U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division

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

March 2, 2006
Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail
Honorable Michael O'Brien, Mayor
Honorable William Franklin, Director of Service-Safety
Honorable Gregory V. Hicks, Law Director
City of Warren, Ohio
City Hall
391 Mahoning Ave., N.W.
Warren, OH 44483-4634
John Mandopoulos
Chief of Police
Warren Police Department
141 South Street, S.E.
Warren, OH 44483-5747
Re:

Warren Police Department

Dear Gentlemen:
As you know, in December 2004, the Civil Rights Division
initiated an investigation of the City of Warren, Ohio Police
Department (“WPD”), pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”). We
would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation
for the cooperation we have received thus far from the City of
Warren and the WPD.
To date we have reviewed relevant WPD policies and
procedures, and conducted interviews with City of Warren
officials, WPD command staff, a cross-section of WPD line
officers and supervisors, representatives of the Ohio Patrolmen’s
Benevolent Association (“OPBA”) and the Fraternal Order of
Police/Ohio Labor Council, Inc., community leaders, and other
citizens.
At the beginning of our investigation, we committed to
providing the WPD with technical assistance to improve WPD
practices and procedures and ensure compliance with
constitutional rights. During our meetings with you and the WPD

command staff in April and August 2005, we told you that we would
provide in writing more specifics about recommendations our
police practices experts had made orally. In this letter, we
convey our recommendations regarding the WPD’s written policies.
Important aspects of our fact-gathering process have yet to be
completed. Therefore, this letter is not meant to be exhaustive,
but rather focuses on significant recommendations we can provide
at this preliminary stage of our investigation.
Additionally, we hope this letter will assist in our mutual
goal of ensuring that the WPD provides the best possible police
service to the people of the City of Warren. We look forward to
continued cooperation toward this goal. We would be happy to
provide examples of policies used by other police departments
that might address some of the issues we raise below.
I.	

WPD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
A.	

The WPD Should Revise and Update Its Policies and
Procedures to Be Consistent and Comprehensive.

Policies and procedures are the primary means by which
police departments communicate their standards and expectations
to their officers. Accordingly, it is essential that the WPD’s
policies be comprehensive, comprehensible, up-to-date, and
consistent with contemporary police practices.
The WPD adopted its policy and procedure manual in 1979.
While the WPD has added some policies over time, the manual has
not been comprehensively updated since early 2002. As discussed
in further detail below, a number of the WPD’s policies and
procedures are inconsistent with accepted police practices and
insufficiently detailed to provide the appropriate guidance for
officer conduct.
In general, we recommend that the WPD review all of its
policies and procedures and, where necessary, revise them to
reflect current accepted police practices and to provide
sufficient detail to appropriately guide officer conduct.
Although we do not provide line-by-line edits and recommendations
for all of the WPD’s policies and procedures, we have endeavored
to provide the WPD with general recommendations regarding
accepted police practices for significant WPD policies and
procedures. Although not exhaustive, the examples and references
to WPD policies and procedures illuminate suggested areas for
revision.
We also recommend that the WPD distribute updated and
complete policies and procedures to all officers and that all
officers provide a written acknowledgment of their receipt,
review and understanding of the policies and procedures. We
suggest that the WPD designate an individual to be responsible
2


for reviewing the manuals and any revisions or new policies to
ensure consistency. This individual would also be responsible
for ensuring that all officers receive copies of the manuals and
revisions thereto, and for maintaining copies of officers’ signed
acknowledgments.
B.	

The WPD Must Ensure Compliance with Its Policies and
Procedures.

Our investigation has thus far revealed that many officers
are not following WPD policies and procedures. The WPD must
ensure that officers are complying with all policies and
procedures as written.
II.	 USE-OF-FORCE POLICIES.
In the course of their duties, police officers are sometimes
required to use deadly and non-deadly force. Because the use of
force can place officers, civilians, and subjects at serious risk
of harm, it is incumbent upon law enforcement agencies to ensure
that officers use force appropriately. Use-of-force policies and
procedures must clearly set forth the legal standards for the
appropriate use of force. We recommend that the WPD revise its
use-of-force policies to provide a comprehensive policy that
contains the following elements: appropriate definitions, a
use-of-force continuum with intermediate weapons, guidance on the
appropriate level of force allowed in specific circumstances,
detailed use-of-force reports, and review of deadly force
incidents by a Deadly Force Review Board.
A. 	 Legal Standards Governing the Use of Force.
Uses of excessive force by police officers are violations of
the Fourth Amendment and are analyzed under the Fourth
Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard. Graham v. Connor,
490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989). The analysis requires a balancing of
the quality of intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment
interests against the governmental interests. Id. at 396. The
criteria courts apply to assess an excessive force claim include
the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect presents
an immediate safety threat to the officers or others, and whether
the suspect is actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest.
Id.; St. John v. Hickey, 411 F.3d 762, 771 (6th Cir. 2005). Lack
of specific policy guidance on the appropriate use of force may
lead officers to believe that they are justified in using force
in situations in which it would be unreasonable or unnecessary.
Conversely, overly specific policies may result in officers
refraining from using necessary and appropriate force out of an
unwarranted fear of using excessive force.
The Supreme Court has determined that deadly force is
permissible only when a suspect poses an immediate threat of
3


serious physical harm to the officer or another person.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1985). The only
exception to this general rule is the “fleeing felon” rule, which
allows police officers to use deadly force to prevent the escape
of a suspect in cases where there is probable cause to believe
the suspect either poses an immediate threat of serious harm to
the officer or another or has committed a crime involving the
infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.
Id.; Sample v. Bailey, 409 F.3d 689, 696-697 (6th Cir. 2005).
Yet even in those circumstances, police are required to provide a
warning, if feasible, before using deadly force. Garner, 471
U.S. at 11. Deadly force is permissible only for as long as the
threat remains. When the threat is over, the use of deadly force
must stop. Based on responses to interviews we conducted, and
reviews of policies and incident reports, it appears that the
WPD’s use-of-force policies and practices do not consistently
conform to these legal standards. Accordingly, as discussed in
further detail below, we recommend that the WPD’s use-of-force
policies and practices be revised to incorporate these legal
standards.
B.

Use-of-Force Definitions.

While generally good, the WPD’s use-of-force policy, Policy
96-007, (“use-of-force policy” or “Policy 96-007”) does not
define “fleeing felon.” The lack of a clear definition of this
key term could lead officers to fail to understand properly the
bounds and limits of the use of force. Additionally, because
officers should be reminded that their use of batons and other
intermediate weapons can kill, the WPD should change the term
“non-lethal force” to “less-lethal force” when referring to such
weapons.
We also recommend that the WPD’s use-of-force policy
identify any uses of physical force that are specifically
prohibited or restricted to limited circumstances. For example,
a carotid, or choke hold is typically considered a use of deadly
force. Thus, the WPD’s use-of-force policy should explain that
officers should use the carotid hold only in circumstances in
which deadly force would be authorized.
C.

Intermediate Weapons.

