research Associate, Southeastern Correctional and Criminological Research Center, Florida State.
University. Tallahassee, Florida, 1971.

PUBLICATlONS:
Books and Monographs:
Noble, J. and G. Alpert. Managing Accountability Systems for Police Conduct: Internal Affairs
and External Oversight. Prospect Heights, IL.: Waveland Press (2009).
Alpert, G., R. Dunham, and M. Stroshine. Policing: Continuity and Change. Prospect Heights, IL.:
Waveland Press (2006).
Alpert, G., and R. Dunham Understanding Police Use of Force: Officers, Suspects, and Reciprocity.
New York: Cambridge University Press (2004).
Smith, W. and G. Alpert. Management of Emergency Vehicle Operational Risks. Evanston,IL:
Northwestern University Center for Public Safety (2003).

4

Alpert, G. and J. MacDonald. Understanding Social Science Research: Applications in Criminology
and Criminal Justice. Prospect Heights, IL.: Waveland Press (2001).

Alpert, G., D. Kenney, R. Dunham and W. Smith. Police Pursuits: What We Know. Washington,
DC: Police Executive Research Forum (2000).
Alpert, G. and A. Piquero (eds.). Community Policing: Contemporary Readings. Prospect Heights,
IL.: Waveland Press (1998) Second Edition (2000).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. The Force Factor: Measuring Police Use of Force Relative to Suspect
Resistance. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum (1997).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. Police Use of Deadly Force: A Statistical Analysis of the Metro-Dade
Police Department. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum (1995).
Kappeler, V., R.Sluder and G. Alpert. Forces of Deviance: The Dark Side of Policing. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1994) Second Edition (1998).
Alpert, G. and L. Fridel!. Police Vehicles and Firearms: Instruments of Deadly Force. Prospect
Heights, IL.: Waveland Press (1992).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. Police Pursuit Driving: Controlling Responses to Emergency Situations.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press (1990).
Hawkins, R. and G. Alpert. Adult Correctional Systems). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall (1989).
Dunham, R. and G. Alpert (eds.).Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1989). Second Edition (1993). Third Edition (1997). Fourth Edition
(2001), Fifth Edition (2005).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. Policing Multi-Ethnic Neighborhoods. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press
(1988).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. Policing Urban America. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1988).
Second Edition (1992) Third Edition (1997).
K. Haas and G. Alpert. The Dilemmas of Punishment: Readings in Contemporary Corrections.
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1986), Second Edition (1991), Third Edition, (1995).
Fourth Edition (1999), Fifth Edition (2006).
Alpert, G. The American System of Criminal Justice. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications (1985).
Alpert, G. (ed.). Legal Rights of Prisoners. (Volume 14, Sage Criminal Justice Systems Annuals5

editor). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications (1980).
Nissman, D., Barnes, B. and G. Alpert. Beating the Insanity Defense: Denying the License to Kill.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books (1980).
Alpert, G. Legal Rights of Prisoners: An Analysis of Legal Aid. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books
(1978). Selectedfor Lawyers Literary Club, March, 1979.
Articles, Book Chapters and Other Selected Publications:

Alpert, G. Eliminate Race as the Only Reason for Police-Citizen Encounters. 2007. Criminology &
Public Policy 6: 671 - 678.
Smith, M. and G. Alpert. 2007. Explaining Police Bias: A Theory of Social Conditioning and
Illusory Correlation. Criminal Justice and Behavior 34: 1262 - 1283.
Smith, M., R. Kaminski, J. Rojek, G. Alpert and J. Mathis The Impact of Conducted Energy
Devices and Other Types of Force and Resistance on Officer and Suspect Injuries. 2007. Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 30: 423 - 446.
Alpert, G., R. Dunham and M. Smith. Investigating Racial Profiling By The Miami-Dade Police
Department: A Multimethod Approach. Criminology & Public Policy 6: 25 - 56 (2007).
Alpert, G. Review Essay - Investigating the Investigators: Social Science and the Police. Criminal
Justice Ethics 25: 39 - 43 (2006)
Smith, M, M. Makarios, and G. Alpert. Differential Suspicion: Theory Specification and Gender
Effects in the Traffic Stop Context. Justice Quarterly 23: 271 - 295 (2006).
Parker, K., J. MacDonald, W. Jennings and G. Alpert. Racial Threat, Urban Conditions and Police
Use of Force: Assessing the Direct and Indirect Linkages Across Multiple Urban Areas. Justice
Research and Policy 7: 53 - 79 (2005).
Alpert, G., J. MacDonald and R. Dunham. Police Suspicion and Discretionary Decision Making
During Citizen Stops Criminology 43: 407 - 434 (2005).
Dunham, R., G. Alpert, M. Stroshine, and K. Bennett. Transforming Citizens Into Suspects: Factors
That Influence the Formation of Police Suspicion. Police Quarterly 8:366 - 393 (2005).
Alpert, G. Police Pursuits. Pp. 352 - 353 in Sullivan, Larry and Dorothy Moses Schultz (eds.)
Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 2005.
Dunham, R. and G. Alpert. The Foundation of the Police Role in Society. Pp. 1-17 in Critical Issues
in Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R. and G. Alpert, eds). Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press (2005).
6

Alpert, G. Short, James. F. Pp. 1529 - 1531 in Encyclopedia of Criminology. New York:
Routledge. 2005.
Alpert, G., R. Dunham, and J. MacDonald. Interactive Police-Citizen Encounters that Result in
Force
Police Quarterly 7: 475 - 488 (2004).
Smith, M., G. Alpert and R. Dunham. Towards a Better Benchmark: Assessing the Utility of Not-atFault Traffic Crash Data in Racial Profiling Research. Justice Research and Policy 6: 44 - 69 2004).
Walker, Sand G. Alpert. Early Intervention Systems: The New Paradigm. Pp. 221 - 235 in
Hickman, M., A. Piquero and J. Greene (eds.) Police Integrity and Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Group. 2004.
Wilson, G., R. Dunham and G. Alpert. Prejudice in Police Profiling: Assessing An Overlooked
Aspect in Prior Research. American Behavioral Scientist 47: 896 - 909 (2004).
Dunham, R. and G. Alpert. The Effects of Officer and Suspect Ethnicity in Use-of-Force Incidents.
Pp. 102 - 114, in Karen Terry and Delores Jones-Brown (eds.), Policing and Minority Communities:
Bridging the Gap. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall (2004).
Parker, K., J. MacDonald, G. Alpert, M. Smith, and A. Piquero. A Contextual Study of Racial
Profiling: Assessing the Theoretical Rationale for the Study of Racial Profiling at the Local Level).
American Behavioral Scientist 47: 943 - 962 (2004).
Gover, A., J. MacDonald and G. Alpert. Combating Domestic Violence: Findings from an
Evaluation of a Local Domestic Violence Court. Criminology and Public Policy 3: 109 - 132
(2003).
Terrill, W., G. Alpert, R. Dunham and M. Smith A Management Tool for Evaluating Police Use of
Force: An Application of the Force Factor. Police Quarterly 6: 150 - 171 (2003).
MacDonald, 1., P. Manz, G. Alpert and R. Dunham Police Use of Force: Examining the Relationship
Between Calls for Service and the Balance of Police Force and Suspect Resistance. Journal of
Criminal Justice 31: 119 - 127 (2003).
Smith, M., and G. Alpert. Searching for Direction: Courts, Social Science, and the Adjudication of
Racial Profiling Claims Justice Quarterly 19: 673 - 703 (2002).
Alpert, G. Effective Use of Expert Witnesses in Police Misconduct Cases: The Changing Role of the
Expert Witness. Proceedings. 2002 Annual Convention of the Association of Trial Lawyers of
America. Pages 1817- 1825 (2002).
Alpert, G. Deadly Force. Vol. 2, Pp. 471 - 472. Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. Thousand
7

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (2002).
Alpert, G. Police Pursuits. Vol. 3, Pp. 1181 - 1184. Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (2002).
Walker, S. and G. Alpert. Early Warning Systems as Risk Management for Police. Pp. 219-230 in
K. Lersch (ed.) Policing and Misconduct. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall (2002).
Alpert, G. Police Pursuit Driving, Chapter 4, Proceedings Texas State Bar Association Suing and
Defending Governmental Entities. Austin, TX. 2002.
Alpert, G., D. Flynn and A. Piquero. Effective Community Policing Performance. Justice Research
and Policy 3:80 - 94 (2001).
Walker, S. G. Alpert and D. Kenney. Early Warning Systems: Responding to the Problem Officer
National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief. July 2001.
Reprinted Pp. 95 - 101 in Victor, Joseph and Joanne Naughton, Criminal Justice: Annual Editions.
Guilford, CT: McGraw-HilI. 2003.
Reprinted Pp. 152 - 164 in Thurman, Quint and Jihong Zhao (eds.) Contemporary Policing:
Controversies, Challenges and Solutions. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co. 2004.
Alpert, G. and MacDonald. Police Use of Force: An Analysis of Organizational Characteristics.
Justice Quarterly 18: 393 - 409 (2001).
MacDonald, J., R. Kaminski, G. Alpert and A. Tennenbaum) The Temporal Relationship Between
Police Killings of Civilians and Criminal Homicide: A Refined Version of the Danger-Perception
Theory Crime and Delinquency 47: 155 - 172 (2001).
Walker, S. and G. Alpert. Early Warning Systems for Police: Concept, History and Issues. Police
Quarterly 3: 132-152 (2000).
Alpert, G. and D. Flynn. Community Policing and Major Special Events: A Case Study of Super
Bowl XXXIII. Pp. 169 - 185 in Brito, Corina and Eugenia Gratto (eds.) Problem Oriented Policing.
Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. 2000.
Walker, S. and G. Alpert. Police Accountability and Early Warning Systems: Developing Policies
and Programs. Justice Research and Policy 2: 59 - 72 (2000).
Alpert, G., D. Kenney and T. Oettemier. Performance Measures Shape Officers Actions. National
Institute of Justice Journal July: 26-27 (2000).
Alpert, G. and K. Coxe. The Role of Women in Policing: Assignments and Specialization. Page 165
Encyclopedia of Women and Crime. Phoenix: The Oryx Press (2000).
Smith, M. and G. Alpert. Pepper Spray: A Safe and Reasonable Response to Suspect Verbal
8

Resistance. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 23: 233-245
(2000).
Walker, S. and G. Alpert. Early Warning Systems for Police: A New Approach to Accountability
International City Management Association, IQ Service Report 32: 1 - 11 (2000).
Alpert, G. and M. Smith. Police Use-of-Force Data: Where We Are and Where We Should Be
Going. Police Quarterly 2: 57-78 (1999).
Greene, J. and G. Alpert. Police: Overview. Pp. 531-539. Violence in America: An Encyclopedia.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons (1999).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. The Force Factor: Measuring and Assessing Police Use of Force and
Suspect Resistance. Pp. 45-60 in National Institute of Justice Research Report, Use of Force by
Police: Overview of National and Local Data. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and
Bureau of Justice Statistics (1999).
Reprinted Pp. 97-117 in Tautman, Neal. Police Work: A Career Survival Guide. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall (2005).
Madden, T and G. Alpert. Toward the Development of a Pursuit Decision Calculus: Pursuit Benefits
versus Pursuit Cost. Justice Research and Policy I: 23-41 (1999).
MacDonald, J., G. Alpert and A. Tennenbaum) Justifiable Homicide by Police and Criminal
Homicide: A Research Note Journal of Crime and Justice XXII 153-166 (1999).
MacDonald, J. and G. Alpert. Public Attitudes Toward Police Pursuit Driving. Journal of Criminal
Justice 26: 185-194 (1998).
Reprinted in A. Del Carmen. Perspectives: Criminal Justice. Coursewise Publishing: St. Paul, MN
(1999).
ReprintedPp. 170-182 in W. Palacios, P. Cromwell and R. Dunham (eds.) Crime and Justice in
America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall (200 I).
Alpert, G., and A. Clarke. County of Sacramento v Lewis: Its Impact and Unanswered Questions.
Police Forum 8: 1 - 9 (1998).
Alpert, G. Helicopters in Pursuit Operations. National Institute of Justice, Research in Action.
August 1998.
Alpert, G. A Factorial Analysis of Police Pursuit Driving Decisions Justice Quarterly 15: 347-359
(1998).
Alpert, G., R. Dunham and A. Piquero. On the Study of Neighborhoods and the Police. Pp.309-326
in Community Policing: Contemporary Readings (G. Alpert and A. Piquero eds.). Prospect Heights,
IL.: Waveland Press (1998).
9

