|
|
|
Uploaded: Thursday, October 29, 2009, 4:13 PM
Audit: Most complaints against cops 'unfounded'
But some police officers exercised bad judgment when dealing with citizens, colleagues, independent review finds
|
|
by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff
The majority of citizen complaints against the Palo Alto Police Department last year were unfounded, a new audit has found. But some officers have been less scrupulous when dealing with their colleagues in the department.
The report by independent police auditor Michael Gennaco, which will be presented to the City Council Monday, reviewed 13 complaints levied against the department between April 2008 and January 2009. The audit stated 10 of these complaints were "unfounded," including numerous citizen allegations of improper arrests, excessive force and inadequate service.
But the audit found two cases in which officers acted inappropriately toward department colleagues. In one case, an employee who was two days from retirement surprised a female officer by kissing her on the lips. Later that day, he did the same thing to another female officer "while grabbing her head and forcing physical contact."
According to the report, the officer made remarks "to the effect that he was beyond discipline because of his impending retirement." The investigation found the employee had also previously made sexually offensive remarks to a third female officer.
The employee, who is not named in the report, was put on administrative leave at the outset of the investigation, the audit notes.
Lynne Johnson, who was police chief at the time, also used her discretion to deny the employee a permit to carry a concealed weapon after his retirement.
Another officer, who is a supervisor within the department, was found guilty by the auditor of a "poor attempt at humor" after he logged on to another officer's e-mail account and sent out messages to other department members pretending to be that officer.
These emails, the audit notes, "purported to be from the officer revealing highly personal information." The supervisor, who isn't named in the report, admitted he had played a prank and was subsequently suspended.
The audit states "the e-mailing stunt appeared to be a poor attempt at humor without serious malicious intent." Still, Gennaco noted the supervisor showed a "profound lack of leadership," and violated a series of policies, "from discourtesy to making misleading statements to improperly addressing the e-mail of another to violating the anti-harassment policy."
These two complaints, both of which prompted internal-affairs investigations, were the only complaints during the review period that Gennaco classified as "founded." An investigation of one other complaint –- in which a couple argued that an officer was interfering with their missionary work by issuing them four separate traffic-violation tickets over a five-month period -– was dropped after the complainant failed to show up for an appointment with investigators and could not be reached.
The other 10 complaints, which the audit concluded were "unfounded," nevertheless led Gennaco to state that in several of these cases an officer could have done a better job communicating with the citizen under suspicion.
These included a purse-snatching case in which the officer directed a victim to use the online reporting system rather than taking the report himself. In another case, two men said an officer "assaulted" them with a spotlight by shining it on them for two to four seconds.
The auditor also reviewed the complaint from Palo Alto resident Kristen Johnson (who is not named in the report) in which officers who were looking for an armed murder suspect entered her house and forced her and others to lie on the ground, handcuffed, for a period lasting less than 15 minutes. Johnson's family had publicly criticized the department of using excessive force and acting in a discourteous manner during the raid.
Gennaco acknowledged that being "handcuffed face down on your front lawn during daylight hours in the presence of your neighbors is a highly intrusive and potentially humiliating experience."
But he concluded, "Evidence did not support the claim that force was excessive under the circumstances." He recommended that in future operations, an officer should be assigned to videotape the "crucial stages of the event."
The report also reviews the controversial case of Tony Ciampi, who was tricked into coming out of his van by an officer who pretended to be calling a tow truck. Ciampi was shot with a Taser during the incident. According to the auditor, Ciampi (who is not named in the report, but whose case became publicized during subsequent court proceedings) resisted police attempts to handcuff him and became enraged after an officer tried to shoot him with a Taser.
He then allegedly "charged toward the officers swinging his arms in a windmill fashion and kicking," actions which prompted police to use a Taser again, stunning the suspect.
A Santa Clara County Court judge subsequently found that police violated the suspect's rights when they caused him to come out of his van.
Gennaco concluded, after reviewing the Taser-cam video and video and audio tapes from the police vehicle, that the "Taser application appeared to comply with Department policy." But he recommended that in the future "officers avoid using ruses in this type of situation until they have investigated the matter sufficiently to determine whether there is a basis for concluding that a crime has occurred."