A comprehensive use-of-force continuum that includes
intermediate weapons is central to effective and efficient
policing. The continuum provides a useful tool in training
officers to consider lower levels of force when appropriate,
which protects the safety of both the officer and the civilian.
The WPD’s use-of-force policy sets forth a use-of-force
continuum with four progressing levels: verbal force, physical
force, intermediate force, and deadly force. The policy defines
4


intermediate force as the use of non-lethal weapons. Section
VI.A. authorizes the use of the straight baton, flashlight,
stun-gun, pepper spray, and Taser as intermediate non-lethal
weapons. Importantly, while this section simply authorizes their
use, it does not mandate that officers carry any non-lethal
intermediate weapon. We found no other policy or order mandating
intermediate weapons, and several officers confirmed that they
were not required to carry these weapons. Thus, pursuant to WPD
policy, officers have no intermediate weapon. They have only
their handcuffs and their revolver (or service weapon).
Officers without intermediate weapons cannot apply
intermediate force. Because officers may unnecessarily resort to
their firearms if intermediate force options are not available,
we recommend that the WPD require all officers to carry a
standard impact weapon (e.g., straight baton) and a chemical
agent, and, as detailed in the training section below, the WPD
should train all officers on any weapon they carry.
As stated above, Section VI.A. authorizes officers to carry
and use a straight baton. This section, however, should define
“straight baton,” and specifically list and define all other
authorized impact weapons. Moreover, this section should also
spell out which weapons are prohibited (e.g., weighted gloves).
The WPD does not have a separate policy addressing the use
of chemical agents. We recommend that the WPD create a separate
policy that gives specific guidance and restrictions on the use
of this intermediate weapon, which includes where this particular
weapon falls within the use-of-force continuum, limits upon the
acceptable use of the weapon, reporting procedures, and
decontamination procedures.
D.

Specific Uses of Force.
1.

Firearms.

Unnecessarily or prematurely drawing and displaying a
firearm limits an officer's alternatives in controlling a
situation, creates unnecessary anxiety on the part of citizens,
and may result in an unwarranted or unintentional discharge of
the firearm. We recommend that the WPD add a section to Policy
96-007 identifying when an officer may display his or her
firearm. The use-of-force policy should stress that officers
should not draw or display a firearm unless the circumstances
surrounding the incident create a reasonable belief that it may
be necessary to use the firearm. Reasonable belief should be
defined as an objective belief determined by the facts and
circumstances reasonably available to the officer at the time and
viewed from the perspective of an ordinary reasonable peace
officer in the same situation.

5


2.

Canines.

The WPD should discourage the use of canines for crowd
control. Currently, Policy 96-004, Section II.B. lists “Assist
with crowd control” as a canine duty and Section II.G.1. lists
crowd control as reason to call in an off-duty canine team. We
recommend that the WPD delete these references, and insert
language that the use of canines for crowd control is generally
discouraged.
3.

Arrests.

Policy 04-001 sets forth the WPD policy for arrests.
Section B.3. focuses on handcuffing. It states, “In addition to
handcuffs, other restraints may be safely applied to the arrestee
who is violent to prevent injury to the officer . . . .” We
recommend that this policy specifically identify the “other
restraints” that are permissible. Additionally, the policy
should detail the dangers of positional asphyxia, and methods and
procedures to avoid it. As with all arrest procedures, officers
must be trained on any permissible “other restraints.”
E.

Use-of-Force Reporting.

The WPD’s current use-of-force policy mandates that officers
complete a use-of-force report form (“Use-of-Force Form”) anytime
their actions allegedly result in injury or death, anytime they
utilize a non-lethal weapon, and anytime they discharge their
firearm. Additionally, the policy requires a detailed
description of any use of physical force in the arrest report.
The WPD should define the elements of the “detailed description”
it requires in all arrest reports. We recommend that the WPD
require both this detailed description, and a use-of-force
report, for all uses of force beyond unresisted handcuffing. In
addition, the policy should clarify which individuals are
required to complete a detailed description or Use-of-Force Form.
Currently the policy only appears to require the officer
administering the force to report its use. The WPD should revise
its policy to require that the arresting officer and all officers
who took part or witnessed the use of force must prepare a
Use-of-Force Form detailing the event.
The information regarding each use of force should be
tracked in an Early Warning System, as discussed below. The WPD
should train all officers in use-of-force reporting and in the
Use-of-Force Form.
F.

Deadly Force Review Board.

The WPD should consider forming a deadly force review board.
This board would not be a board of public inquiry; but rather,
the board would report directly to and advise the chief. Its
6


purpose would be to evaluate whether uses of deadly force were
within policy, and prevent future situations calling for deadly
force. This review board would not take the place of internal
affairs or any criminal investigation, but would proactively
identify training needs within the use-of-force policy. We
recommend that a captain, an operations lieutenant, the training
manager, and two operations sergeants comprise the review board.
III.

BODY-CAVITY SEARCHES AND STRIP SEARCHES.
The WPD should retrain all its officers on its body-cavity
and strip search policy.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the “right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures . . . .” U.S. Const. amend.
IV. “Its ‘central requirement’ is one of reasonableness.”
Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 330 (2001).
The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures not only prevents searches and seizures
that would be unreasonable if conducted at all, but also requires
that courts must consider the scope of the particular intrusion,
the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for
initiating it, and the place in which it is conducted. Masters
v. Crouch, 872 F.2d 1248, 1253 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Graham
v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989) (stating “the
‘reasonableness’ of a particular seizure depends not only on when
it is made, but also on how it is carried out”).
Strip and body-cavity searches of arrestees by police
officers are permitted only in very limited circumstances.
law on strip searches of arrestees for minor, non-violent
offenses in the Sixth Circuit is clear:

The

a strip search of a person arrested for a traffic
violation or other minor offense not normally
associated with violence and concerning whom there is
no individualized reasonable suspicion that the
arrestee is carrying or concealing a weapon or other
contraband, is unreasonable.
Masters, 872 F.2d at 1255. In Masters, the court distinguished
cases upholding strip searches of arrestees for violent crimes,
and rejected the county employees’ and officials’ argument that
the strip search policy at issue was designed to prevent
arrestees from distributing contraband to other detainees. Id.
(citing Dufrin v. Spreen, 712 F.2d 1084 (6th Cir. 1983)).
In 2003, the WPD issued its body-cavity and strip search
policy, Policy 03-001. We found the policy to be comprehensive
and generally consistent with the above law; however, our
7


interviews revealed that officers were unclear on the policy’s
standards and requirements. We recommend the law department
re-brief and re-train all officers, including all command
officers, on its body-cavity and strip-search policy.
IV.

THE TRUMBULL METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY.
The Trumbull Metropolitan Housing Authority Unit needs
supervision and structure.