Alpert, G., MacDonald, J. and Gover. The Use of Helicopters in Policing: Necessity or Waste?
Police Forum 8: 9-14 (1998).
Dunham, R., G. Alpert, D. Kenney and P. Cromwell. High Speed Pursuit: The Offender's
Perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior 20: 30-45 (1998).
Alpert, G. and A. Clarke. County of Sacramento v Lewis: A Look at its Impact and Unanswered
Questions. Subject to Debate 12: 1, 3, 4 - 5 (1998).
Alpert, G., D. Kenney and R. Dunham. Police Pursuits and the Use of Force: Recognizing and
Managing "the Pucker Factor." Justice Quarterly 14: 371-385 (1997).
Reprinted Pp. 291 - 303 in M. Palmiotto (ed.) Police Misconduct) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall (2001).
Alpert, G., A. Clarke, and W. Smith. The Constitutional Implications of High Speed Police Pursuits
Under a Substantive Due Process Analysis: Homeward Through the Haze The University of
Memphis Law Review 27: 599-662 (1997).
Kenney, D, and G. Alpert. A National Survey of Pursuits and the Use of Police Force: Data from
Law Enforcement Agencies. Journal of Criminal Justice 25: 315-323 (1997).
Reprinted in D. Kenney and R. McNamara (eds.) Police and Policing: Contemporary Issues.
Westport, CT: Praeger (1999).
ReprintedPp. 200 - 209 in Thurman, Quint and Jihong Zhao (eds.) Contemporary Policing:
Controversies, Challenges and Solutions. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co. 2004.
Alpert, G. Police Pursuit: Policies and Training. National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief.
May 1997.
Dunham, R. and G. Alpert. Police Shootings: Myths and Realities. Pp. 115-123 in Paul Cromwell
and Roger Dunham (Eds). Crime and Justice in America. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall (1997,
2001).
Alpert, G. Pursuit Driving: Planning Policies and Action from Agency, Officer, and Public
Information. Police Forum 7: 1-12 (1997).
Alpert, G., W. Smith, A. Clarke and M. Cosgrove. The Case for a Post-Arrest Use of Force
Continuum: Constitutional and Practical Implications of Police Restraint Procedures. Criminal Law
Bulletin 32: 49-61 (1996).
Crouch, B. and G. Alpert. The American Prison Crisis. Pp. 121-136 in C. Calhoun and G. Ritzer,
Perspectives on Criminal Justice. McGraw-Hili: New York (1996).
Dunham, R. and G. Alpert. Controlling the Use of Force: An Evaluation of Street-Level Narcotics
Interdiction in Miami. American Journal of Police XV (No.1): 83-100 (1995).
Reprinted Pp. 189-204 in D. Kenney and G. Cordner (eds.) Managing Police Personnel. Cincinnati:
10

Anderson publishing Co. (1996).
Dunham, R. and G. Alpert. Multi-Ethnic Communities: Interactive Model. Pp. 436-440 in W.
Bailey (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Police Science. New York: Garland Publishing. Inc. (1995).
Kappeler, V., R. Sluder and G. Alpert. Breeding Deviant Conformity: Police Ideology and Culture.
Pp. 243 - 262 in V. Kappeler (ed.). The Police in Society: Touchstone Readings. Prospect Heights,
IL: Waveland Press (1995).
Reprinted Pp. 284-301 in Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R. and G.
Alpert eds.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1997, 2005).

Alpert, G. and T. Madden. Police Pursuit Driving: An Empirical Analysis of Critical Decisions.
American Journal of Police XIII (No.4): 23-45 (1994).
Crouch, B., G. Alpert, J. Marquart and K. Haas The American Prison Crisis: Clashing Philosophies
of Punishment and Crowded Cellblocks. Pp. 64 - 80 The Dilemmas of Corrections: Contemporary
Readings (Haas, K and G. Alpert, eds.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1998). Pp. 84-100
(1998).
Alpert, G. The Management of Police Pursuit Driving. Pp. 599-609 in W. Bailey (ed.) The
Encyclopedia of Police Science. New York: Garland Publishing Inc. (1995).
Reprinted Pp. 547-564 in Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R. and G.
Alpert, eds.). 3rd. Edition Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1997).
Alpert, G. and W. Smith. How Reasonable is the Reasonable Man?: Police and Excessive Force.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 85: 481-50 I (1994).
Alpert, G. and W. Smith. Developing Police Policy: An Evaluation of the Control. American Journal
of Police 13 (#2): 1-20 (1994).
Reprinted Pp. 237-251 in Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R. and G.
Alpert, eds.). 2nd. Edition Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1993).
Smith, W., and G. Alpert. Risky Business: Exposure Under Section 1983. Public Risk 8: 6-9 (1994).
Reprinted Pp. 3-4 in ALERT International Newsletter January and March 1995.
Alpert, G.and M. Moore. Measuring Police Performance in the New Paradigm of Policing. Pp. 109142 in Bureau of Justice Statistics, Performance Measures for the Criminal Justice System.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1993.
Reprinted Pp. 265-281 in Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R. and G.
Alpert, eds.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1997).
Reprinted Pp. 215-232 in Community Policing: Contemporary Readings (Alpert, G. and A. Piquero,
eds). Prospect Heights, IL.: Waveland Press (1998).
Alpert, G. and M. Smith. The Police and the Americans with Disabilities Act - Who is Being
II

Discriminated Against? Criminal Law Bulletin 29: 516-528 (1993).
Apospori, E. and G. Alpert. The Role of Differential Experience with the Criminal Justice System in
Changes in Perceptions of Severity of legal Sanctions over Time. Crime and Delinquency 39: 184194 (1993).
Smith, W. and G. Alpert. Policing the Defective Centurion: Decertification and Beyond. Criminal
Law Bulletin 29: 147-157 (1993).
Reprinted Pp. 355 - 366 in M. Palmiotto (ed.) Police Misconduct. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall (2001).
Apospori, E., G. Alpert and R. Paternoster)The Effects of Involvement with the Criminal Justice
System: A Neglected Dimension of the Experience and Perceptions Relationship. Justice Quarterly
9: 379-392 (1992).
Greene, J., G. Alpert and P. Styles. Values and Culture in Two American Police Departments:
Lessons from King Arthur. Contemporary Criminal Justice 8: 183-207 (1992).
Reprinted Pp. 179-207 in Law Enforcement Operations and Management (Edited by Marilyn
McShane and Frank Williams) New York: Garland Publishing. 1997.
Alpert, G. and W. Smith. Police Policy: Is the Control Principle out of Control? Police and Security
News 8: 2, 30-33 (1992).
Alpert, G., W. Smith and D. Watters. Implications of the Rodney King Beating. Criminal Law
Bulletin 28: 469-479 (1992).
Alpert, G. and W. Smith. A Critical and Constructive Look at the Defensibility of Police Pursuit
Training. Pp. 172-193 in J. Bizzack (ed.) Issues in Policing: New Perspectives. Autumn House
Publishing: Lexington, Ky (1992).
Alpert, G. The Importance of Data Quality for Research and Practice. Proceedings of the National
Conference on Improving the Quality of Criminal History Records: 34-35 (1992).
Dunham, Rand G. Alpert. Understanding the Dynamics of Officer Age and Gender in Police
Pursuits. American Journal of Police 10: 51-61 (1991).
Alpert, G. and W. Smith. Beyond City Limits and Into the Wood(s): A Brief Look at the Policy
Impact of City of Canton v Harris and Wood v Ostrander. American Journal of Police 10: 19-40
(1991).
Alpert, G. Analyzing Police Pursuit. Criminal Law Bulletin 27: 358-367 (1991).
Alpert, G. Hiring and Promoting Police Officers in Small Departments: Limiting the Role of
Psychological Testing. Criminal Law Bulletin 27: 261-269 (1991).
Reprinted Pp. 96-105 in Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R. and G.
12

Alpert, eds.). 2nd. Edition Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1993).
Alpert, G. Cross-Gender Guarding, Personal Privacy and Institutional Security: Perspectives of Jail
Inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior 18: 304-317 (1991).
Alpert, G. Establishing Roadblocks to Control the Drunk Driver. Criminal Law Bulletin 27: 51-58
(1991).
Alpert, G. Controlling Pursuit Driving: The Need for Policy and Training. Police and Security News
6: 6-13 (1990).
Alpert, G. and W. Smith. Defensibility of Law Enforcement Training. Criminal Law Bulletin 26:
452-458 (1990).
Haas, K. and G. Alpert. Drug Testing at Work. Criminal Justice Policy Review 3: 376-390 (1989).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. Policing Hot Pursuits: the Discovery of Aleatory Elements. Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 80: 521-539 (1989).
Alpert, G. City of Canton v Harris and the Deliberate Indifference Standard. Criminal Law Bulletin
25: 466-472 (1989).
Alpert, G. and K. Haas. American Prisoners and the Right of Access to the Courts: A Vanishing
Concept of Protection. Pp. 65-87 in Lynn Goodstein and Doris MacKenzie (eds.) The American
Prison: Issues in Research and Policy New York: Plenum (1989).
Reprinted Pp. 223-246 in Haas, K. and G. Alpert (eds.) The Dilemmas of Corrections:
Contemporary Readings (Haas, K. and G. Alpert, eds). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press Third
Edition (1995). Fourth Edition, Pp. 244-267 (1998).
Alpert, G. Judge David Bazelon: Questioning Authority (Review Essay) Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology 79: 1381-1388 (1989).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. Research on Police Pursuits: Applications for law Enforcement.
American Journal of Police 7: 123-131 (1988).
Alpert, G. Police Pursuit: Linking Data to Decisions Criminal Law Bulletin 24: 453-462 (1988).
Lang, G., R. Dunham and G. Alpert. Factors Related to the Academic Success and Failure of
College Football Players: The Case of the Mental Dropout) Youth and Society 20: 210-222 (1988).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. Neighborhood Differences in Attitudes Toward Policing: Evidence for a
New Approach to Policing in a Multi-Ethnic Setting. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 79:
504-523 (1988).
Reprinted, in part, Pp. 57 - 60 in R. Mutchnick and B. Berg, Research Methods for the Social
Sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 1996.
Mills, R., R. Dunham and G. Alpert. Working with High-Risk Youth in Prevention and Early
13

Intervention Programs) Adolescence 23: 643-660 (1988).
Zimmerman, R., T. Biggers and G.Alpert. Nursing, Nursing Education and Anxiety. Journal of
Nursing Education 27: 411-417 (1988).
Alpert, G. and B.Crouch. Sports Violence: History, Overview and Suggestions for Reduction. The
Journal of Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics 3: 101-119 (1988).
Alpert, G., R. Dunham, and L. Lewis. Police and Drug Testing) Criminal Law Bulletin 24: 155-166
(1988). Reprinted Pp. 298-310 in Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R.
and G. Alpert, eds.).
Alpert, G. Questioning Police Pursuit in Urban Areas. Journal of Police Science and Administration
17: 298-306 (1987).
Reprinted Pp. 216-229 in Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R. and G.
Alpert eds). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1989).
Sullivan, P., Dunham, R. and G. Alpert. Attitude Structures of Different Ethnic and Age Groups
Concerning Police. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 78: 501-521 (1987).
Dunham, R. and G. Alpert. Keeping Juvenile Delinquents in School: A Prediction Model.
Adolescence 23: 45-57 (1987).
Alpert, G. and M. Llabre. Social Scientists as Expert Witnesses. The Florida Bar Journal 60
(November) 10: 31-34 (1986).
Alpert, G. and R. Dunham. Community Policing. Journal of Police Science and Administration 14
(September): 212-222 (1986).
Reprinted Pp. 432-450 in Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings (Dunham, R. and G.
Alpert, eds.). 2nd. Edition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press (1993).
McBride, D. C. Habermeil, D. Chitwood and G. Alpert. Drugs and Homicide.Bulletin of the New
York Academy of Medicine 62: 447-508 (1986).
Alpert, G. and P. Anderson. The Most Deadly Force: Police Pursuits Justice Quarterly 3 (March: 115 (1986).
Reprinted in R. Homant and D. Kennedy (eds.) Police and Law Enforcement (Volume 5) New
York: AMS Press (1988).
Reprinted Pp. 304 - 315 in M. Palmiotto (ed.) Police Misconduct 0 Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall (2001).
Alpert, G. R. Dunham and OJ. Conners. Black Representation on Juries in Miami: a Research Note.
Justice System Journal 11 (Spring): 79-88 (1986).
Alpert, G. and DeFoor, A. Telephone Search Warrants: A Proposal for Florida. The Florida Bar
14

Journal 60 (March): 61-63 (1986).
Dunham, R. and G. Alpert. Keeping Marginal Youth in School: a Prevention Model. Youth and
Society 17: 346-361 (1986).
McClellend, K. and G. Alpert. Factor Analysis Applied to Magnitude Estimates of Punishment
Seriousness: Patterns ofIndividual Differences. Journal of Quantitative Criminology I: 307-317
(1985).
Alpert, G. and T. Petersen. The Grand Jury Report. Justice Quarterly 2: 23-50 (1985).
Haas, K. and G. Alpert. Judicial Rulemaking and the Fourth Amendment: Cars, Containers and
Exclusionary Justice. Alabama Law Review 35: 231 (1984).
Crouch, 8., G. Alpert and R. Huff. Prison Reform by Judicial Decree: The Unintended
Consequences of Ruiz v Estelle, Justice System Journal 9: 291-305 (1984).
Reprinted Pp. 258-271 in Haas, K. and G. Alpert (eds.) The Dilemmas of Corrections Third Edition,
Prospect Heights: Waveland Press (1995). Fourth Edition Pp. 309-323 (1999).
Alpert, G. The Needs of the Judiciary and Misapplications of Social Research: the Case of Female
Guards in Men's Prisons, Criminology 22: 441-456 (1984).
Reprinted Pp. 154-166 in P. Anderson and T. Winfree (eds.) Expert Witnesses. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press (1987).
DeFoor, A. and G. Alpert. Florida's Invisible Jails. The Judges' Journal 23: 33,46 (1984).
DeFoor, A. and G.Alpert. Telephone Search Warrants, University of Miami Law Review 38: 625636 (1984).
Alpert, G. and R. Huff. Defending the Accused: Competence and Strategies. pp. 247-271 in William
McDonald (ed.) The Defense Counsel. Beverly Hills: Sage (1983).
Alpert, G. Women Prisoners and the Law: Which Way Will the Pendulum Swing? Journal of
Criminal Justice 10: 37-44 (1982).
Reprinted Pp. 171-182 in 8. Price and N. Sokoloff (eds.) The Criminal Justice System and Women.
New York: Clark Boardman (1982).
Alpert, G. and 8. Crouch. Sex and Occupational Socialization: A Longitudinal Study of Prison
Guards. Criminal Justice and Behavior 9: 139-176 (1982).
Alpert, G. and R. Huff. Organizational Compliance with Court-Ordered Reform: the Need for
Evaluation Research. Pp. 115-124 in M. Morash (ed.) Implementing Criminal Justice Policies.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications (1982).
Alpert, G., R. White and P. Geisel. The Intervention of Business Leaders. pp. 155-173 in Charles V.
15