Gennaco also found that one of the officers needlessly used "foul language" toward the suspect. The police chief had directed the officer's supervisor to counsel the officer about the "discourtesy issue."
The audit also mentioned a complaint from an earlier period in which a police department from an unnamed neighboring jurisdiction mistakenly sold a car that had been stolen and used in a crime. The Palo Alto department investigated the crime, arrested the suspect and transferred the vehicle to the other police department.
But when the car's owner tried to claim the car, she found that it had been sold as abandoned property in a lien sale, the audit notes. The audit found that the other police department and the complainant both share some responsibility for the misunderstanding. But it also notes that the Palo Alto Police Department bears "partial responsibility for the loss" and advises that some corrective action should be taken to compensate the car owner.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2009 at 5:19 pm Considering the thousands of interactions with the public these few complaints are remarkedly low. And the two sustained were within the department.
Since police personnel are humans even as thee and me, it's amazing that more inapporpriate behavior does not occur. Obviously their training has been outstanding and constantly being improved as witnessed by the report. Well done Palo Alto. I'm pleased that Mr. Gennaco is doing his job.
There will always be those who hate authority and resent having to comply with rules. So unfounded complaints will continue.
|
|
Posted by D.B. COOPER, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2009 at 6:42 pm Apparently Gennaco feels the Santa Clara County Judge who found palo alto officers violated Tony Clampi rights was wrong and police were well within department policies. Wow! Sounds like the city of palo alto will be paying out huge sums of money if they follow Gennaco's recommendations. Good luck!
|
|
Posted by Nora Charles, a resident of Stanford, on Oct 29, 2009 at 8:35 pm Hats off to the Palo Alto police. Imagine doing a job where your life is in danger every day-unthinkable for most of us. They do a tremendous job, and deserve our praise and great thanks.
|
|
Posted by person who isn't stupid, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2009 at 11:29 pm [Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
|
|
Posted by how funny, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 5:52 am Thats almost a year old...what happened since january 2009 till present or at least a month ago. There happens to be something strange about this, i am waiting for my outcome complaint since july. Since my complaint didnt make the cut, PAPD still has work to do....
|
|
Posted by Recomender, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 6:07 am I believe the PAPD needs to give Officer Gennaco a raise since he did a great job, since he employed under PAPD. Well, it will not cross me if officer Gennaco comes and works for the PAPD in the near future once this lows over, since we do have better salary to offer than LA county.
|
|
Posted by JW, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 7:56 am Also, a big "thank you" to our Police Department; they were asked to forego raises this year to help the City's budget out and they agreed to do so.
|
|
Posted by CHinCider, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 8:12 am To "JW" -
Uh, actually, the Police have withdrawn that offer to forego their raises, since those of them who will be retiring during the coming year demanded the increase so as to add to their base pay for retirement calculations. Your thanks are a little premature.....
|
|
Posted by YSK, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 10:25 am Didn't think there was a problem as big as critics made it out to be. Thanks for wasting our money!
|
|
Posted by fact-checker, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 11:16 am To "CHinCider" -
Uh, actually, the fire department's union withdrew its offer to forego its raise.
The police department union did NOT withdraw its offer.
Also, I read a lot about the fire union president speaking on behalf of SEIU at the city council meeting this week. Nothing said about the police union being there. It seems like at least the police union is trying to do the right thing as far as the city budget is concerned.
|
|
Posted by Bob, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 12:06 pm > Hats off to the Palo Alto police. Imagine doing a job where
> your life is in danger every day-unthinkable for most of us
You have to be kidding. Palo Alto has (as does most of Santa Clara County) very low violent crime rates. The last Palo Alto officer who died in the line of service was a reserve office who shot himself on the firing range, during a training accident.
Many police officers leave for other cities because there is so little "action" here.
|
|
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 12:45 pm I think the Palo Alto Police in recent years have gotten significantly better. They are professional polite and I have never been stopped needlessly or harassed as was the case several times in a minor way when I was a high school student in the 70's.
I am proud and pleased at the Palo Alto Police department and there are going to be weird goofy things that happen such as the two mentioned incidents between officers. Sending out the email is pretty minor. Most computer users are told over and over to log out of their email when they are gone, and sending out a prank email is one of the ways some people deal with trying to emphasize that to people. I'm not saying it was right, but I am relieved that these things are fairly minor.