The WPD has established a unit of WPD officers to patrol
housing complexes managed by the Trumbull Metropolitan Housing
Authority (“TMHA”).1 The TMHA Unit is comprised of on-duty
officers who patrol all housing authority properties for drug and
violent crimes.
Our investigation revealed that no clear chain of command
exists for this Unit. Presently, the WPD’s description of its
TMHA Unit lists two patrol officers working flexible hours with
only a WPD captain as their supervisor. This description lists
no intervening lieutenant or sergeant as a first line supervisor,
and TMHA Unit officers we spoke with appeared unclear as to the
chain of command. Moreover, some TMHA Unit officers reported
that they took direction from a TMHA civilian employee -- e.g.,
TMHA’s director of security -- while working for the WPD in the
TMHA Unit. Accordingly, it appeared that sometimes the WPD
abrogated supervision of the TMHA Unit officers to the TMHA.
The TMHA Unit needs direct field supervision by the WPD. We
recommend that the WPD assign a sergeant as a direct field
supervisor responsible for the TMHA Unit. This field sergeant
should report directly to the second shift lieutenant, who should
manage the TMHA Unit. We note that the shift commander is
unavailable to act as the field supervisor because the TMHA
officers work flexible hours that stretch over several shifts.
Additionally, the TMHA Unit does not have a clear objective
beyond patrolling the housing authority properties and TMHA Unit
officers acknowledged that no operations manual existed. We
recommend that the WPD write a comprehensive operations manual
outlining the duties and procedures of the TMHA Unit, and ensure
that TMHA Unit officers are appropriately trained on this manual.

1


The TMHA is a political subdivision of the State of
Ohio, and is the public housing agency with jurisdiction over all
of Trumbull County, Ohio, except the Township of Mesopotamia.
See TMHA 2004 Annual Report, p. 8, available at http://www.
trumbulltmha.org/about/tmha_ar.pdf (last viewed February 7,
2006). The City of Warren is located in Trumbull County.
8


V.

Complaint Investigations.

An open, fair, and impartial process for receiving and
investigating citizen complaints serves several important
purposes. An appropriate citizen complaint procedure ensures
officer accountability and supervision, deters misconduct, and
helps maintain good community relations, increasing public
confidence in, and respect for the WPD. Improving the current
procedure for handling citizen complaints would maximize these
goals.
The WPD’s current policies and procedures regarding citizen
complaint process are located in the WPD Manual in Policy 02-006.
Based on review and inspection of the WPD Manual provided to us,
no separate policy concerning the conduct of internal affairs
investigations exists; rather, we understand that the WPD
conducts internal affairs investigations under the citizen
complaint policy set forth in Policy 02-006, alone. Accordingly,
we address herein the citizen complaint process as outlined in
the WPD Manual and appendices thereto. We then turn to the
conduct of internal affairs investigations, where we draw from
the applicable portions of the citizen complaint policy and then
add further information for areas of concern for which the WPD
does not currently have a policy.
A.

Complaint Intake and Forms.

The WPD should develop and implement a centralized, formal,
structured, and consistent system for receiving complaints,
without discouraging the filing of complaints.
Currently, the WPD has both formal and informal processes
for investigating and resolving citizen complaints. The WPD
utilizes two separate forms for the intake of complaints:
(1) the City of Warren Police Department Citizen Complaint Form
(“Complaint Form”), which is used both externally and internally
for all formal investigations; and (2) the Minor Incident
Resolution Form, which is for informal complaints resolved
without a full investigation. As discussed below, we recommend
that the WPD use only the Complaint Form for all citizen
complaints and eliminate its use of the Minor Incident Resolution
Form. Moreover, the WPD should improve the Complaint Form and
intake process in several ways.
1.

Complaint Intake.

A complaint process should allow unfettered public access to
make complaints. WPD policy should require that a Complaint Form
be readily accessible and available to any person who wishes to
lodge a complaint. Accordingly, we recommend the following
changes in policy and practices.

9


The availability of Complaint Forms and the process for the
handling of complaints should be prominently posted at the WPD
headquarters and other public facilities. The WPD should provide
Complaint Forms in publicly accessible locations that should
permit the forms to be obtained without a specific request by a
citizen, e.g., blank forms placed in a publicly accessible area
for the taking.
The citizen complaint process set forth in Policy 02-006 is
inconsistent in many areas with the actual complaint intake
practices reported to us by WPD personnel, City personnel, and
citizens. Moreover, the WPD Manual does not provide sufficient
guidance to WPD officers regarding the complaint intake process.
For example, Policy 02-006 provides that the Chief designate
“Command Officers” to receive complaints from citizens. Policy
02-006 defines a Command Officer as a “police officer of the rank
of Lieutenant or above, or a Sergeant who is acting (being paid)
as a Lieutenant.” Yet, the WPD informed us that it has placed
only a single Lieutenant in command of internal affairs
investigations. To be sure, the WPD command staff has informed
us that if the appointed Lieutenant is unavailable, complaints
can be accepted by a second Lieutenant who formerly headed
internal affairs investigations, and the Chief and his secretary
may also accept Complaint Forms. Even so, some citizens have
informed us that they have not been permitted to submit a
Complaint Form to anyone other than the appointed Lieutenant.
Additionally, we have been informed that the WPD accepts
complaints only during limited working hours. Accordingly, the
practice of the WPD has apparently been inconsistent and, at a
minimum, in conflict with the WPD’s current policy by not
allowing the submission of Complaint Forms to any WPD officer
meeting the Command Officer definition. Moreover, this practice
limits the citizens’ access to the citizen complaint system, and
is inconsistent with policy, thereby deterring genuine complaints
of misconduct and undercutting the legitimacy of the resolution
process.
We recommend that the WPD revise its policy to allow any
member of the WPD to accept complaints, and to provide that
citizens may submit complaints to any WPD officer, designated
City offices, or drop boxes located in the police station and
other public buildings. We also recommend the WPD change its
policy to allow citizens to submit complaints at any time. We
recommend revision to the WPD’s policy to provide a consistent
and comprehensive outline of the procedures that all WPD officers
should follow to accept a complaint that, if true, would
constitute a violation of the WPD’s rules and regulations. This
policy should include instructions to any officer that upon
accepting a form, he or she should deliver that form to a
supervisor promptly, or as soon as one becomes available. We
further recommend that the WPD conform its practices with respect

10


to accepting complaints so that its practices will meet each of
these new, suggested policies.
Whoever accepts a Complaint Form should properly identify
him/herself on the Complaint Form as its recipient. The
Complaint Form currently provides room for the signature of the
employee who receives the complainant. As discussed above, the
WPD’s practice has reportedly been to limit who may actually
accept Complaint Forms. In order to assure that the person who
collects a Complaint Form can be properly identified, the person
receiving the form should identify him/herself by printing his or
her name and/or badge number, along with the date and time of
receipt, on the form. Accordingly, the WPD should revise the
Complaint Form to accommodate such information.
2.	

The WPD Should Not Discourage the Filing of
Complaints.