Willie and Susan Greenblatt (eds.) Community Politics and Educational Change. New York:
Longman (1981).
Alpert, G. Criminal Defense Attorneys: A Typology of Defense Strategies, Criminal Law Bulletin
17: 381-404 (1981).
Alpert, G. and R. Huff. Prisoners, the Law and Politics: Planning for Legal Aid. New England
Journal on Prison Law 7: 304-340 (1981). First prize, 1981 National Writing Competition, New
England School ofLaw.
Alpert, G. and R. Dukes. Criminal Victimization from a Police Perspective. Journal of Police
Science and Administration 8: 21-30 (1980).
Alpert, G. and B. Crouch. Prison Guards' Attitudes Toward Components of the Criminal Justice
System. Criminology 18: 227-236 (1980).
Alpert, G. Inadequate Defense Counsel: An Empirical Analysis of Prisoners' Perceptions The
American Journal of Criminal Law 7: 1-21 (1979).
Alpert, G. Recent Developments in the Office of the Prosecutor The Prosecutor 14: 341-344 (1979).
Alpert, G. Patterns of Change in Prisonization: A Longitudinal Analysis, Criminal Justice and
Behavior 6: 159-174 (1979).
Alpert, G. and G. Noblit. Advocacy and Rehabilitation in Women's Prison. Law and Policy
Quarterly 1: 207-222 (1979).
ReprintedPp. 272-284 in K. Haas and G.P. Alpert (eds.) The Dilemmas of Punishment. Prospect
Heights: Waveland Press (1986).
Alpert, G. Institutional Diversity and Prisonization: A Longitudinal Analysis, LAE Journal of the
American Criminal Justice Association 41: 31-39 (1979).
Alpert, G. Legal Ombudsman: New Roles for an Old Office, Victimology: An International Journal
4: 268- 278 (1979).
Alpert, G. and D. Hicks. Patterns of Social Change and Adaptation in Prisons. Social Science
Quarterly 59: 37-50 (1978).
Alpert, G. The Determinants of Prisoners' Decisions to Seek Legal Aid New England Journal of
Prison Law 4: 309-325 (1978).
Alpert, G. and N. Miller. Legal Delivery Systems to Prisoners. The Justice System Journal 4: 9-26
(1978).
Alpert, G. A Comparative Study of the Effects of Ideology on Prisonization, LAE Journal of the
American Criminal Justice Association 41: 77-86 (1978).

16

Alpert, G., lFinney and l Short. Legal Services, Prisoners' Attitudes, and 'Rehabilitation.' Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology 69: 616-626 (1978).
Alpert, G. and D. Hicks. Prisoners' Attitudes toward Components of Legal and Judicial Systems.
Criminology 14: 461-482 (1977).
Reprinted Pp. 31-52 in D. MacNamara and F. Montanino (eds.) Incarceration: The Sociology of
Imprisonment. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1978.
Alpert, G. Prisons as Formal Organizations: Compliance Theory in Action Sociology and Social
Research 63: 112-130 (1978).
Alpert, G. Collective Violence Behind Bars. pp. 21-34 in M. Reidel and P. Vales (eds.) Treating the
Offender: Problems and Issues. Praeger Publishers: New York (1977).
Alpert, G. A Comparative Look at Prisonization: Sex and Prison Culture Quarterly Journal of
Corrections I: 29-34 (1977).
Alpert, G. Prisoners' Right of Access to Courts: Planning for Legal Aid, Washington Law Review 51
(July) 3: 653-675 (1976).
Reprinted Pp. 314-335 in D. Petersen and C. Thomas (eds.) Corrections: Problems and Prospects.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall (1980).

GRANTS, CONTRACTS AND AWARDS:
A Study on the Effects of Tasers on Humans. Miami-Dade County, Florida. 2007.
A Multi-Method Evaluation of Police Use of Force Outcomes. National Institute of Justice. 2005.
Assessing Police Officers' Decision Making and Discretion. National Institute of Justice. 200 1.
The Lexington County Domestic Violence Court: A Partnership and Evaluation. National Institute
of Justice. 2000.
Promoting Police Accountability: A Technical Assistance Program. Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services. Washington, DC. 2000.
Investigating Racial Profiling in the Miami-Dade Police Department. Miami-Dade County, Florida.
2000.
The Effect of Community Policing on Urban Violence. American Statistical Association, Committee
on Law and Justice. 2000.
Carolinas Institute for Community Policing. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. 1999,
17

2000.
The Force Factor: Measuring Police Use of Force Relative to Suspect Resistance. National Institute
of Justice. 1998.
Facilitating Organizational Change: Shaping Philosophies Through Individual and Organizational
Evaluations. National Institute of Justice. 1996.
An Analysis of Police Use-of-Force Data. National Institute of Justice. 1996.
Firearm Use and Analysis for the Metro-Dade Police Department. Metropolitan Dade County,
Florida. 1994.
Evaluation of Hi-Risk Police Activities. Insurance Reserve Fund. State of South Carolina. 1994.
Police Pursuit Driving and Use of Excessive Force. National Institute of Justice. 1994.
Evaluation of Tactical Narcotics Team, Metro-Dade Police Department, 1991.
Police Report Writing. Wackenhut Services, Savannah River Site, Aiken,

sc.

1990.

Police Officer Task Analysis. City of Columbia. 1989.
National Survey of Security Needs. American Society of Industrial Security Foundation. 1989.
Firearm Use and Analysis for the Metro-Dade Police Department. Metropolitan Dade County,
Florida. 1988.
Review of Deadly Force Training and Policies of the Dallas Police Department. City of Dallas,
Texas. 1987.
Police Pursuits: Integrating the Empirical Research with Policy. U.S. Department of Transportation.
1987.
Police Use of Deadly Force Project - An Update. City of Miami. 1987.
Impact of Police Behavior in a Multi-Ethnic Setting. Metro-Dade County, Florida. 1985.
Police Use of Deadly Force, City of Dallas, Texas. 1984.
Police Use of Deadly Force, City of Miami. 1983.
Establishment of Prisoners' Rights Project - Oregon Division of Corrections. 1980.
Integrated Victim Assistance. L.E.A.A. - U. S. Department of Justice. Written for the 4th Judicial
18

District Attorney's Office (Colorado) 1980.
Comprehensive Career Criminal Program. L.E.A.A. - U. S. Department of Justice. Written for the
Lane County (Oregon) District Attorney's Office. 1979.
Evaluation of Parole Decision Guidelines. National Institute of Corrections. 1978.

SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS:
The Charleston Area Crime Summit Report. Prepared for the North Charleston and City of
Charleston Police Departments. November 2007.
Pedestrian and Motor Vehicle Post-Stop Data Analyses Report. Prepared for the City of Los
Angeles. July 2006. www.analysisgroup.com/AnalysisGroup/article.aspx?id=1811
Miami-Dade Police Department Racial Profiling Study. November 2004, Released, May 2005.
Not-At-Fault Traffic Crash Data Pp. 66-75 in Amy Ferrall, Jana Rumminger and Jack McDevitt
(eds.) New Challenges in Confronting Racial Profiling in the 21 st Century. Northeastern University.
2005.
Proposed Pedestrian and Motor Vehicle Stop Data Analyses Methodology Report. Prepared for the
City of Los Angeles. January 2005. www.lacity,org/lapdstops
Rapport, D'Enquete de Coronor. Bureau du Coronor Quebec. 2004.
Assessing Police Officers' Decision Making and Discretion. A Final Report to the National Institute
of Justice. 2004.
Police Pursuits. Pp. 122-123 in William Geller and Darrel Stephens (eds.) Local Government Police
Management. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association. 2003.
Early Intervention Systems for Law Enforcement Agencies: A Planning and Management Guide. A
Final Report to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 2003.
Evaluation of the Local Initiated Research Partnership Program. A Final Report to the National
Institute of Justice. 2003.
The Lexington County Domestic Violence Court: A Partnership and Evaluation. A Final Report to
the National Institute of Justice. 2003.
Early Intervention Systems for Law Enforcement Agencies: A Planning and Management Guide. A
Final Report to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 2002.
The Effect of Community Policing on Urban Violence. A Final Report to the American Statistical
19

Association and Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2002.
The Force Factor: Measuring Police Use of Force Relative to Suspect Resistance. A Final Report to
the National Institute of Justice. 2001.
Community Policing Performance Measures. An Essay and Curriculum for the Carolinas Institute
for Community Policing. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. 2000.
Ethics and Integrity in Community Policing. An Essay and Curriculum for the Carolinas Institute
for Community Policing. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. 2000.
Responding to the Problem Police Officer: A National Study of Early Warning Systems. A Final
Report to the National Institute of Justice. 1999.
Policy and Training: the First Two Building Blocks of a Pursuit Plan for the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police. A Final Report to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints
Commission. 1999. Published in Police Pursuits and Public Safety. A Report by the RCMP Public
Complaints Commission. Autumn, 1999.
Facilitating Organizational Change: Shaping Philosophies Through Individual and Organizational
Evaluations. A Final Report to the National Institute of Justice. 1998.
An Analysis of Police Use-of-Force Data. A Final Report to the National Institute of Justice. 1998.
Helicopters and their Uses in Police Pursuit. A Final Report to the National Institute of Justice.
1997.
Police Pursuit and the Excessive Use of Force. A Final Report to the National Institute of Justice.
1996.
A Critical Function Assessment of the Aiken County Sheriff's Office. 1995.
Violent Crime in South Carolina: The Influence of Race, Gender and Age. Reports Prepared for the
South Carolina Department of Law Enforcement and the NAACP. December 1992 and February
1994.
Pursuit Driving: Balancing Public Safety and Law Enforcement, Testimony to United States House
of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations Sub-Committee on Government
Information Justice and Agriculture. July 1992.
Developing Pursuit Policy Guidelines and the Assessment of Risk. Remarks made to the House
Safety Committee, State of Massachusetts. March 1992.
Developing a Decentralized Police Department from a National Police Force: A Report to the
Bundeskriminalamt and the German Marshall Fund. March 1992.
20

Police Pursuit: An Assessment of Risk and Need for Policy. Remarks made to the Senate
Transportation Committee, State of Pennsylvania. February 1992.
Policy, Practice and Training in the Police Use of Deadly Force. Montgomery County, Maryland
Grand Jury. July, 1991.
The Frequency of Intersection Accidents During Police Vehicle Emergency Runs. Police Executive
Research Forum. (1991).
An Analysis of Pursuit Driving: Duval County (FL) Grand Jury (Spring 1989).
Metro-Dade Police Department Discharge of Firearm Study, 1984-1988. Dade County, Florida
(1989).
Police Pursuit: A Comprehensive Review and Empirical Assessment. Dade Association of Chiefs of
Police. Dade County, Florida (1988).
L'Impact d'Immigration Des Algeriens a Paris. La Maison des Sciences de L'Homme. Paris (1987).
Review of Deadly Force Training and Policies of The Dallas Police Department. City of Dallas
(1987).
Police Use of Deadly Force in Miami 1980-1986. Miami Police Department (1987).
Crime Analysis and Recommendations for Criminal Justice Resource Management. Criminal Justice
Council, Dade County, Florida (1986).
Civilian Attacks on Police Officers. Dade County Police Benevolent Association. Miami (1985).
Mentally III Criminals in Dade County. Citizens' Crime Commission, Miami, Florida (1985).
Youth Gangs in Dade County. Final Report of the Grand Jury, Dade County, Florida (Fall 1984).
Police Use of Deadly Force in Dallas, Texas: 1980-1983. Dallas Police Department, Dallas, 1984.
School Dropouts in Dade County. Final Report of the Grand Jury, Dade County, (Spring 1984).
Final Report, Overtown Blue Ribbon Committee, Miami, Florida. 1983.
Police Use of Deadly Force. Final Report of the Grand Jury, Dade County, Florida (Spring 1983).
Legal Rights of Correctional Officers. Florida Department of Corrections, (October 1982).
The Grand Jury Looks at Itself: A Follow-Up Study. Final Report of the Grand Jury, Dade County,
Florida (Fall 1982).
21

The Impact of MarieIs and other Entrants on South Florida. Final Report of the Grand Jury, Dade
County, Florida (Spring 1982).
BOOK REVIEWS:
American Journal of Police
Criminology
Criminal Justice Review
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
Sociology: Reviews of New Books
EDITORIAL EXPERIENCE:
Editorial Board, The Justice System Journal
Associate Editorial Consultant, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
Editorial Board, American Journal of Criminal Justice.
Contributing Editor, Criminal Law Bulletin.
Board of Editors, Sociological Inquiry.
Associate Editor, Criminology.
Advisory Board, Police Liability Review.
Advisory Board, Annual Editions: Criminal Justice (Dushkin).
Editor, Georgia Journal of Corrections.
Editor, American Journal of Police
Associate Editor, Justice Quarterly
Editor, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management
Associate Editor, Justice Research and Policy
Editorial Board, Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Executive Board, Journal of Crime and Delinquency
Series Editor, Wadsworth Publishing

Special Reader:
American Journal of Criminal Justice
American Journal of Police
American Journal of Sociology
American Sociological Review
Crime & Public Policy
Criminal Justice and Behavior
Criminology: An International Journal
Journal of Crime and Delinquency
Journal of Criminal Justice
Journal of Justice Issues
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
Journal of Quantitative Criminology
Judicature
Justice Quarterly

1994 - 1998
1990 - 1998
1989 - 1998
1987 - 1995
1987 - 1998
1980 - 1984.
1989 - 1998.
1988 - 1994.
1971 - 1972.
1995 - 1997.
1995 - 1998.
1997 - 1999.
1998 - 2001
2004 - 2005.
2000present.
2000- 2007.