I do have to say that I have been courteously stopped late at night for traffic checks ... never gotten a ticket. That is OK with me if it is polite, I think it is good that Police check people who they think for whatever reason may be driving drunk ... there should be a real reason though. When stopped it is really unpleasant to have spotlights shone in your mirror and eyes and I can sympathize with one of the complaints, but that is fairly minor as well.
And tricking the guy out of his car? That is pretty laughable. Sounds like he was drunk and disorderly ... but I don't know the facts. It seems reasonable if he was going to be arrested that he be gotten out of the car, and tricking him is better than tazing him in the car and using force.
All in all, congratulations to the Palo Alto Police for professionalism and a job well done.
Thanks!
|
|
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 12:49 pm Bob,
Just because there is a low history of violence or threats to Police Officers in Palo Alto does not mean in one day we could not have something such as the incident where multiple officers were shot by a crazy lunatic at a traffic stop. Of course they risk their lives every day, every traffic stop. You attitude is not very understanding. As to the police who leave to get more "action" somewhere else ... those are the people who are probably not suited to the Police Service. Bay Area cops used to make their own action 30-40 years ago, thank God we have a better service now. They really are pretty outstanding from my experience and contact with them.
|
|
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 1:14 pm Bob. I believe the officer who died was a reserve who was shot by a Mt. View police officer during a training accident. He did not shoot himself.
I think Anon has it right.
|
|
Posted by Bob, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 1:17 pm > Of course they risk their lives every day,
> every traffic stop.
The number of police killed in the US every year is very low .. so the risk at traffic stops is very low--
-------
Web Link
Based on preliminary data, the groups found that 140 law enforcement officers were killed in 2008 -- 86 of them accidentally and 54 intentionally.
"Fewer officers were killed by gunfire in 2008 than in any year since 1956," the report says. "Preliminary data indicate 41 officers died in firearms-related incidents this year, compared with 68 in 2007, a reduction of 40 percent."
------
The US BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) reports that being a lumber jack or a crew member of a fishing boat is far more dangerous than being a police officer. The 2008 stats from the CNN (actually FBI-released data) make that point in spades.
While anything is possible, the reality is that very few police officers die in the line-of-duty each year in the US.
(By the way, the number of firefighters that die on the job is about 100 a year. About 2/3rds of those die of from traffic accidents, going to/from a fire site, or from heart attacks/strokes coming from these people living a sedentary life style. On average, fewer than 40 US firefighters die each year actually fighting fires.)
> You attitude is not very understanding.
Of what, gobbledygook?
|
|
Posted by CHinCider, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 1:34 pm To "fact-checker" -
You need to live up to your screen name and check your facts!
Yes, the Fire Department did withdraw their offer FIRST, because the City would not agree to their demand that no changes in medical benefits be made for any other bargining unit (read SEIU). Prety audacious, huh - trying to bargin for more than your own group.
Police had initially agreed to POSTPONE their raise for one year by extending their contract for a year - pretty smart tactic, which would lock in their benefits in medical and retirement for another year before any renegotiation could happen - but only recently have very quietly withdrawn their offer due to pressure from their members planning to retire this year, as I correctly described above.
This has recieved very little if any coverage, but is correct.
Check your facts before you post, "Fact-Checker" !
|
|
Posted by PAPD is corrupt, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 2:13 pm Recently witnessed a bouncer assault a citizen OUTSIDE of a bar downtown for smoking on the sidewalk outside the bar. PAPD showed up and wanted to arrest the victims.
After witnesses corroborated the story of the victim and asked to press charges against the assailant (the bouncer) PAPD refused to do so. Their reasoning was that the bouncer wanted to press charges against the victim and thus the desire to press charges by both parties "cancelled each other out".
PAPD can be helpful, but they are also a joke.
|
|
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 7:50 pm Bob, you sound like a smoker ... someone who ignores a lethal risk and thinks nothing of it. Either that or you will say anything to press a losing point. Officers face physical risk, injury and death every day. Does it matter if it doesn't happen regularly. Would you admire the Police more if they got hurt more often?