An open complaint process contemplates that complaints will
not be actively discouraged. The WPD Complaint Form currently
notifies citizens that they can be subject to civil or criminal
action by the WPD and by the employee who is the subject of the
complaint pursuant to Ohio Revised Code (“O.R.C.”) § 2921.15, for
intentionally filing untrue statements. We recommend that the
WPD remove this language as it may inappropriately discourage the
filing of complaints. We recommend that the WPD should not give
any direction -- either as part of the Complaint Form or in
separate written material or oral instructions -- to complainants
that may discourage potential complainants from filing legitimate
complaints.
As a preliminary matter, we note that the WPD has previously
agreed to remove the language referencing the Ohio Revised Code
from the Complaint Form in 2002. On March 26, 2002, the WPD
Chief signed a Letter of Understanding between the City of
Warren, the Warren Minority Coalition, and the NAACP.2 In that
document, representatives of the Warren Minority Coalition and
the NAACP informed the WPD that they perceive the
above-referenced portion of the Complaint Form to be an
“intimidation tactic.” The WPD agreed to amend the Complaint
Form to remove reference to O.R.C. § 2921.15 and provide the
information as a separate item. As of the time our review, these
changes had not been made.
It is appropriate for a complainant to acknowledge that he
or she attests to the facts of a complaint by signing the
complaint. However, a prominent threat of reprisal, particularly
2


The Department of Justice, Community Relations Service
facilitated and witnessed this Letter of Understanding, but is
not a party to the document.
11

by the officer who is the subject of the complaint, deters
individuals from filing complaints and undermines the legitimacy
of the complaint system. We recommend that the WPD redesign the
Complaint Form to contain an attestation that the complaint is
made to the best of complainant’s knowledge and made in good
faith. Such an attestation would convey to the complainant the
gravity of filing a complaint.
In addition to removing the language in the current
Complaint Form, we recommend that the WPD revise its policy
regarding Complaints which may also discourage complainants from
filing legitimate complaints. In pertinent part, Policy 02-006
currently provides:
1. 	 Command Officers are to make every reasonable
effort to resolve complaints with the concurrence
of the citizen, at the lowest possible level
without submission of a formal complaint.
2. 	 If a citizen concurs with the Command Officers
effort to resolve the matter informally, the
Command Officer must submit a Minor Incident
Resolution form (Appendix 2) through the Chain of
Command to the Office of the Chief of Police
describing the complaint and the manner in which
it was resolved.
3.	

If the citizen does not concur with the effort of
the Command Officer to resolve the matter
informally, or does not concur with the action(s)
taken by the Command Officer, a formal Citizen
Complaint will be initiated in accordance with
this Directive.

The above language permits a Command Officer to attempt to
resolve citizen complaints “informally.” Though this language
appears benign on it face, we understand that WPD officers have
discouraged a number of citizens from filing complaints through
this informal process.
Similarly, the WPD uses a separate Minor Incident Resolution
Form in lieu of the Complaint Form in some instances, such as
complaints that are resolved “informally,” or complaints of
purportedly insignificant policy violations. We recommend that
the WPD discontinue the use of this alternative form. According
to our consultants, all incidents that warrant the initiation of
an investigation should be reported and recorded on the same form
and treated uniformly in their intake and tracking. Moreover,
the use of this form to informally resolve allegations of officer
misconduct allows for the possibility of inappropriate handling
and resolution of allegations of constitutional violations.
Additionally, this informal mechanism deprives the WPD of useful
12


and critical information regarding officer conduct, which could
potentially expose the WPD to liability. Accordingly, we
recommend that the WPD eliminate the Minor Incident Resolution
Form and, instead, employ the Complaint Form for the intake of
all incidents involving WPD employees.
Our experts also agree that the WPD should accept all
complaints of actions that, if true, would constitute a violation
of the applicable laws, or WPD’s rules and regulations. Once
accepted through standardized intake and tracking systems, the
Chief of Police may then assign matters of less significant
alleged infractions, e.g., discourtesy without further violation,
to an informal resolution through shift commanders as discussed
later herein. Under no circumstances should a policy of informal
complaint resolution be used as a subterfuge to bar citizens from
submitting complaints. We recommend that the WPD update its
policy to explicitly state that a member of the public has the
right to file a complaint, and that no WPD officer should
discourage the submission of any complaint.
3.

Anonymous and Third-Party Complaints.

The WPD should investigate all complaints, including those
received from anonymous sources. The WPD has advised us that, in
practice, anonymous complaints are not accepted. We strongly
recommend that WPD policy be revised to require the acceptance
and investigation of all complaints that allege conduct
constituting a violation of policy, including anonymous
complaints and those submitted in forms other than the standard
Complaint Form -- e.g., by telephone, e-mail, TDD, or other
means. Policy 02-006 currently states: “Anonymous or third party
complaints or allegations of misconduct will be handled as a
Departmental Inquiry.” Policy 02-006 defines a Departmental
Inquiry as “[a]n investigation initiated by the department into a
specific incident or allegation of a rules violation.” The
policy offers no further explanation of the process for handling
anonymous or third-party complaints. The WPD should consider the
complainant’s failure to execute the form only in weighing that
fact among all evidence in the investigation.
The WPD should also accept third-party complaints. The
Complaint Form currently requires an attestation that the
information the complainant submits is based only on his/her own
experiences or observations. Similarly, Policy 02-006 requires
that:
Formal Citizen Complaints will only be accepted from
parties who have first-hand knowledge. This means that
the person was either involved in the incident or was
an eyewitness to the incident.
The policy makes no exception for a witness or a representative
13


of an aggrieved person, e.g., a parent, minister, or attorney, to
file a complaint on behalf of another person. The WPD should
investigate third-party complaints, but, like anonymous
complaints, also be able to consider the complainant’s lack of
first-hand knowledge in weighing the allegation among all other
evidence in the investigation. Accordingly, we also strongly
recommend that the WPD modify its policy and practices to accept
and investigate third-party complaints.
4.

Incomplete Complaint Forms.

The WPD should investigate complaints that fail to meet all
the formalities of its Complaint Form. Policy 02-006 states:
If a complainant is unable to process a formal
complaint on a Citizen Complaint Form, the Command
Officer will record the information on a Citizen
Complaint Form as accurately as possible. The Command
Officer will also note the reason(s) why the
complainant was unable to complete the form and will
then process the complaint in accordance with the
procedures established within this Directive.
By the use of “process the complaint,” the WPD policy appears to
indicate that the WPD will investigate even incomplete Complaint
Forms. However, our interviews of WPD personnel and others
revealed that the WPD does not investigate unsigned or incomplete
complaints. For example, our review revealed a complaint filed
in March 2004 by a mother on behalf of her son alleging that the
son was assaulted by officers while restrained in handcuffs. The
complaint was not “process[ed].” Rather, the WPD’s internal
affairs officer disregarded the content of the complaint because
the form was incomplete and unsigned. Accordingly, we recommend
that the WPD change its procedures to require the investigation
of complaints to the fullest extent possible and appropriate,
even if submitted through incomplete Complaint Forms.
5.

Identification of WPD Employees by Complainants.

A complainant should be encouraged to identify the WPD
employee and the complainant’s case or ticket number that relate
to the incident described in the complaint.
The WPD has advised us that the WPD keeps a “yearbook,”
i.e., a notebook containing the photos and names of all WPD sworn
officers. We understand that the WPD recently updated this
yearbook in response to a technical assistance recommendation
from our consultants, but the only copy of this yearbook is kept
in the Chief’s office which may limit its availability to
complainants. We recommend that the WPD keep the yearbook up to
date and make copies of the yearbook accessible to complainants
at all times at the WPD headquarters and during all working hours
14


at City Hall or other appointed city office where Complaint Forms
may be submitted.
We also recommend that the WPD update the Complaint Form to
provide a space for a complainant to submit the case number or
ticket number of the police action from which the complaint
arises. Obtaining this information from complainants should
facilitate an accurate and more efficient resolution to
complaints.
6.