Police Quarterly
Law and Society Review
Sociological Inquiry
Sociological Focus
Social Problems
Social Science Quarterly
Cambridge University Press
McGraw Hill Publishing Company
Praeger Press
Sage Publications
Wadsworth Publishing
West Publications

22

Justice System Juurnal
Law and Human Behavior
SELECTED PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES:
Instructor, FBI National Academy. FBI Academy, Quantico, VA. May 2008.
Member, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Committee on Use of Force. 2008 - present.
Member, California POST Study Group on Driver Training. 2008 - present.
Presenter, Suing and Defending the Police. Annual Meeting of the Police Executive Research
Forum. Miami, April 2008.
Keynote Speaker, Seattle Police Department. Investigating and Evaluating a Police Pursuit:
Reducing Exposure and Liability. Seattle, WA. February 2008.
Keynote Speaker, Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission. Offender Pursuit
Seminar. Bothell, WA. February 2008.
Presenter, Charleston Police Department. Seminar for Pursuit Management. Charleston, SC.
February 2008.
Instructor, FBI National Academy. FBI Academy, Quantico, VA. December 2007.
Presenter, The Charleston Area Crime Summit. North Charleston, Sc. November 2007.
Presenter, To Protect and to Serve ... Police and Policing in an Age of Terrorism and Beyond.
Ministry of Public Security and National Institute of Justice. Jerusalem, Israel. October 2007.
Presenter, Police Driver Trainers' Seminar. Peel Regional Police, Brampton, Ontario
Canada. August 2007.
Presenter, Major Cities Chiefs of Police Task Force on Internal Affairs. Dallas, TX. May 2007.
Instructor, FBI National Academy. FBI Academy, Quantico, VA. May 2007.
Presenter, Scott v Harris: The Supreme Court revisits police use of deadly force. Annual Meeting of
the Police Executive Research Forum. Chicago. April 2007.
Consultant, Advisory Committee on Police Standards (Racial Profiling). State of New Jersey.
January, 2007.
Member, Research Advisory Committee, Police Foundation. Washington, DC. 2007 - present.
23

Invited Participant, Workshop on Policing Research. National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC.
November 2006.
Presenter, New Developmentsin Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention Conference, University of
Shanghai, Shanghai, China. October, 2006.
Instructor, Early Identification Systems. International Association of Chiefs of Police. Maple
Grove, MN. September 2006.
Instructor, Police Use of Force and Pursuits. Pharr, TX. Police Department. June, 2006.
Instructor, FBI National Academy. FBI Academy, Quantico, VA. May 2006.
Instructor, National Summit on Police Use of Force. Institute for Law Enforcement Administration.
Plano, TX. January 2006.
Invited Participant, Strategies for Resolving Conflict and Minimizing the Use of Force. PERF, San
Diego, CA. December 2005.
Senior Advisor, Major Cities Chiefs of Police Task Force on Internal Affairs. Los Angeles, CA.
2005 - 2008.
Invited Participant, Symposium on Conducted Electronic Devices. PERF, Houston, TX. October
2005.
Guest Editor, Police Quarterly. Vol. 8 Number 3, September 2005.
Invited Participant, 14th World Congress of Criminology. University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia,
PA. August 2005.
Invited Participant, Less-Lethal Technology Symposium. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington,
DC. April 2005.
Member, South Carolina Law Enforcement Training Advisory Council. Department of Public
Safety. Columbia, South Carolina. 2005 - 2006.
Invited Participant, Best Practices in Managing Police Use of Force. Los Angeles Police
Department. Los Angels, CA. March 2005.
Presenter, Early Identification Systems: A Changing Paradigm. Internal Affairs. Institute for Law
Enforcement Administration. Plano, TX. November 2004.
Presenter, By the Numbers: How to Analyze Race Data from Vehicle Stops. Kansas City, Police
Executive Research Forum. August 2004.
Presenter, The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. Washington, DC.
24

July 2004.
Presenter, Pursuit Driving, Executive Management Program. Northwestern University Center for
Public Safety. May 2004.
Consultant, Coroner's Office. Inquest on Police Pursuit Driving. Quebec, Canada. 2004.
Presenter, Western Regional Racially Biased Policing Summit. Sacramento Police Department.
Sacramento, CA. February 2004.
Panelist, Pursuit Driving Training Symposium. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Glynco,
GA. (Sites throughout the United States) 2002 - 2004.
Consultant, Citizen Advisory Panel on Pursuit Policy. Orlando Police Department. Orlando, Fl.
December 2003.
Presenter, Enrichment Retreat. Royal Bahamas Police Force. Nassau. November 2003.
Presenter, The Annual Conference on Racial Profiling. Northwestern University. Chicago.
November 2003.
Presenter, The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. Washington, DC
July 2003.
Invited Participant, Minority Trust and Confidence in the Police. National Institute of Justice.
Washington, DC. July 2003.
Presenter, Community Oriented Police Services Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: June 2003.
Presenter, Promoting Cooperative Strategies to Prevent Racial Profiling. Sacramento Police
Department. Sacramento, CA. June 2003.
Presenter, Confronting Racial Profiling in the 21 st. Century: New Challenges and Implications for
Racial Justice. Northeastern University. Boston, MA. March 2003.
Moderator and Panel Member, Racial Profiling Conference, The Foley Institute for Public Policy
and Public Service. Washington State University. February 2003.
Presenter, Pursuit Driving. Rocky Mountain Criminal Justice Conference. Gatlinburg, TN.
November 2002.
Invited Participant, Minority Trust and Confidence in the Police. National Institute of Justice.
Washington, DC. October 2002.
Panelist, Racial Profiling. Smith College, Northhampton, MA. September 2002.
25

Presenter, State Bar of Texas Suing and Defending Governmental Entities Course. Galveston, TX.
August 2002.
Panelist, Excessive Force Demonstration. State Bar of Texas Suing and Defending Governmental
Entities Course. Galveston, TX. August 2002.
Presenter, Annual Convention of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Atlanta, GA. August
2002.
Presenter, Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. National Research
Council. Washington, DC. April 2002.
Presenter, Racial Profiling: Setting the Research Agenda. Center for Studies in Criminology and
Law. University of Florida. October 2001.
Presenter, Racial Profiling, Bureau of Justice Statistics/Justice Research & Statistics Association
Annual Meeting. New Orleans, LA October 2001.
Presenter, Early Warning Systems and the Police. Pasadena, California Police Department, October
2001.
Presenter, "Pursuit Driving - Dynamics and Liability." High Liability Trainers' Conference.
Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Orlando, FL. August 2001.
Presenter, The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. National Institute
of Justice. Washington, D.C. July 2001.
Academic Community Liaison, National Commission on Law Enforcement Integrity. 2001 - 2005.
Invited Participant, Ethics and Integrity Curriculum Development. Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services. Washington, DC: May 2001.
Presenter, Early Warning Systems and the Police. School of Professional Studies, Johns Hopkins
University. Baltimore, MD. April 2001.
Panelist, Pursuit Driver Training Symposium. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Glynco,
GA. March 2001.
Presenter, Speed Enforcement/Aggressive Driving Conference. Institute of Police Technology and
Management. Orlando, FL. March 2001.
Invited Participant: Early Warning System Curricula Development Meeting. Regional Community
Policing Institute for New England. Boston Police Department. Boston, MA: January 2001.

26

Presenter, Working Session on Police Practices. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: November
2000.
Presenter, The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. National Institute
of Justice. July 2000.
Invited Participant: Police Pursuit Issues for Managers and Supervisors: Curriculum Development
Conference. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Glynco, GA. May 2000.
Presenter, Police Use of Force in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Miami-Dade County Criminal
Justice Council. Miami, Fl: November 1999.
Presenter and Moderator, Building Accountability into Police Operations. Department of Justice.
Washington, DC: November 1999.
Presenter, The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. National Institute
of Justice. July 1999.
Invited Participant: Homicide Clearance Rate Project. Implementation Group Meeting. Justice
Research and Statistics Association. Washington, DC. May 1999.
Presenter, Less than Lethal Force: A Safe and Reasonable Response to Suspect Resistance, Law
Enforcement Applications of Non-Lethal Weapons. Quantico, VA. May 1999.
Presenter, Measuring Police Use of Force Relative to Suspect Resistance. International Association
of Chiefs of Police Annual Conference. Salt Lake City, October 1998.
Presenter, The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. National Institute
of Justice. July 1998.
Keynote Speaker, Seminar on Risk Management: Police Use of Deadly Force and Pursuit Driving.
Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute. Dallas, Texas. November 1995, May 1996, May 1998.
Presenter, Locally Initiated Research Partnership Program Conference. National Institute of Justice.
February 1998.
Presenter, Pursuit Policy and Practice. International Association of Women Police Conference.
Dallas, November 1997.
Presenter, Meeting the Challenges of Crime and Justice: The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice
Research and Evaluation. Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice. Washington, DC: July
1997.
Presenter, Locally Initiated Research Partnership Program Conference. National Institute of Justice.
January 1997.
27

Faculty, Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute Management College. Dallas, Texas. January
1977.
Presenter, State and Local Partnership Training for Criminal Justice. Bureau of Justice Assistance.
January 1997.
Presenter, Lessons Learned form the 1996 Olympic Games. Special Events Planning and
Management Symposium. Metro-Dade Police Department. September 1996.
Member, National Criminal Justice Network Consumer Advisory Network. 1996.
Presenter, and Workshop Director, Building a Safer Society: The Annual Conference on Criminal
Justice Research and Evaluation. Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice. Washington,
DC: August 1996.
Police in Pursuit: Policy and Practice. Research in Progress Series (Video). National Institute of
Justice. July 1996.
Presenter, Use-of-Force Cluster Conference. National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: April
1996.
Discussant, Measuring What Matters, National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: November
1995, May 1996.
Presenter, Police Pursuits and the Use of Force: Recognizing and Managing "the Pucker Factor."
The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. National Institute of Justice.
Washington, DC. July 1995.
Invited Participant, Police Use of Force Focus Group. National Institute of Justice/Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Washington, DC: May 1995.
Presenter, Hi-Risk Police Activities and Managing Their Risks. South Carolina Sheriff's
Association. May 1995.
Presenter, Police Pursuits. Making Policy Decisions. Transportation Research Board. Washington,
DC. January 1995.
Invited Participant, Strategic Planning Workshop: Developing a Police Research and Evaluation
Agenda. National Institute of Justice. December 1994.
Presenter, Special Events Planning and Management Symposium. Metropolitan Police Institute.
Miami, October 1994.
Invited Participant, Justice Research & Statistics Association Annual Meeting. Atlanta, October
1994.
28

Pursuit Driving and Risk Assessment Seminar. Indiana Police Chiefs Association. Anderson, IN.
September 1994.
Principal Evaluator, State Evaluation Capacity Building Program. National Institute of Justice. 1992Present.
Invited Participant, Focus Groups Sessions on Community Policing and the Crime Bill. National
Institute of Justice, Washington, DC. July - August 1994.
Presenter, Use of Force and Pursuit Risks, Southeastern Campus Safety Institute. Long Beach,
Mississippi, August 1994.
Invited Speaker, South Carolina City and County Management Association Annual Meeting, Hilton
Head, July 1994.
Member, Pursuit Guidelines Development Advisory Committee, California Peace Officer Standards
and Training, 1994.
Facilitator, Pursuit Policy Workshop. Criminal Justice Institute, St. Petersburg Community College.
February 1994.
Presenter, Frontiers of Legal Thought Conference. Duke Law School. Durham, North Carolina.
January 1994.
Keynote Speaker, Seminar on Risk Management: Police Use of Deadly Force and Pursuit Driving.
Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute. Dallas, Texas. May 1993.
Keynote Address, Police Vehicle Pursuits: Policy Implications and Liability. Illinois State
University and the Traffic Institute, Northwestern University. Normal, II. April 1993.
Invited Lecturer, Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University. Cambridge, England. March
1993.
Presenter, Reducing the Risk of Emergency Vehicle Operations, Risk Management Services, South
Carolina Budget and Control Board. Columbia, South Carolina. December 1992.
Invited Participant, Bureau of Justice Statistics/ Justice Research and Statistics Association 1992
Annual Conference. New Orleans, September 1992.
Testimony on police pursuit to United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government
Operations Sub-Committee on Government Information Justice and Agriculture. July 1992.
Faculty, Graduate Course on Victimology. The Free University. Amsterdam, July 1992.
Invited Participant, Annual Conference on Evaluating Drug Initiatives. Washington, DC. July 1992.
29

Curriculum Development for the Bachelor's Degree in Law Enforcement. State of Minnesota 1992.
Testimony on police pursuit to the House Safety Committee, State of Massachusetts, March 1992.

Developing a Decentralized Police Department from a National Police Force. Presented to
Bundeskriminalamt Wiesbaden, Germany. March 1992.
Managing a Community-Oriented Police Department. Presentation to the Wiesbaden Police. March
1992.
Testimony on police pursuit to the Senate Transportation Committee, State of Pennsylvania.
February 1992.
Pursuit Driving Policy Development Seminar. Texas Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
Training. Austin, TX. May and November 1991.
Keynote Speaker, Risk Management and Pursuit Driving. Texas Municipal League. Arlington,
Texas. August 1991.
Invited Participant, National Field Study on Gangs and Gang Violence. U.S. Department of Justice.
Dallas, June 1991.
The Importance of Data Quality for Practice and Research. National Conference on Improving the
Quality of Criminal History Records. Washington, DC. June 1991.
Keynote Speaker, Training Versus Education in Law Enforcement. Virginia Criminal Justice
Educators Annual Conference. Leesburg, VA. May 1991.
Pursuit Driving and Risk Assessment Seminar. Indiana Police Chiefs Association. Jasper, IN. April
1991.
Invited Participant, Attorney General's Summit on Law Enforcement Responses to Violent Crime:
Public Safety in the Nineties. Washington, DC. March 1991.
Matching Structure to Objective. Law Enforcement Management Institute of The Texas Commission
on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education. San Antonio, Texas. February 1991.
Managing Risk: The Case of Pursuit Driving. National A.L.E.R.T. Conference. Columbia, SC.
February 1991.
Invited Speaker, Risk Assessment, Pursuit Driving and Police Use of Deadly Force. South Carolina
Association of Counties. Columbia, December 1990.

30

Invited Speaker, Pursuit Driving: Analyzing Risk. National Municipal Lawyers Organization.
Boston, September 1990.
Keynote Speaker, Police Pursuit Driving. Texas Municipal League. San Antonio, TX. July 1990.
Consultant, Monroe County (Florida) Sheriffs Department, Key West, FL. June - July 1990.
Keynote Speaker, Seminars on Pursuit Driving. Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute. 19891990.
Commencement Speaker, Charleston County Police Academy, Charleston, SC. September 1989.
Consultant, Duval County (FL) Grand Jury. April- July 1989.
Invited Speaker, Civil Disorders and Police Use of Deadly Force, Southwestern Law Enforcement
Institute, Dallas, Texas, March 1989.
Invited Participant, Cross-Gender Supervision, National Academy of Corrections, Boulder.
December 1988.
Invited Participant, Workshop on Communities and Crime Control, National Research Council,
Miami. January 1988.
Conferencier, La Maison des Sciences de L'Homme, Paris. December 1987.
Invited Speaker, Criminal Law Section, Annual Meeting of the Oregon State Bar. Seaside, Oregon.
September 1987.
Board of Directors, Adolescent Chemical Dependency Program. Dade County, Florida.1987 - 1988.
Keynote Speaker, Sports and Violence. The American College of Sports Medicine. Las Vegas. May
1987.
Keynote Research Address, Police Pursuit Seminar. Empirical Determinants of Police Pursuits. The
Police Foundation. Los Angeles. March 1987.
Educational Consultant, G. Gordon Liddy Institute of Corporate Security and Private Investigation.
Miami, Florida. 1986.
Consultant, Dade County (Florida) Grand Jury. February, 1982 - August 1986.
Board of Directors, Citizens' Crime Commission. Miami, Florida. March 1985 - August 1988.
Member, Dade County Community Task Force on Jury Selection. May 1984 - December 1984.
Member, Dade County Mayor's Committee to Develop an Action Plan for Social and Economic
31

Development for the Black Community. May 1983 - January 1984.
Member, City of Miami Blue-Ribbon Committee to Study Racial Unrest. Jan. 1983 - July 1·984.
Invited Speaker, John Jay College of Criminal Justice. New York. Police Use of Deadly Force in
Miami. April 1984.
Consultant, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, Florida. January 1982 - June 1984.
Consultant and Trainer, National Street Law Institute, Georgetown University Law Center,
Washington, DC. 1982 - 1984.
Member, Dallas Criminal Justice Task Force, Dallas, TX. October 1975 - December 1977.

COURSES TAUGHT:
Graduate
Criminal Justice
Social Control
Criminology
Formal Organizations
Juvenile Delinquency
Law and Society
Policing in America
Research Methods
Politics of Crime

Undergraduate
Criminal Justice
Corrections
Criminology
Juvenile Delinquency
Law and Society
Police and the Community
Social problems
Sociology of Organizations
Survey Research Methods

Law Enforcement
Accountability Systems
Police Use of Force
Police Use of Deadly Force
Performance Measures
Pursuit Driving Decisions
Report Writing
Ethics and Integrity

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS:
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
American Bar Association
Committee on Corrections
American Sociological Association
American Society of Criminology
Student Affairs Committee

1980

1989-1990
32

Publications Committee
Site Selection Committee
Chair, Site Selection Committee
Chair, Local Arrangements Committee
Committee on Criminal Justice Education
Membership Committee
Program Committee
Statewide Policy Committee
National Policy Committee
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Ethics Training Sub-Committee
Justice Research and Statistics Association
Board of Directors
Western Society of Criminology
Vice-President
Executive Secretary
Chair, Program Committee

33

] 985-] 986
] 984-]985
] 983-] 984
]978
] 977-] 978
1975-] 977
1995-1997
]995- ]997
1996- ]998
] 997-1999
2004-2005
1979-]980
1977-] 978
] 976-1977

Prior Testimony of Geoffrey Alpert
(2005 - 2008):

Petraski Y. Thedos et al. (Emergency Response, Deposition, February 2005, Trial May 2006).
Attorney: Francis Murphy, Chicago, IL.
Parsons y. Tishomingo. Co. (Pursuit, Deposition, February 2005). Attorney: Drayton Berkeley.
Memphis, TN.
Huang y. City of Chicago (Pursuit, Deposition, May 2005, Trial, October 2005). Attorney:
Michael Baird. Chicago, IL.
Isham y. City of Ft. Lauderdale (Pursuit, Deposition, September 2005). Attorney: W. Clay
Mitchell. Orlando, FL.
Sheets y. Piecre Co. (Pursuit, Deposition, October 2005). Attorney: Rogers Wilson. Tacoma,
WA.
Villalta v Waller et al. (Use of Force, Trial, November 2005). Attorney: Tom Mumgaard, City
Attorney's Office, Omaha, NE.
Ruch v City of Normal (Pursuit, Use of Deadly Force, Deposition, January 2006). Attorney:
David Doris, Normal, IL.
Scarbrough v Pima County (Pursuit, Deposition, February 2006). Attorney: Elliot Glicksman,
Tucson, AZ.
Best v Cobb County (Pursuit, Deposition, April 2006). Attorney: George Shingler, Atlanta, GA.
Harris v City of Circleville (Use of Force, Deposition, July 2006). Attorney: Charles H. Cooper,
Jr., Columbus, OH.
Johnson v District of Columbia (Pursuit, Deposition, August 2006). Attorney: Melissa Rhea,
Washington, DC.
Monroy v Los Angeles Police Department (Response to Call for Service, Deposition, September
2006). Attorney: R. Rex Parris, Lancaster, CA.
Cepulionis v Village of Blue Island Police Department (Pursuit, Deposition, November 2006).
Attorney: Thomas F. Boleky, Chicago, IL.

Timberlake v Dugger et aI. (Pursuit, Deposition, December 2006). Attorney: Rebecca Royals,
Richmond, VA.
Kingdom v City of Riviera Beach (Pursuit, Deposition, February 2007). Attorney: Andrea
McMillan, Palm Beach, FL.
Parker v Stanhope (Deadly Force, Deposition, February 2007). Attorney: Jeffrey Boyd
Jackson, TN.
Sharp v Fischer et aI., (Pursuit, Deadly Force Deposition, February 2007). Attorney: Henry
Garrard, Athens, GA.
Hobley v Burge et aI., (Use of Force, Deposition, April 2007). Attorney: Dan Noland, Chicago,
IL.
Fox v Goodwine et aI.(Pursuit, Deposition, May 2007). Attorney, Arthur Blue, Carthage, NC.
Baker v Ross Township Police Department (Pursuit, Deposition, July, 2007). Attorney: Marc
Mezibov, Cincinnati, OB.
McCants v Georgetown (Police Procedure, Deposition, August, 2007). Attorney: Tom Nelson,
Mt. Pleasant, SC.
Wilson v City of College Park (Pursuit, Deposition, September 2007). Attorney: William C.
Lanham, Atlanta, GA.
Wolfanger v Laurel County (Deadly Force, Deposition, October 2007). Attorney: Jack Ruzicho,
Lexington, KY.
Terranova v New York State Police (Roadblock, Deposition, October 2007). Attorney: Michael
Grace, Yorktown Heights, NY.
Smith v Clayton County Police Department (Pursuit, Deposition, April 2008). Attorney: Richard
Hendrix, Atlanta, GA.

2

Geoffrey P. Alpert
1905 Salem Church Rd.

hmo, South Carolina 29063-8543

Telephone: (803) 446.4139 W Fax: (803) 777-7319

Contract and Fee Schedule for Consulting and Expert Services
My fees include a non-refundable retainer of $5000 for case review. I charge for all time spent on
a case, including research, reading documents, preparing affidavits, reports, consultations and travel from
door-to-door at a rate of $275 per hour. During travel, I charge for all expenses incurred including air
fare, hotel, meals, and parking and other miscellaneous expenses. All air travel will be first class. My
other customary fees include a $2500 charge for deposition Of trial testimony that lasts four hours or less.
There is an additional $2500 fee for each additional four hour (or less) block of deposition or trial
testimony. Travel expenses and deposition and trial testimony fees are to be paid before the beginning of
any testimony. No amendment to this agreement or change in the aforementioned rates or charges shall be
enforceable unless it is expressly agreed to by the parties, reduced to writing and signed by all parties.
Invoices will be sent periodically and prompt payment will be made within 30 calendar days from
the day the bill was sent. After 30 days, interest will be added at the rate of 1 Y2% per month, compounded
monthly, on the outstanding balance, computed on the date ofthe invoice. The contacting attorney
expressly states that he is an authorized agent to enter into this agreement on behalf of his/her firm and
his/her client(s). The contracting attorney, individually and as an authorized agent for the contracting
attorney's firm and client(s), agrees to obligate him/her, his/her firm and his/her client(s) for payment of
all fees and expenses billed for the consulting and expert services of Geoffrey P. Alpert. It is expressly
understood that the prompt payment of bills for the fees and expenses by Geoffrey P. Alpert is in no way
contingent on the agreement or arrangement between the contracting attorney, his/her firm and his/her
client. Further, it is expressly understood that the prompt payment of all fees and expenses billed
by Geoffrey P. Alpert is in no way contingent on the ability to pay of the client of the contacting attorney
and his/her firm. Accordingly, by entering into this agreement, the contracting attorney expressly
obligates himself/herself and his/her firm to promptly pay all bills for fees and expenses of Dr. Alpert.
By entering into this agreement, the contracting attorney, his/her firm and his/her client(s)
expressly agree to the jurisdiction of the courts in Columbia, South Carolina. Should it become necessary
for Geoffrey P. Alpert to institute an action to collect money due under this agreement, the contracting
attorney, his/her firm and his/her client(s) agree that the courts in Columbia, South Carolina shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over such action and the interpretation and enforcement of this agreement. Further,
the contracting attorney, his/her firm and his/her client(s) agree that they will be responsible for all
expenses and attorney fees associated with any action brought by Geoffrey P. Alpert to collect money due
under this agreement or to enforce this agreement.
Entered into this the __ day of

, 2008, by:

Contracting Attorney, Individually

Contracting Attorney, As Authorized Agent for Firm

Contracting Attorney, As Authorized Agent for Client(s)

EXHIBIT

Ie.