Confidentiality of Complaint Form.

Most police departments prohibit the unnecessary disclosure
of information contained in complaints. The current Complaint
Form contains an option for the complainant to request that the
information be kept confidential and not released to the public.
While possibly reassuring to the complainant, this portion of the
Complaint Form may also be misleading. Confidentiality cannot be
assured given that the Complaint Form itself may serve as
evidence in administrative, civil, or criminal proceedings.
We recommend that the WPD omit from the Complaint Form the
sentence regarding confidentiality. Accordingly, we recommend
that the WPD revise its Complaint Policy to require that WPD
personnel keep confidential the contents of citizen complaints
except for such disclosures that are required for the
investigation of the complaints, or prosecution or defense of
related administrative, civil, or criminal proceeding.
C.

Assignment of Citizen Complaints.

The WPD should develop objective criteria for the assignment
of complaints for the appropriate level of review, including
a policy and protocol that requires allegations of
potentially criminal conduct be timely and appropriately
referred for investigation and appropriate action.
1.

Objective Criteria for Assignment.

Policy 02-006 states:
The Chief of Police or his designee will determine if a
formal Citizen Complaint is to be investigated by the
Office of Internal Affairs, Division, or at the Turn
Level.
The policy presents no objective criteria for the assignment of
citizen complaints to any office other than the WPD Internal
Affairs Division. We received reports from WPD staff and
officers that the handling of complaints within the WPD is biased
by personal relationships between the subject of the complaints
and some of the WPD management members. Several of these
15


individuals allege that favored WPD employees are permitted
informal resolution of complaints, while disfavored WPD employees
are subject to formal investigations of complaints and greater
discipline.
We recommend that, in instances where internal review or
complaints reveal misconduct that qualifies as serious under the
WPD’s policies, the Chief should make the ultimate determination
as to whether and how an allegation is referred for investigation
within the WPD. The Chief’s determination should be memorialized
in writing. Further, when an allegation of misconduct qualifies
as minor, the Chief may choose to assign both the investigation
and disposition of the matter to the shift level commander. In
making all such determinations, the Chief should apply consistent
and objective criteria. For example, all allegations of
discourtesy on the first occasion of such an allegation may
qualify as minor. Any allegation of excessive force or other
constitutional violation should not be considered minor, and
should be subject to full investigation through the internal
affairs division. Whichever objective criteria the Chief applies
-– e.g., number of incidents involving the same officer, type of
incident, repeat complaints from the same complainant about the
same officer, allegations of criminal conduct -- should be set
out in writing in the WPD Manual. By applying these objective
criteria to the assignment of complaints, the WPD should thereby
implement a consistency in the assignment for investigation of
complaints that will support a greater perception of legitimacy
in the complaint process by both WPD personnel and citizens.
2.

Potentially Criminal Investigations.

Some allegations of misconduct, including those that are the
subject of complaints from a member of the public, may be so
serious as to warrant a referral to local or federal prosecutors,
or other appropriate entity. The WPD policies and procedures
make no reference to this possibility. In revising its policy
regarding complaints, the WPD should provide guidance as to which
complaints are appropriate for internal review and which
complaints should be referred outside the WPD for potential
criminal investigation.
The determination of whether the allegations of a complaint
would potentially require a criminal investigation also should be
made as early as possible. We are aware of an instance in which
the City of Warren hired an attorney to be a special prosecutor
to investigate specific alleged instances of strip and
body-cavity searches by WPD personnel. The attorney’s review
indicated that the WPD officers had acted in contravention of
Ohio law, but he could not pursue criminal prosecution because
“2933.32 [regarding the conduct of body-cavity and strip
searches] is a misdemeanor and, unfortunately, the applicable

16


two-year statute of limitations had run by the time the cases
were referred to me.” (Emphasis added.)
Whether or not a conviction or acquittal would have
ultimately resulted in the particular matters, the failure to
refer those matters in a timely fashion illustrates the need for
a uniform policy on the referral of potentially criminal matters.
Accordingly, we recommend that the WPD adopt and adhere to a
policy requiring that the Chief, in consultation with the Law
Director, timely refer allegations of potentially criminal
conduct to appropriate local or federal prosecutors.
The policy and procedure that the WPD implements should also
clarify the rights of officers involved. During investigations
of potentially criminal misconduct: officers may be read rights
pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), before
questioning; may be entitled to have counsel present; and may be
required to be polygraphed. Moreover, each WPD officer is
entitled to protection pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey, 385
U.S. 493 (1967), against the use in subsequent criminal
proceedings of statements compelled from him or her in
administrative proceedings under threat of disciplinary action.
This policy should be consistent and coordinated with the policy
regarding the investigation and evaluation of complaints. This
coordination will prevent a situation in which the investigative
protocol used to investigate a complaint turns out to be
incompatible with the requirements for the investigation of
serious misconduct, thus compromising the integrity of each. For
example, if a complaint alleges that serious misconduct might
have occurred, WPD policy should require that such a complaint be
investigated under the heightened standards, rather than the
standards applicable to complaints that do not involve
allegations of potentially serious misconduct.
D.

Investigations.

The WPD should have a consistent policy regarding the
appropriate investigation of complaints by trained and
objective internal affairs investigators.
Under the current system of complaint investigation and
resolution, if the WPD accepts a Complaint Form, the WPD’s
internal affairs officer will provide a written notice to some or
all of the officers involved that they must submit a written
statement regarding the incident. In practice, it appears that
in some, but not all, instances the internal affairs officer will
also solicit statements from civilian witnesses or written
statements from other law enforcement officers or corrections
officers -- i.e., involved police officers from neighboring
jurisdictions or county jailers. WPD policy does not, however,
require that basic investigative techniques, including
questioning WPD personnel through personal interviews or
17


gathering extrinsic evidence -- e.g., third-party witness
accounts, or photographs of alleged injuries.
We were also informed that it is the practice of the WPD to
focus only on the specific policy violation of the allegations in
the complaint that initiated an investigation, even if further
policy violations come to light -- or would come to light in the
exercise of reasonable due diligence -- in the course of the
investigation. We further noted that the WPD officer charged
with command of internal affairs is also in command of the WPD’s
narcotics division; this is of concern because of the potential
appearance of conflicts of interest between these two commands.
Additionally, we understand that the Chief may or may not become
aware of the existence of a complaint, and often there is no
written record that the Chief has reviewed the outcome of an
investigation or rendered a disposition as to the matter. These
policies and practices are inconsistent with the internal affairs
investigations of most police departments.
The policy and practice of internal affairs investigations
at the WPD, therefore, could be substantially improved by
implementing the following recommendations.
1.

Consistent, Objective Process.