~~
t3'1 "

PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT

MATERIALS REVIEWED
Depositions of the following persons:
B. Bland;
J. Boyd (2 volumes);
W. Cleveland;
S. Hanscom;
M. Hill;
W. Oldham;
M. Jones;
J. Krepela;
R. Moore;
L. Nelson;
C. Robertson;
J. Ruff;
B. Schultz;
L. Skaggs;
C. Spragins;
G. Taylor;
R. Tidwell;
B. Townsend;
D. Wheeler;
J. Willis;
W. Winfree;
(Pollow case);
M. Balee;
J. Bolden;
M. Burgess;
C. Cochran;
R. Collins;
J. Dwyer;
G. Leveme;
L. Goodwin;
W. Merritt;
B. Townsend;
C. Williams (2 volumes); and
W. Winfrey

EXHIBIT

I. D

,
')"

,

Security Squad Files
T. Allbright;
R. Boyd;
H. Curtis;
A. Pollow; and
A. Reed.
Reginald Boyd Autopsy Report
County Medical Examiner's Report on R. Boyd
Selected Memphis Police Department Policies and Procedures
MPD In-Custody Death Files (San Diego Study)
Krosch, C., V. Brinkerd and B. Blackourne. Final Report of the Custody Death Task Force. San
Diego Police Department and County Medical Examiner's Office. 1992.
Notes from those meeting.
Internation{ll Association of Chief s of Police. Model Policy - Transportation of Prisoners Issues and Concepts. National Law Enforcement Policy Center. 1990.
International Association of Chiefs of Police 1990 Training Key 412 (Transportation of
Prisoners) and 1992 Training Key 429 (In Custody Deaths).
National Law Enforcement Technology Center, Positional Asphyxia - Sudden Death. National
Institute of Justice. June 1995.
Ray, Donald, John Howard, Corrin Fligner and RJ. Ward, Effects of Positional Restraint on
Oxygen Saturation and Heart Rate Following Exercise. 9 American Journal of Forensic Medical
Pathology 16-18 (1988).
Reay, Donald, Corrin FUgner, A. Stilwell and John Arnold. Positional Asphyxia During Law
Enforcement Transport. 13 American Journal of Forensic Medical Pathology 90-97 (1992).
Reay, Donald T. Hog-Tied Restraint and Sudden Death. F.B.I. Law Enforcement Bulletin
forthcoming).
Metro-Dade Training Tape concerning Hog Tying (1992)
Metro-Dade Police Study on In-Custody Deaths

FACTS:
On January 1, 1994, at approximately 10 PM, officers Barry Schultz and Larry Skaggs
received a call from dispatch to go to 207 Winchester Rd.. where Mrs. Boyd had called and
complained that her son, Reginald was creating a disturbance and refusing to leave. Upon
arriving at the scene, Ms. Boyd informed the officers that her son had been smoking crack
cocaine and was creating a disturbance. She also stated that he was scaring the children in the
house, taking their toys and turning on the gas stove without lighting it. While Ms. Boyd was

2

I

.'

J•

telling the officers of her concerns, Mr. Boyd came part way down the stairs. The officers
informed Mr. Boyd that his mother wanted him out of the house. At that time, Mr. Boyd became
upset and stated he wasn't leaving. The officers informed him that ifhe did not leave
voluntarily, that they would arrest him. He stated that he wasn't going to leave and the officers
told him that he was under arrest. At that time, he turned and started going up the stairs. The
.officers followed and grabbed him as he was approaching the top of the stairs. A struggle
ensued.
After he was controlled and handcuffed, Mr. Boyd was taken to the patrol car and placed
in the back seat. As he sat in the back seat of the car, he began yelling, screaming, kicking the
windows, banging his head and generally thrashing around. At that time, The Crisis Intervention
Team (CIT) was called and officer Cleveland arrived. Officer Cleveland sprayed him with
pepper gas, which calmed him down only for a short time. After he continued to act out and kick
the inside of the patrol car, he was removed and hog-tied and placed back in the patrol car on his
stomach. He was then transported to the jail.
OPINIONS
First, although the Memphis Police Department had no formal policy concerning the
"hog-tie," it was a common practice of restraint that was used by members of the Memphis
Police Department. In fact, the Security Squad had reviewed incidents wherein the hog-tie
procedure was used but no officer was disciplined (Hanscom deposition; Nelson deposition;
Willis deposition; and Hill, deposition). Due to the fact that the hog-tie procedure was used and
not condemned by the Memphis Police Department, a custom and practice of the hog-tie
procedure was thus created (Winfree deposition; Kreppela deposition; Leverne deposition;
3

.
I

I.

Dywer deposition; Jones deposition; and Skaggs deposition).
Second, the need for training on the proper use of restraints such as the hog-tie was so
obvious that the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the welfare and safety of
those who are restrained. It is an expected and anticipated police function to have to secure,
control and transport violent prisoners. Indeed, the Memphis Police Department equipped some
of its officers (those on the Crisis Intervention Team) with leg restraints in 1991 (Jones
deposition and Krepela deposition). This action demonstrated the obvious and foreseeable use of
restraints on suspects and prisoners.
Third, it was well-known to police departments around the country and it was either wellknown or it should have been well known that hog-tying posed unreasonable risks of positional
asphyxia. There are several levels of notice that should have made the police department aware
of the problems associated with hogtying (Collins deposition; Dywer deposition; and Jones
deposition). First, there has been an on-going concern within the law enforcement community
and in professional law enforcement, forensic and medical literature. Second, several incidents
concerning the "hog-tie" procedure occurred, putting the department on notice that the hog-tie
procedure is extremely dangerous. These incidents included Reed (1989). Pollow (1/1993) and
Albright (6/1993). Third, the Memphis Police Department participated in the classic study
conducted on in-custody deaths by the San Diego Police Department (Dywer deposition; Collins
deposition). The Memphis questionnaire was sent to San Diego in March 1992 and the results of
the survey were returned to the Memphis Police Department (Dywer deposition; Collins
deposition). Fourth, Walter Winfrey, prior to the Boyd incident, and while Deputy Chief over
uniform patrol, attended a seminar in Washington, DC (July 1992) wherein the dangers
4

,,
I.

associated with the hog-tie procedure were discussed. After returning from that seminar, and as a
result of the information he received, he briefed Deputy Director Eddie Adair. He infonned
Deputy Director Adair that the department needed to prohibit the use of the hog tie procedure
(Winfrey deposition).
Finally, the investigation of the Boyd case was untimely and incomplete. First, Sgt.
Hanscom was told by Lt. Townsend to wait until the next day to interview officers Skaggs and
Schultz (Hanscom deposition), however they were not interviewed until much later. Officer
Skaggs was not interviewed until January 11, 1994, Officer Schultz was not interviewed unti I
January 14, 1994, Officer Cleveland was not interviewed until January 11, 1994 and Lt. Krepela
was not interviewed until January 6, 1994. Incredibly, hog-tying was not a concern of the
investigation (Hanscom, deposition; Nelson, Deposition). Further, the restraints used were not
even tagged as evidence (Willis deposition). Finally, the injuries sustained by Mr. Boyd were not
investigated with information from the Medical Examiners Office (Hanscom deposition; and
Robinson, deposition).

5

·

.,

Qualifications and Fees:
See attached vita. Hourly fees are $150. Per hour, and deposition and testimony fees
include a $1,000. fee for up to four hours and $1,000 for every additional four hours or portion of
a four hour session.

Prior Testimony:
Although I do not keep records, I have tried to create an accurate list from memory,
which follows:
Trial Testimony
There were several trials in Miami in which I testified for the City of Miami Police Department
and Metro-Dade Police Department. These cases involved shootings, chases, excessive force,
hiring, training, policies and procedures.
Clotfelter v Nevada Highway Patrol- a pursuit case.
Miami - several cases involving crime statistics
U. S. Border Patrol pursuit cases in Southern California
Ludlum v Busbee an excessive force claim in Ga.
Binningham, AL - several excessive force cases
Long Island, New York - a chase case
Watt v Chicago a pursuit case
Hildebrandt v City of Fairbanks, Alaska - a pursuit case
a pursuit case in Alabama
DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
I also testified in Dallas for the Dallas Police Department concerning the use of force, hiring.
retention and training.
James v Chester an excessive force case in South Carolina
Schultz v Long, St. Louis Co. a case involving the shooting of a mentally ill suspect
Michigan - a pursuit case
Ohio - a pursuit case
Georgia - a pursuit case
Bass v District of Columbia - an excessive force case
Hughes v Cobb County - a failure to protect case.(Atlanta)
Los Angeles PD - a pursuit case/Los Angeles Sheriffs Department - a pursuit case
Brown v Cafino an excessive force case in South Carolina
Morales v Arizona a pursuit case
Glendale, Arizona - a pursuit case
6

Tennessee (Brunson) - a hogtie case
Knoxville, TN. A pursuit case
Tempkin v??? in Maryland. - a pursuit case
Texas - there have been several pursuit cases in Texas (Austin & Houston).
Charleston, SC - several cases including excessive force, pursuit, private security and
employment policies
Erwin v Rose (5932 Circuit Ct. Of Maury Co., Tn)
New Jersey - several pursuit cases
Columbia, SC several cases involving excessive force and policy issues
Houston, TX - several pursuit cases
Martinez\Lopez v City of Miami - hiring and training issues
Sanders v City of Chicago emergency response case
Dayton, Ohio - a pursuit case
Westcqtt v City of Omaha - a shooting case

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
TOMMIE HAMPTON

PLAINTIFF
NO. 04-2537

VS.

CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE,
L. McNair, Individually, and in His Official Capacity
as a police officer with the City of Memphis Police Department,
C. Teeters, Individually, and in His Official Capacity
as a police officer with the City of Memphis Police Department,
B. Holland, Individually, and in His Official Capacity
as a police officer with the City of Memphis Police Department,
F. Boyce, Individually, and in His Official Capacity
as a police officer with the City of Memphis Police Department

DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT
I, Geoffrey Alpert, being first duly sworn state:
1. I am a Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South
Carolina, and I have been retained by Tommie Hampton to provide my expert opinion in the
above-captioned case.
2. I have a Ph.D. in sociology from Washington State University, and have conducted
research on police policies and customs for the past twenty years.
3. I have published extensively in the area of criminal justice, including scholarly articles
concerning pursuit driving and the use of force and deadly force.
4. I have worked with numerous police agencies to develop policies, conduct training,
and provide them with other consulting services.
5. I am familiar with police operating procedures as well as the customs developed by
practice.

EXHIBIT

I~

6. I base the statements contained herein on my education, research, work experience,
knowledge of police policies and customs, as well as my review of the following documents
pertaining to this case:
Master File 0307007198ME
Recorded statement of Robert Riggs
Interview with Robert Riggs
Tape of Interview with Jeffrey Madden
Statement of Officer Lucas McNair
Summary of Deposition of Officer Lucas McNair
Statement of Officer Charles Teeters
Summary of Deposition of Officer Charles Teeters
Statement of Officer Felipe Boyce
Summary of Deposition of Officer Felipe Boyce
Summary of Deposition of Officer Bradley Holland
Summary of Deposition of Officer Communications Supervisor Roosevelt
Coleman
Summary of Deposition of Police Training Instructor Vincent Beasley
Summary of Deposition of Police Commander Gloria Crenshaw
Summary of Deposition of Police Dispatcher Elayne Calhoun
Police Reports
Dispatch Logs
Pictures of the Accident Scene
Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy
Hayes v. Hamilton County
Tenn. Statutes § 55-8-108, 55-10-205, 55-8-152
Answer of Defendant City of Memphis to Plaintiffs Complaint
Answer of Defendant City of Memphis to Plaintiffs Complaint
Answer of Defendant City of Memphis to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories
and Request for Production of Documents
7. On July 16,2003, at approximately 8:14 a.m., an automobile accident occurred on the
exit ramp of 1-240 at its intersection with Warford in Memphis, Tennessee between a vehicle
being driven by Jeffrey Madden, which was being pursued by Officers McNair, Teeters,
Holland, and Boyce, and a vehicle being driven by Tommie Hampton. See Deposition of Lucas
McNair ("Depo. of McNair") at 17-46; Deposition of Charles Teeters ("Depo. of Teeters") at 3060.

2

8. Prior to this automobile collision, at approximately 8:06 a.m., Officers McNair and
Teeters were operating an unmarked police car at or near the Wal-Mart store at 3950 Austin Peay
when they observed a man run from the Wal-Mart store followed by an employee of Wal-Mart
yelling for him to stop. The fleeing man entered a Ford Explorer, exited the parking lot on to
Austin Peay, and began to travel southbound on Austin Peay. Officers McNair and Teeters
followed the Ford Explorer southbound on Austin Peay to southbound Old Austin Peay, then
westbound on Stage, then southbound on Jackson, then westbound on 1-240. During the pursuit,
Officers McNair and Teeters radioed for assistance, and Officers Holland and Boyce joined the
chase in marked police cars. Whereupon, the Ford Explorer being driven by Jeffrey Madden
entered the exit ramp of 1-240 approaching Warford Street when Madden did a u-turn to avoid
the pursuit and proceeded eastbound on the westbound ramp.

The Ford Explorer driven by

Madden continued the wrong way on the exit ramp as officers Holland and Boyce began to tum
around to continue the chase when Madden's vehicle, going at a high rate of speed, struck
Hampton's vehicle head on. See Depo. of McNair at 17-46; Depo. of Teeters at 30-60.
9.

Officers McNair, Teeters, Boyce, and Holland did not engage their blue lights or

sirens at any time in the pursuit prior to turning around and beginning to travel the wrong way on
the exit ramp. See Depo. of McNair at 14; Depo. of Teeters at 26, 33; Deposition of Felipe
Boyce ("Depo. of Boyce") at 29; Deposition of Bradley Holland ("Depo. of Holland") at 24.
10. At all times in question on July 16, 2003, Officers McNair, Teeters, Boyce, and
Holland were acting under the color of law and by virtue of their authority as law enforcement
officials of the City of Memphis, Tennessee. See Answer of Defendant City of Memphis to
Plaintiff's Complaint

~~

4-7; Answer of Defendant Officers McNair, Teeters, Holland, and

Boyce to Plaintiffs Complaint ~~ 4-7.