We recommend that the WPD adopt a policy concerning the
investigation of complaints received from either members of the
public or internal complaints. The policy should provide that
the Chief be notified of complaints as soon as possible. For
complaints alleging the excessive use of force or violation of a
person’s constitutional rights, the Chief should be notified no
less than twenty-four hours after receipt of a complaint.
The policy should delineate and specify responsibility for
the citizen complaint investigation process. A designated
supervisory officer(s) should be responsible for the
investigation and recommended resolution of complaints. We
recommend that the WPD appoint a qualified WPD officer whose
position does not give rise to a potential appearance of a
conflict of interest to command its internal affairs
investigations. We further recommend that the WPD invest in
outside training programs for this internal affairs commander,
who could then, in turn, train all the WPD command officers
regarding the proper handling of internal affairs investigations.
We recommend that all WPD officers charged with handling
complaints, whether conducting intake or investigating
complaints, receive specialized training before beginning intake
or investigative responsibilities. The training should include
investigative and interview techniques for formal complaints,
including examining and interrogating witnesses; identifying
misconduct, including misconduct that is not specifically named
in a complaint; ethics; integrity; professionalism; the factors
18


to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility;
and the appropriate burden of proof -- i.e., preponderance of the
evidence. The training should also clarify the limited
circumstances in which informal complaints are appropriate,
objective criteria used to separate formal from informal
complaints, and discuss the methods for investigating those
complaints.
The WPD policy should clearly define the nature and scope of
the complaint investigation. In the course of our investigation,
we heard complaints from both citizens and officers that the
complaint procedure can be erratic and irregular. The lack of a
formal, structured, and consistent policy poses difficulties to
the complainant as well as the officer involved in the incident,
both of whom are entitled to know in advance what their rights
and responsibilities are in the course of the investigation. In
defining the scope and nature of the investigation, the WPD
policy should provide that any investigation include an interview
with the complainant and all witnesses, citizen or police. The
policy should require that all forensic or other evidence be
obtained and analyzed.
We also recommend that the WPD policy on complaints specify
a clear time line under which the complaint will be investigated
and adjudicated. We recommend that the policy require that,
absent exigent circumstances, any investigation be completed
within 45 days, including review of the investigation by the
Chief within that time frame. Internal adjudication, if any, of
the results of the investigation should be timely completed
within deadlines specified under the WPD’s labor agreements.
Imposition of discipline, if any, should occur within 30 days of
the end of the Chief’s review or the end of internal
adjudication. Extensions beyond these time periods should
require the Chief’s written approval and be communicated in
writing to the complainant.
Finally, WPD policies and procedures do not explicitly state
that officers must report violations of law or WPD codes of
conduct that would be subject to disciplinary action. We
recommend that the WPD revise its policy to require that officers
who witness misconduct by other officers report such conduct to
the sergeant on duty and, in the event that such misconduct is
the subject of a citizen complaint, to any supervisory officer
investigating such complaint. We recommend that the failure of
an officer to report the misconduct of another officer be subject
to a serious level of discipline. Similarly, we recommend that
internal affairs investigators be required to report and
investigate evidence of violations of law or policy that come to
light in the course of internal affairs investigations.

19


2.

Internal Affairs Interviews of WPD Personnel.

The WPD command staff we interviewed indicated that in the
course of conducting all internal affairs investigations, written
statements from WPD officers and not oral interviews were used
because the WPD believed this to be a requirement of the union
collective-bargaining contracts. The counsel for the OPBA
reviewed that union’s contract in the presence of both a
Department of Justice team on tour and the WPD’s counsel, and he
stated that there was no such requirement within the contract.
Accordingly, there should be no current contractual reason that
the WPD’s line officers are only requested to submit written
statements for internal affairs investigations.
In the course of our review of incident investigations, it
was readily apparent that many officers’ written statements were
identical or nearly so, leading to the conclusion that officers
had the opportunity to confer among themselves to corroborate
their written statements before submitting them to the Internal
Affairs officer. In fact, a letter from one officer contained in
an internal affairs investigation file evidences that the officer
requested -- and was apparently granted -- an extension of time
to submit his written statement in order that he have the
opportunity to first review other officers’ statements concerning
the same incident. Accordingly, the WPD’s use of written
statements, alone, for internal affairs investigation may lead to
unreliable statements that may affect the perceived legitimacy of
the complaint resolution process.
We recommend that the WPD internal affairs conduct personal
interviews of all the WPD personnel involved in, or a witness to,
alleged incidents that give rise to internal affairs
investigations. A subject officer should also be required to
produce all statements, reports, and notes completed in his or
her course of duties that are related to the allegations. We
recommend that the WPD policy require that all interviews be
mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape. The WPD
should also establish guidelines as to when to compel statements
from officers pursuant to Garrity. The WPD should ensure that,
to the extent that the complaint implicates possible criminal
activity by the officer, officers are adequately informed of
their rights against self-incrimination under Miranda. As noted
above, the investigative protocol for complaints should require
an early assessment of whether serious misconduct may have
occurred that may warrant a referral to local or federal
prosecutors.
3.

Thorough Gathering of Evidence.

The WPD should require the gathering of available, relevant
evidence for internal affairs investigations, including witness
statements. The WPD should interview all available complainants.
20


Some citizen complainants have advised us that they have not been
contacted by the WPD to investigate their claims. Failing to
contact the complainant to investigate his or her complaint does
not conform to practice of most police departments. The
Complaint Form allows little space for a complainant to list his
or her contact information, or the contact information of
witnesses. In order to facilitate the WPD’s ability to contact
the complainants, we recommend that the WPD revise its Complaint
Form to allow greater space on which to fill in the address and
multiple telephone numbers of the complainant and any witnesses.
While the WPD should retain the use of the current Complaint
Summary portion of the Complaint Form, that summary should not
take the place of an interview with the complainant.
Instructions for the Complaint Summary portion of the Complaint
Form direct the complainant to give a detailed account of the
alleged action of the employee that gave rise to the complaint.
Whether complainants provide only sparse information on the
Complaint Form or a thorough description, the WPD should
interview them and conduct thorough investigations. We further
recommend that, in practice, the WPD make all reasonable efforts
to contact complainants –- including on-site visits, telephone
conversations, and registered mail -– and interview them rather
than rely only upon the statements contained in the Complaint
Form.
We further recommend that the WPD policy require that all
internal affairs investigators attempt to gather and review
extrinsic evidence. This should include video and audio
recording of the incidents, where available, medical records of
injuries to officers or citizens, arrest reports, etc. The
record of this attempt to gather such extrinsic evidence, as well
as copies of the evidence gathered should be kept in the
investigation file.
4.

Adjudication and Resolution of Complaints.

The WPD should develop a protocol for the adjudication and
resolution of complaints, including the use of a discipline
matrix.
We recommend that the WPD develop a protocol that requires a
summary of the investigation and an assessment of the alleged
misconduct be presented to the Chief for adjudication and any
imposition of discipline. The policy should address the
possibility that a complaint may require disciplinary action.
The officer conducting the investigation of the complaint should
be required to recommend a finding concerning the complaint. The
supervisor of the officer concerned should recommend whether any
disciplinary measures should be imposed based upon the complaint,
provided that supervisor was not also involved in the conduct

21


that was the subject of the complaint.3 If the concerned
officer’s supervisor was also involved in the conduct that was
the subject of the complaint, then the next higher level
supervisor should recommend whether any disciplinary measures
should be imposed based upon the complaint. Recommended
disciplinary measures should be based upon an objective
discipline matrix, as discussed below. Both the recommended
adjudication of the complaint and the recommended discipline of
the officer should be provided to the Chief, for his approval,
disapproval, or justified modification.
The policy should require a finding as to whether: (1) the
police action was in compliance with policy, training, and legal
standards; (2) the incident involved additional misconduct;
(3) investigation of the incident revealed other incidents of
misconduct by the same officer, or instances of misconduct by
other officers; (4) the use of different tactics should or could
have been employed; (5) the incident indicates a need for
additional training, counseling, or other non-disciplinary
corrective measures; or (6) the incident suggests that WPD should
revise its policies, training, tactics, or equipment. The WPD
protocol should state that the standard of proof for such
administrative investigations is a preponderance of the evidence.
We also recommend that the WPD develop a discipline matrix.
Such a matrix should include the levels of discipline available
to address violations of policy -- e.g., retraining, verbal
counseling, letters of counseling, forfeiture of leave time,
suspension, demotion, and termination. The matrix should specify
for each type of policy violation and what level of discipline
shall be utilized for sustained violations of policy in the first
instance, second instance, etc.
We recommend that the WPD policy regarding complaints
require a clear resolution of every complaint from a member of a
the public, with notice provided to all relevant parties. Policy
02-006 currently states that a complainant will be contacted in
writing with respect to the outcome of the complaint. Many
citizens we interviewed, however, told us that they have no idea
what the outcome of the complaints they have filed is because
they do not receive any response to their inquires and the WPD
has not affirmatively contacted them to inform them of the status
or outcome of their complaints. Indeed, a review of the internal
affairs investigation files provided to us by the WPD revealed
that only a handful of those files contained a copy of a letter
notifying the complainant of the outcome of the investigation.
3


In some cases, the officer conducting the investigation
could be the subject officer’s supervisor, in which case that
supervisor would recommend both the disposition of the complaint
as well as any disciplinary measures.
22


Of those letters that did exist, many were not dated, such that
the timeliness of notification could not be assessed.
Consistent with Policy 02-006, the WPD should keep
complainants apprised of the status of the complaints they have
filed. At the conclusion of the investigation, the complainant
should receive a letter from the Chief setting forth the key
facts of the complaint, including the name of the complainant,
the internal control number, the date of the incident, the
name(s) of the officer(s) involved, and whether the complaint was
withdrawn, exonerated, deemed unfounded, inconclusive,4 or
sustained. If sustained, the letter should indicate whether
remedial actions will be taken.5
The letter advising the complainant of the resolution of the
complaint should be prepared by the supervisor conducting the
investigation, and then provided to the Chief at the conclusion
of the investigation. If the Chief modifies the supervisor’s
recommendation, the reason for such modification should be in
writing, and kept with the original recommendation in the
complaint file. Thus, every complaint should begin with a
Complaint Form, and end with a letter, with each document
reflecting the same control number for ease of reference and
later review, if any.
VI.

SUPERVISORY OVERSIGHT.
A.

Risk Assessment and Management.

WPD command staff should examine and review officer conduct
on a regular basis as a proactive measure to minimize and
detect misconduct, and to identify training and policy
issues.
Our investigation thus far has revealed a lack of structured
oversight of WPD officers by command staff. There do not appear
4


As part of the recommended change in the internal
affairs protocol, we recommend that the WPD adopt the finding of
“inconclusive,” and discontinue its current use of “not
sustained.” The current “not sustained” label indicates an
exoneration where there is an absence of evidence to support a
finding either for or against the alleged violation of policy.
If evidence supports exoneration, the “exonerated” finding should
be used.
5


The protocol for internal affairs investigations should
also allow for a finding that the subject officer acted in
accordance with WPD policy, but that the complaint reveals a
failure in the policy, itself.
23


to be regular review procedures formalized in policy, and review
of officer activity appears to be informal and ad hoc. Though
the WPD has a high number of command officers for a police
department of its size, day-to-day management of certain units
also appeared to be lacking. Accordingly, the WPD’s supervision
and oversight could be improved by implementing the following
recommendations.
We recommend that the WPD implement policies and procedures
for WPD supervisors to routinely review all aspects of WPD
officer conduct, including a review of: (1) all uses of force,
as set forth above; (2) probable cause for arrests and the
appropriateness of charges filed; and (3) reasonable suspicion
for stops and searches that do not result in an arrest.
We recommend that WPD policy require supervisors to review
and approve all arrest reports and search-and-seizure reports,
and to record their approval on the arrest or incident reports by
handwritten or electronic signature. We recommend that the
Chief, or his or her designee, meet annually with every WPD
officer to discuss positive aspects of his or her police work,
his or her complaint history, if any, and to discuss any problems
or concerns officers may have concerning the department.
As discussed above, we recommend that the WPD establish a
clear line of direct supervision over the TMHA Unit. We
recommend that the WPD reassert its authority over officers in
the TMHA Unit and not permit those officers to be directed by the
TMHA.
B.

Early Warning System.

Although the WPD’s use-of-force policy contains an informal
process for reviewing all use-of-force reports on an annual
basis, this policy does not constitute a comprehensive,
systematic risk assessment system or an Early Warning System
(“EWS”). The WPD, therefore does not have, but should adopt, an
EWS as an integral part of its risk management program. The WPD
should develop an EWS that is appropriate and applicable to its
needs and size. Whether paper-based or computer-based, even a
simple EWS would provide a useful assessment of each officer’s
conduct as well as the department as a law enforcement agency.
We recommend that the WPD implement policies and procedures
to collect data on individual officers for the purpose of
maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary
for effective supervision and management of WPD personnel. The
EWS should contain information on all investigations and
complaints, including non-sustained complaints and complaints
prior to final disposition, discipline and other corrective
actions, uses of force, arrests and charges, searches and
seizures, service calls, training, awards and commendations, sick
24


leave, civil lawsuits, and other items relevant to an officer’s
conduct. The WPD should then use this data regularly and
proactively to: (1) promote best professional police practices;
(2) improve accountability and management; (3) manage the risk of
police misconduct and potential liability; and (4) evaluate and
audit the performance of officers and units on a regular basis.
We recommend that the WPD require supervisors, including command
staff, to review this data for every officer they supervise on a
regular, predetermined basis, such as every quarter.
The policy implementing these recommendations should also
establish guidelines regarding specific events that will trigger
an additional supervisory review, such as a specific number of
uses of force or citizen complaints within a discrete period.
Once an officer has been selected for this additional review, a
report should be prepared that details all use-of-force reports,
formal and informal complaints, calls for service, sick leave,
counseling reports, civil lawsuits, and commendations pertaining
to the officer within the past five years. The officer’s
immediate supervisor and command staff should then meet to
discuss the report and determine if any corrective action is
warranted. The supervisor’s and command staff’s recommendations
should then be forwarded to the Chief for his or her timely
review and implementation. The effectiveness of the implemented
recommendations should be determined by monitoring the officer
and drafting written reports on the officer’s conduct on a
monthly basis. Both the supervisory recommendations and the
written monthly report should be included in the officer’s
personnel file.
We recommend that the WPD consider utilizing peer reviews of
the information contained in the reports by comparing complaints,
use-of-force reports, and other pertinent information about a
particular officer with similar information from other officers
on the same patrol team or shift. In addition, the policy should
provide explicit guidance to supervisory officers reviewing
reports to ensure that patterns of possible misconduct are
identified, analyzed, and addressed properly by command staff.
The aim of this process is to give supervisors valuable
information that, if received early, could identify potential
problem officers before misconduct actually develops.
C.