3

11. Based upon my review of the aforementioned documents, I have reason to believe
that Officers McNair and Teeters pursued the Ford Explorer in an unmarked police car at a high
rate of speed and/or without due regard for the safety of all persons, thus triggering Memphis
Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy. See Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy I; Tape of
Interview with Jeffrey Madden.
12. In pursuing the Ford Explorer, Officers McNair and Teeters violated the Memphis
Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy in numerous ways, including:
a.

Initiating the pursuit without probable cause to believe that one or more occupants

of the Ford Explorer had committed a violent felony at any time during their pursuit. See
Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy IV.A.; Depo. of McNair at 18, 21, 24; Depo. of
Teeters at 33,37,34, 71.
b.

Pursuing the Ford Explorer without using a blue light or siren. See Memphis

Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy V.A.4.; Depo. of McNair at 14; Depo. of Teeters at 26,33.
c.

Pursuing the Ford Explorer without authorization from a supervising officer. See

Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy IV.B.; Depo. of McNair at 58; Depo. of Teeters at
71-72.
13. Based upon my review of the aforementioned documents, I have reason to believe
that Officer Boyce pursued the Ford Explorer at a high rate of speed and/or without due regard
for the safety of all persons, thus triggering Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy. See
Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy I; Recorded Statement of Robert Riggs.
14.

In pursuing the Ford Explorer, Officer Boyce violated the Memphis Vehicle

Operation/Pursuit Policy in numerous ways, including:

4

a.

Initiating the pursuit without probable cause to believe that one or more occupants

of the Ford Explorer had committed a violent felony at any time during their pursuit.

See

Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy IV.A.; Depo. of Boyce at 44.
b.

Pursuing the Ford Explorer without using a blue light or siren. See Memphis

Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy V.A.4.; Depo. of Boyce at 29.
c.

Pursuing the Ford Explorer without authorization from a supervising officer. See

Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy IV.B.; Depo. of Boyce at 44.
15. Based upon my review of the aforementioned documents, I have reason to believe
that Officer Holland pursued the Ford Explorer at a high rate of speed and/or without due regard
for the safety of all persons, thus triggering Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy. See
Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy I; Recorded Statement of Robert Riggs.
16.

In pursuing the Ford Explorer, Officer Holland violated the Memphis Vehicle

Operation/Pursuit Policy in numerous ways, including:
a.

Initiating the pursuit without probable cause to believe that one or more occupants

of the Ford Explorer had committed a violent felony at any time during their pursuit. See
Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy IV.A.; Depo. of Holland at 29.
b.

Pursuing the Ford Explorer without using a blue light or siren. See Memphis

Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy V.A.4.; Depo. of Holland at 24.
c.

Pursuing the Ford Explorer without authorization from a supervising officer. See

Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy IV.B.
17.

By pursuing the Ford Explorer in blatant disregard of the Memphis Vehicle

Operation/Pursuit Policy, Officers McNair, Teeters, Boyce, and Holland engaged in conduct that
evince a lack of due regard for the safety of all persons and "shocks the conscience."

5

18. The unlawful pursuit by Officers McNair, Teeters, Boyce, and Holland and the
corresponding automobile accident are directly attributable to a custom or policy of the City of
Memphis.
19. The City of Memphis created policies or customs by failing (1) to adequately train
and educate its officers in the instigation, continuation, and termination of high speed pursuits;
(2) to adequately monitor and evaluate the performance of its officers and their high speed
pursuit applications; (3) to maintain adequate records or its officers pursuit applications; (4) to
enforce high speed pursuit policies to avoid foreseeable injuries to innocent third parties; and (5)
to adequately investigate citizen complaints, officer misconduct, and compliance with the
Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy.
20. Officer McNair has received a total of 8 hours of training on pursuit procedures and
the Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy. Officer McNair's training took place in 1998,
and he has not had any follow-up training on pursuit procedures since then. See Depo of McNair
at 66; Deposition of Vincent Beasley ("Depo. of Beasley") at 25.
21. Officer Teeters has received a total of 8 hours of training on pursuit procedures and
the Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy. Officer Teeters' training took place in 2001, and
he has not had any follow-up training on pursuit procedures since then. See Depo of Teeters at
11; Depo. of Beasley at 29.
22. Officer Boyce has received a total of 8 hours of training on pursuit procedures and
the Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy. Officer Boyce's training took place in 1995, and
does not appear to have had any follow-up training on pursuit procedures since then. See Depo
of Boyce at 51-52; Depo. of Beasley at 33-35, 38.

6

23. Officer Holland appears to have received a total of 8 hours of training on pursuit
procedures and the Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy when he joined the Memphis
police force in 1990, and does not appear to have had any follow-up training on pursuit
procedures since then. See Depo of Holland at 8; Depo. of Beasley at 42.
24. Officers McNair, Teeters, Boyce, and Holland do not appear to have been monitored
or evaluated on pursuit procedures in general or on the Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit
Policy. See Depo. of Beasley at 27, 31, 36,43.
25. The City of Memphis failed to adequately investigate the pursuit in question and
discipline Officers McNair, Teeters, Boyce, and Holland for violations the Memphis Vehicle
Operation/Pursuit Policy. See Depo. of McNair at 64; Depo. of Teeters at 75; Depo. of Boyce at
46-47.
26.

The City of Memphis fails to maintain any records of police pursuits, citizen

complaints of improper pursuits, or compliance with the Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit
Policy. See Answer of Defendant City of Memphis to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and
Request for Production of Documents, Interrogatory 10 and 11, Request for Production 8 and 9;
Deposition of Gloria Crenshaw ("Depo. of Crenshaw") at 22.
27.

The City of Memphis fails to adequately investigate alleged violations of the

Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy and properly discipline its officers for violations of
the policy.

See Answer of Defendant City of Memphis to Plaintiffs First Set ofInterrogatories

and Request for Production of Documents, Interrogatory 12, Request for Production 10.
28.

The City of Memphis' failure to adequately train its officers, evaluate their

performance, maintain proper records, investigate violations, and enforce its polices concerning
high speed pursuits and the Memphis Vehicle Operation/Pursuit Policy evinces a deliberate

7

indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact that amounts to a
policy or custom of the city and was the moving force behind the illegal pursuit, and the
corresponding automobile accident, in this case.

Further affiant sayeth not.

Geoffrey Alpert

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this _

day of October, 2005.

Notary Public
My Commission Expires:

8

~\.JI"'i"'C.T

Bij3 ( I 1/;::I1 ';:l

........'··U'I

Geoffrey P. Alpert
97 Mll.Ju..t Run. Inn.., Swell ('......lin. 2906.~
Td'l"),""'" (803) 732~133() 2 FAll. (603) i'77~7319

November. 192004
PRELIMINARY REPORT
RE: Buckley v City of Memphis

Is Geoffrey P. Alpert, declare that the following statements reflect objective truth as extracted
from records provided to me by Mr. Tommy Parker Of represent my expert opinion, to the
highest degree ofprofessional certainty. If called to testify in this matter, I will express the
opinions contained. in this report unless provided with materials that change my opinions.

1.
I have a Ph.D. in Sociology from Washington State University and have been conducting
research on police and law enforcement agencies for the past twenty years. I have been awarded
federal. state and local grants to investigate various aspects ofpolice work. I have been awarded
several fellowships to investigate police activities and I have been asked by numerous police
agencies to write policics for them. con.duct training and to consult with them on various issues. I
have written more than 100 publications on criminal justice. many ofwhich deal with police
policies, customs and practices. I have written articles dealing specifically with pursuit driving
and the use of force and deadly force. I am familiar with police operating procedures as well as
the customs developed by practice. My CUITcot position is Professor of Criminology and
Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina. I have attacbed a copy of my curriculum
vitae.
2. The fol1owing materials have been reviewed:
Complaints

Answers
Inspectional Services Bureau Report (internal affairs)
Discovery Responses which include reference to training materials
Autopsy Report and Photographs
Crime Scene Photographs
EMS Report
Excerpts from the MPD .Policy and Procedures Manual re: Restraint
Baton Training Curricula (1987,2003)
Restraint Training Curricula

EXHIBIT

IX_

11/~B/2884

17:5~

~tl;;j

( ( ( (.;jJ. 'j

.,."."...

: .,.".

Crisis Intervention Team Training
In-Custody Death Investigations
Statement Barbara Avery
Statement Mr. Leroy Hanley
Statement - Jason Berry
Statement U. Landrum
Statement Officer Schilk
Statement 'Eatlenc Morgan
Statement Wilbur Smith
Statement Eugene Walls
Statement Sandra Stone
Statement Franklin Watson
Statement Jimmy Stone
Statemcmt Leroy Hanley
Statement Bertha Miller
StatemCDt Lottie Buckley
Statement Valoria Dortch
Statement Erica Dortch
Statement Salisa Avery
Statement Jason Berry
Statement Isaac Head
Statement Jim Gaither
Statement Officer Schaefer
Statement Lt. Rosser
Statement Major Charles Cochran
Case Summary
Autopsy
Deposition Kurtis Schilk
Deposition ofRobert Tebbitts
Deposition Victoria Johnson
Deposition David Linville
Deposition Phillip PClU1Y
2

w_

11 l2BI 2884

17:58

IX.U- t- Kt:.Y ALI"t:.K I

8837777319

Deposition Anthony Rosser
Deposition David Linville
Deposition Phillip Penny
Deposition Anthony Rosser
Deposition Johnny Schafer
Deposition ofVictoria Johnson with the personnel files ofthe officers
Affidavit Kurtis Schlik
Affidavit Barbara Avery
Aftidavit Leroy Hanley
Affidavit Bertha Miller

Affidavit Sandra Stone
Affidavit Franklin Watson

3. Facts:

April 19, 2003 at approximately 4:30 pm, several 911 calls were made from friends and
neighbors ofDenvey Buckley. The calls, which occurred within minutes of each other, served to
advise representatives oithe MPD that Mr. Buckley, an individual with a mental iUness had
irijurcd himself by cutting his wrists. Mr. BUCkley's friends and neighbors had contacted 911
and/or the MPD in an effort to secure treatment for Mr. Buckley. Mr. Buckley was at his home,
at 1115 South Rembert, in Memphis, at the time ofthese events and by the time the police
arrived, Mr. Buckley's friends and neighbors had calmed him down to the point where Mr.
Buckley was sitting outside on his porch. with towels wrapped around his wrists. He was
unarmed and no longer posed any immediate danger to himselfor anyone else.
The initial call alerting the Memphis Police Department concerning Mr. Buckley, a
mcntaUychallengcd individual, was made at 4:30p.m. However, no request was made by the
MPD dispatcher for CIT officer assistance until 4:47 p.m.(17 minutes). At 4:48 p.m. the unit in
which CIT Officer Schafer had been assigned that day was reported as bejng "CIT equipped"
and he was sent to the scene. Officer Sch.afer was supposed to have with him when responding to
tbis call a non-lethal SL-6 - which is a tool to fill in the gaps between pepper spray and/or a
nightstick. It is used to temporarily, without serious injury, incapacitate a violent Or an
uncontrollable individual. According to the MPD, CIT officers responding to calJs such as the
Buckley case are to have the SL-6 device with them and available for use. Unfortunately, Officer
Schafer did not have his SL-6 with him. on the call to Mr. Buckley.
Officers Phillips and Tebbetts arrived first, followed by Officers Penny and Schilk. There
was radio traffic that a CIT officer was on his way. After a few minutes, Officer Johnny Schafer,
who was a trained CIT officer arrived on the scene. All the officers were aware that Mr. Buckley
was mentally challenged.
3

~:···II~········

;:

:

.... iiJ2S/2i!i84 . ·17: 58

8~3nTf319

",

By the time officeTSarrived, Mr. Buckley had been calmed down by his friends and
neighbors and was on his porch, with his wrists wrapped in towels. There were no weapons in

siabt. Officers Phillips and Tebbetts were standing on or near the porch when Officers Penny
aud Schilk arrived. There are various versions of what happened once the officers arrived. For
examples Officer Tebbitts testified that officers Schilk and Tebbitts walked to back of the house.
'There was some testimony about the officers gathering behind a police car and putting on latex
sJoves and deciding to let Mr. Buckley back in his bouse. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of
consistency among the versions ofwhat happened and it is not possible to determine exactly
what transpired at Mr. Buckley's house.
Similarly, once Mr. Sucldcy got up from his chair and was apparently attempting to reenter hil hOUSe, the versions ofwhat happened vary significantly between the officers and the
civilian witnesses. In fact, iithe officers' versjons are to be believed, it may be that the only
policy they violated was the use of force policy. in that they did not attempt to usc control Mr.
Buckley with their hands before using a baton. They all testified that no one hit Mr. Buckley on
the head and that all force used was necessary to control Mr. Buckley. There was testimony that
Mr. Buck1ey was violent, attacked them and threw a chair at them, that he ran away but fell in the
street due to his pants falling around his ankles. and that the officers only controlled Mr. Buckley
with reasonable force. They also testified that when on thc grOWld, officers did not beat him,
they did not choke him and they got off ofhim once be was under control. Officer Schafer stated
that he used a pepper spray on Mr..'Buckley several times but it did not work to subdue him or
allow the officers to control him. Officer Schilk testified that he used his baton on Mr. Buckley's
shoulders to help control bim.
The officers· version of the eve:nts is in stark contrast to that presented by the civilian
witnesses. For example, Barbara Avery witnessed the police officers arrive and go to the porch.
She reported that the officers congregated around one of the police cars and handed out gloves.
She also stated that when the officers began to approach Mr, Buckley, and he realized that they
Were planning on surrounding him and not letting him go back inside. he got up and went toward
the door. At that time, she said, the officers grabbed him and began bitting him with night sticks.
He got up and ran toward the street where he fell and the officers jumped on top of him, were
hitting him. and Officer Schilk had a stick under his neck and applied pressure upwards, and
another officer used spray on him. She stated. in contradiction to the officers statements, that
Mr. Buckley nevClI' called the officers ''M-Fers,'' never threw a chair at the officers, was only
trying to get away from the officers and never attacked the officers. She also stated that Mr.
Bucldey was kept facc down., under control for several minutes before he quit breathing. never
saw him do a "push-up, .. and stated that the officers did not step away from Buckley until after
he had quit breathing.
Mr. Leroy Hanley observed Mr. Buckley calmly sitting on his porch talking to two
officers and it seemed that he was willing to go to the hospital. When the other officers arrived,
they approached him and when he attempted to go back in his house, one officer grabbed his
shirt, and the others began beating him with their batons. As he ran down his steps, the officers
chased him and one officer bit him in the back ofms head with a baton. which caused him to fall.
Mr. Hanley saw an officer place a baton Wlder Mr. Buckley's chin and pull up while another
spraycci him. Ms. Bertha Miller saw office.rs hit with batons after he was hand cuffed. She saw
4

......•..