The WPD Should Develop an Employee Evaluation System.

At the start of our first tour, the WPD had no system to
periodically evaluate its employees. We understand that,
pursuant to the technical assistance recommendations of our
consultants, the WPD is currently developing an
employee-evaluation system. When implementing this system, we
recommend that one person timely train the entire department on
the composition and use of the system. This person should train
all managers how to evaluate their staff, and inform all line
25


officers as to how they will be evaluated. This uniform training
should eliminate different interpretations of the system, and
ensure the integrity of the evaluation information.
Direct supervisors should evaluate their subordinates
annually. Prior to the evaluations, supervisors should explain
the evaluation process and the expectations to their
subordinates. After the direct supervisor completes the
evaluation, the entire chain of command should review the
evaluation and add comments. The evaluations should be stored in
the employee’s training or personnel file. The WPD should tie
these evaluations into its promotion process, to the extent
permitted by law and the WPD’s collective bargaining agreements.
VII.

OFFICER TRAINING
The WPD should continue to develop comprehensive training
programs for new and experienced WPD officers.
A.

Policy Re-Training.

Much of the technical assistance offered in this letter
calls for the creation of new policy or revision of existing
policy. We recommend that as the WPD updates or creates each new
policy, the WPD re-train all WPD personnel, including command
staff, on each new policy and its effects. Such training should
be comprehensive to cover all aspects of the change in policy so
that WPD personnel are aware of what would no longer be within
policy, as well as what new material would then be included in
the WPD’s revised policies.
Most significantly among the policy topics for which the WPD
should stress re-training for all its personnel are:
(1) acceptable and non-acceptable uses of forces; (2) less-lethal
uses of force; (3) use-of-force continuum; (4) use-of-force
reporting; and (5) citizen complaint process.
Policy re-training should be competency-based. Accordingly,
once trained, each WPD member should demonstrate competency of
his or her knowledge of the new subject matter through
performance or examination. Each member of the WPD, including
command staff, should be required to pass competency-based
performance or examination for each new policy.
B.

In-Service Training.

The WPD has provided us documentation regarding its newly
initiated 40-hour block of in-service training. We thank the WPD
for providing this information and are encouraged by the WPD’s
effort to offer training to its line officers and some command
staff. It does not appear, based on the schedule provided to us,
however, that all command staff, particularly the Chief, are
26


required to attend all 40 hours of training. As we discussed
during our most recent tour of the WPD, it is imperative that the
WPD’s command staff partake in the WPD’s new in-service training.
The Chief, in particular, should participate in as much of this
training as he is capable of attending. In so doing, the WPD
command staff will convey to all WPD personnel the import of the
in-service training.
Though a marked improvement from the prior absence of any
formalized annual training, the newly initiated 40-hour block of
training could be improved in several ways. The training
schedule provided to us indicates that all WPD officers in
attendance would receive three hours of training concerning use
of canines. For non-canine officers, the use of canines may be
taught within one hour. The current training should include at
least four hours on use of the WPD’s approved impact weapon
-- e.g., a baton –- and for all officers who use or may use
Tasers, four to eight hours on use of Tasers. We also recommend
that WPD personnel receive training on each piece of equipment
that he or she carries that may have to be used as a weapon –e.g., a flashlight, or radio. The current training should also
include what restraints are considered permissible and what the
impact of the use of restraints may have on the restrained
individual.
We recommend that all training be conducted by instructors
who have been trained and certified to be instructors, and who
are competent in the subject matter they are to teach.
Accordingly, the WPD should validate the qualification and
expertise of its current trainers. The WPD may do so through
certification programs outside of the WPD.
We further recommend that the WPD commit to provide all its
officers 40 hours of in-service training every year. The WPD
should formalize this commitment in its policy. Each year, the
training program should be revised with an update to cover new
subject areas and revisions in policies, as well as perishable
skills that should be re-taught and practiced at regular
intervals. According to our consultants, the 40-hour requirement
should be in addition to firearms re-qualification. We recommend
that officers receive separate firearms training biannually for
all service weapons used by WPD officers.
Each year’s training curricula should include police topics,
such as: use of force, firearms, defensive tactics, policies and
procedures, current legal issues or other issues that are
essential to police work, searches and seizures, legal
developments, and police integrity. The WPD’s in-service
training should include de-escalation techniques, particularly
for interactions with persons with mental illness and those who
may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. This training
should also include role-playing and interactive exercises
27


regarding situational, ethical, and use-of-force scenarios,
including de-escalation techniques, cultural diversity, and
community policing. Training curricula and lesson plans should
incorporate comprehensive and updated police practices and be
approved by legal counsel and the Chief.
We note that one potential resource for the WPD in
establishing and improving in-service programs may be the
longstanding training and grant programs administered by other
components of the Department of Justice, such as the Office of
Justice Programs. While these programs are completely separate
and independent of the Civil Rights Division’s investigation, we
would be pleased to provide you with contact information for
exploring the possibility of such assistance.
VIII.

THE WPD SHOULD WORK TO IMPROVE COMMUNITY RELATIONS.
Citizen interviews revealed that the WPD must improve its
relations with the community. To improve relations, we
recommend the WPD: (A) overhaul its citizen surveys; and
(B) hold quarterly community outreach meetings.
A.

Citizen Surveys.

Citizen surveys provide a valuable tool to gauge the
community’s perception of the WPD’s performance. While the WPD
already takes citizen surveys, the WPD could improve its surveys
with a more frequent and focused approach, and objective
methodology. The WPD should abandon the potentially
intimidating, and therefore less reliable, practice of taking
citizen surveys itself. We recommend that the WPD enlist the
help of a local college or university to co-design and administer
the survey. These institutions should be familiar the survey
process. Having a third party administer the surveys will make
them less intimidating, improving frankness and accuracy. We
recommend a comprehensive survey at least every two years. Our
consultants have offered to provide survey examples upon request.
B.

Community Outreach Meetings.

To improve community relations, the WPD should hold
community outreach meetings. The meetings should be an open
forum for all citizens to discuss issues with the WPD. These
community outreach meetings should occur as needed, but at least
quarterly. The shift commanders, who head the Emergency Services
Division that interacts with the community most, should attend
these community outreach meetings. We recommend that a shift
commander chair each of these community outreach meetings.

28


IX.	 CONCLUSION.
We strongly urge the WPD to adopt these technical assistance
recommendations as it revises its policies and procedures. We
look forward to working with you and the WPD. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202)
514-6255, Jonas Geissler at (202) 353-8866, or Cathleen Trainor
at (202) 616-9009.
Sincerely,
/s/ Shanetta Y. Cutlar

Shanetta Y. Cutlar
Chief
Special Litigation Section
cc: 	 Gregory A. White,
United States Attorney
Northern District of Ohio

29