111.28/2884

17:56

8El3777131 ':i

\:It:.Ut" I'" l'Ct:. Y ALt"t:.l'C I

an officer put nightstick on his neck and put pressure on it. Ms. Sandra Stone saw officers hit
him in the head with their night sticks and saw one officer put baton across his neck and press
down on it. Mr. Franklin Watson saw officers hit Mr. Buckley on the head with a nightstick and
saw one officei:' place a nightstick on his neck and pushed down with pressure.
In response to the 911 calls, at least two units from the City of Memphis' Fire Division
Emergency Medical Technician Service (EMTs) came to the scene. One unit stopped and three
EMfI from the unit, who were all trained to administer medical CalC, watched the incident
unfold. They do not interfere until requested by the police. Mr. Jason Berry who was a
paramedic saw police beat Mr. Buckley on the porch and on the street. He saw hits to the back
and head with night stick. He saw Mr. Buckley try to resist defensively not aggressively. Mr. Jim
Gaither, who was riding with the EMS stated that the blows with batons did not affect suspect
and he di.d not see hits to head and did not see spray being used. After several minutes of
figbtin& Mr. Buckley became unresponsive and the EMTs examined him.

4. Conclusions:
Depending on which version ofthe "facts" is believed, detennines which policies the
police officers violated. If the civilian witnesses are to be believed, then the officers are in
violation ofa number ofpolicies, proper police procedures and customary police practice. The
ability ofthe Memphis Police Department to identify potentially problem officers under what is
commonly known as an Early Warning System. is unclear at this time. This report might bc
supplemented if sufficient infonnation is learned about this process during discovery. Clearly~
the Memphis Police Department took the civilians' statements seriously and disciplined tbe
officers as follows:
Sustained Violations:
Kurtis Schilk - Personal Conduct, Excessive Force (profanity, derogatory comments) Baton
strikes were not in areas taught for compliance)
Johnny Schafer - Neglect ofDuty - not having CIT equipment
Robert Tebbetts - Excessive Force (Baton strikes were not in areas taught for compliance)
Philip Penny - Excessive Force (Baton strikes were not in areas taught fOT compliance)
An analysis of this event must be taken in stages. First, the officers' approach to the situation
must be considered. Second, how the officers responded to Mr. Buckley on the porch, and third,
the actions that were taken to control Mr. Buckley on the street need to be assessed.
First, the approach by the officers should have considered that a CIT officer. one who is
trained in the handling ofmcntally Challenged suspects was on the way. The officers on the
scene should have attempted to keep Mr. Buckley calm and not stated in a voice loud enough for
him to hear, that he was not being allowed back in his house. Officer Penny, who had experience
with the mentally challenged was doing a good job keeping Mr. Buckley calm until Officer
Phillips walked in front of them and Officer Schilk loudly announced that Mr. Buckley was not
5

... 11~28/2884

17:5B

8637777319

going to be allowed back ill his house.

Second, when Mr. Buckley attempted to go back in his house, the officers should have
followed their own usc of force continuum and national police standards, and used their hands
and wrestled Mr. Buckley away from the door before resorting to the higher level of force, the
usc ofa baton. Reasonably well-trained officers would have increased the use of force minimally
to control Mr. Buc1c1ey. An objectively reasonable analysis reveals that the officers should have
wrestled with Mr. Buckley before striking him with their intermediate weapons - the batons. In
addition, Officer Schafer was to have as part ofhis equipment an SL-6, which is a defensive
"weapon" designed to control mentally challenged individuals and also used in crowd control.
He testified that he observed officers Schilk., Penny & Tebbetts striking Mr. Buckley with batons
at which time be released the chemical spray. He further testified that the spray worsened the
situation. and Mr. Buckley charged the officers. Perhaps the use of an SL-6 would have brought
the situation under control. In any case, there were five officers on the scene. Normally, that is
sufficient manpower to control a man. even one that. is the size of Mr. Buckley. at approximately
240 pounds. If the usc ofphysical force was not sufficient, then the use ofa chemical spray
would ba justified and finally, the use of an intermediate weapotlt such as a baton could be used.
The omeara testified they never bit Mr. Buckley in the back or head. a fact that is disputed by the
medical evidence and civilian eye witness testimony.
Third, once Mr. Buckley was taken to the ground, either by falling. or as a result of a
baton strike, the officers should have been able to control and handcuff him without the use of a
baton on his shoulders. on his neck or under his neck. The use ofa baton for the pUtpOses of
choking or restraining by placing it on or under the neck of aJ1 individual is not an appropriate
use ofthe weapon. A reasonably prudent officer would not use a baton in such a manner, except
in a deadly force situation. It is objectively unreasonable to use a police tool in such an improper
way that is close to a deadly force application under this set offacts. The presence of five
officers should be sufficient to control and handeuffMr. Buckley. Once Mr. Buckley is under
control, a reasonably well·trained officer would not stay on top ofhim or in any way interfere
with him. They must make sure he is conscious and breathing. This is critically important after
the officers have been in a physical altercation with the prisoner. who, like Mr. Buckley, fits the
profile ofa person who is susceptible to positional or compression asphyxia. An objective
analysis indicated that sitting on top ofa controlled suspect after a fight is unreasonable and
extremely dangerous.
The officers involved in this interaction with Mr. Buckley all claimed to be poorly trained
ill the usc ofa baton, and the train.ing officer. Lt. Rosser, stated that batons ate authorized when
empty hand force is ineffective and that officers are taught to hit three areas on the leg, and that a
baton is not to be used as a restraining device. Interestingly, in his deposition. Lt. Rosser
testified that strikes to any other place may be permissible but not taught. He left open the
possibility that the strike of a baton to other areas ofthe body would be appropriate according to
City ofMemphis Police training. If this is true, and officers are trained to believe that strikes to
other parts of the body, including the groin, are pennissible, then the training is below well
recognized national standards and needs to be overhauled.

6

.~.'!-

.•

Geoffrey P. Alpert
97 Muskrat Run. Inno, South Carolina 29063
Telephone: (803) 732-1336 ~ Fax: (803) 777-7319

April I, 2005
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
Buckley v City of Memphis

Documents Reviewed

Deposition James Bolden
Deposition Charles Cochran
Deposition Albert DeWitt
Deposition Alfred Gray
Deposition Raymond Hopkins
Deposition Douglas Phillips
Deposition Janice Pilot
Deposition Anthony Rosser
Deposition Ray Schwill
Deposition Ann Taylor
Deposition Betty Winter Vol. I and II
Expert Report - Dr. Neuman
Expert Report - Lou Reiter
Conclusions
By 2003, the City of Memphis was clearly aware of the problems with in-custody deaths.
In fact, the City of Memphis has been involved in prior litigation concerning the hog-tie, and has
outlawed its use due to the known risks.
After review of the above-listed documents, there are two conclusions to add to my
Preliminary Report. First, the training materials provided by the City are appropriate and
complete. However, there is compelling evidence provided in the depositions of officers that
they were not provided with this material. In other words, the City has failed to effectively
disseminate the training materials concerning positional or compression asphyxia.
Second, the Early Intervention Program, as described by Dr. Winter, is too limited to
identify problem officers as it relies solely on complaints of excessive force. Early Warning or
Early Identification Systems need to include as criteria, multiple indicators of officer behavior.
Many systems incorporate multiple measures of behavior to determine which officers need a
further review.

Bland v. Memphis
Documents Review
Pleadings:
Complaint
Answers
Rule 26(a) Disclosures
Memphis - Answers to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents
Officers - Answers to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents
Answers to Request for Admission
Bland - Answers to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents
Depositions with All Exhibits:
David Bland
Officer Peacock
Officer Kellum
Officer Lewis
Officer Renfroe
Officer Ngein
Officer Sloan
Officer Stone
Malessa Jones
Sheryl Stanback
Betty Winters (12/5/07; 3/3/08; 8/19/08)
Todd Mullen
Adrienne Dobbins
Michael Rallings
Jeff Tow
Joe Stark
Larry Godwin
Glenn Williams
Brian McNamee
Other Evidence:
Dispatch Tape with partial transcription
Memphis Towers Video
Chart of Police Misconduct Articles
Chart of Godwin Statements to the Press

1--EXHIBIT

ISB Files:
ISB Files Table
ISB # 1075-06
ISB # 1025-03
ISB # 1030-99
ISB # 1036-0 I
ISB # 1036-02
ISB # 1047-01
ISB # 1048-04
ISB # 1052-05
ISB # 1055-98
ISB # 1061-07
ISB # 1067-98
ISB # 1075-06
ISB # 1075-07
ISB # 1077-04
ISB # 1093-03
IS B # 1096-00
ISB # 1098-98
ISB # 1104-99
ISB # II 12-97
ISB # I115-99
ISB # 1129-99
ISB # 1155-02
ISB # 1178-05
ISB # 1186-03
ISB # 1192-97
ISB # 1221-98
ISB # 1223-02
ISB # 1226-97
ISB # 1229-98
ISB # 1245-98
ISB # 1273-02
ISB # S06-057
ISB # S06-057
ISB # M1022-97
ISB # M1029-97
ISB # M1041-02
ISB # M1047-98
AEO File # 015-02
ISB # SOO-01O
ISB # S02-078
ISB # S03-018
ISB # S06-016
ISB # S016-04
ISB # S025-97
ISB # S029-03
ISB # S038-03
ISB # S045-02
ISB # S045-03
ISB # S047-97
ISB # S99-085

Fortner v. Memphis
Documents Review
Pleadings:
Complaint
Answers
Rule 26(a) Disclosures
Memphis - Answers to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents
Officers - Answers to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents
Answers to Request for Admission
Fortner - Answers to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents
Depositions with All Exhibits:
Timothy Goodwin
Chris Moffat
Walker Kay
Joshua Leslie
Malessa Jones
Sheryl Stanback
Betty Winters (12/5/07; 3/3/08; 8/19/08)
Todd Mullen
Adrienne Dobbins
Michael Rallings
Jeff Tow
Joe Stark
Larry Godwin
Glenn Williams
Brian McNamee
Other Evidence:
Chart of Police Misconduct Articles
Chart of Godwin Statements to the Press
Selected Medical Records from EMS, Delta Medical Center and LeBonhuer Hospital
Autopsy Report
Statement of Jerome Fortner
Statement of Erica Sheffa
Disciplinary Charts of Supervisors and Officers on the Scene
Affidavit of Kris Sperry
Material Listed in Expert Report - Bland v. Memphis
ISB Files:
ISB Files Table
ISB # 1075-06
ISB # 1025-03
ISB # 1030-99
ISB # 1036-01
ISB # 1036-02
ISB # 1047-01
ISB # 1048-04

ISH # 1052-05
ISH # 1055-98
ISH # 1061-07
ISH # 1067-98
ISH # 1075-06
ISH # 1075-07
ISH # 1077-04
ISH # 1093-03
ISH # 1096-00
ISH # 1098-98
ISH # 1104-99
ISH # I112-97
ISH # I115-99
ISH # I129-99
ISH # I155-02
ISH # I1 78-05
ISH # 1186-03
ISH # I192-97
ISH # 1221-98
ISH # 1223-02
ISH # 1226-97
ISH # 1229-98
ISH # 1245-98
ISH # 1273-02
ISH # S06-057
ISH # S06-057
ISH # M1022-97
ISH # M1029-97
ISH # M1041-02
ISH # MI047-98
ABO File # 015-02
ISH # SOO-O10
ISH # S02-078
ISH # S03-018
ISH # S06-016
ISH # SO 16-04
ISH # S025-97
ISH # S029-03
ISH # S038-03
ISH # S045-02
ISH # S045-03
ISH # S047-97
ISH # S99-085