As far as the bouncer, he was probably trying to keep dirty smokers from fouling the air by the establishment that he works for. Perfect understandable and professional ... the police as usual did the thoughtful and right thing. Who wants to have to walk through some rude person's cigarette smoke to walk into an establishment? Maybe they should foot the bill for lost business?
|
|
Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Oct 30, 2009 at 7:51 pm [Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
|
|
Posted by josef, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 10:12 pm [Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
|
|
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 10:16 pm [Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
|
|
Posted by Stool, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2009 at 1:43 am Well, this audit was a joke, i do know that the city is good with the PAPD acting this way, but there are bad apples their and need to rid of the problem or i suggest more training. Rookie cops are so eager to please their peers and would take charge for it.
|
|
Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Oct 31, 2009 at 1:26 pm [Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
|
|
Posted by Retired, a resident of another community, on Oct 31, 2009 at 1:57 pm [Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
|
|
Posted by ez, a resident of the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2009 at 4:09 pm cops have it easyu. 6 fugure income,immunity from prosecution,universal love from most americans it seems. or is it fear??
|
|
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 1, 2009 at 12:41 pm PAPD Observer, thanks for the information. It will be interesting to find out more about that situation and what the Police Department does about it.
However ... does this reflect on the PAPD as a whole and its interactions with the public?
Is this particular incident reflective of the Police Department, as a whole, while they are on the job, of the judgement and actions of one individual?
Are you suggesting that what one officer did is chronic or rampant in the PAPD, and if so do you have any evidence to support that, or intuition or reason to believe there is more to the story? I am not biased either way and would be happy to listen to what you have to say. It does seem that you might be taking the opportunity to try to tar the whole Police Department in Palo Alto based on the actions of one officer, or even the specific failings on individual officers through years , which I do not think is quite fair or justified.
|
|
Posted by PAPD Observer, a resident of another community, on Nov 1, 2009 at 12:57 pm Ir's not that complicated: I said that what Morgan did damaged the rep of your PD. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] The many good officers in the PAPD are not responsible for the actions of these individuals, but the actions of these individuals have done damage.
While I don't think the actions indicate a chronic or rampant problem, I think having bad apples in this line of work is consistent. Sometimes audits bear that out, sometimes not. But I think it's wrong that these most recent incidents with Morgan were not mentioned in this article.
|
|
Posted by PAPD can be corrupt, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 1, 2009 at 2:08 pm Anon-The PAPD did not do the right thing and probably did not want to damage their relations with a downtown business and/or did not want to do their job/paperwork.
As far as smoking goes, it is a filthy habit, but that does not give the bouncer the right to start punching a citizen in the face repeatedly. That is against the law and a violent crime. Neither understandable nor professional. And is a smoker of cigarettes automatically "rude"?
As far as footing the bill for lost business... HA! The bouncer, and the bar, are lucky if their is not a lawsuit being worked up against them.
The original post was not to say that all of PAPD is corrupt, but they have it way easier that many police departments in terms of the types of calls they respond to. They could at least do the proper job when responding.
|
|
Posted by paloaltomarino, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 1, 2009 at 2:34 pm The audit findings came as a bit of a surprise to me, although these days, I guess nothing surprises me much. I've worked indirectly with the PAPD for almost 13 years and, I have nothing but, the utmost respect and admiration for them. Sandra Brown and Bob Beacom are two of the finest police officers I've ever met and absolutely make our police department and community better places. Having said that, even those two would admit that there is likely one or two "bad apples".
In a town like Palo Alto where there is not a lot of violent crime their job isn't easier, it's the opposite. One officer recently stopped someone on Embarcadero for speeding (not super fast just the regular speeding almost everyone does on Embarcadero), the man in the car happened to be African-American, and he was pissed, the officer asked "Why are you so angry?", and the African-American man said "you're just stopping me because I'm black". The officer wasn't, but, he took back the ticket and gave a warning instead. On a daily basis they not only get to deal with the black and white of the law, but of the gray areas that are our nation as it relates to race and culture, and they get to deal with the fallout of a few VERY poorly chosen words by their former Police Chief (a good person who made a very bad statement). They also get to deal with the doubt, fear, and outrage in the community when the "bad apple" does something. And they get to do all of this in silence because they aren't allowed to speak their opinions, constrained either by law or policy.
So, when someone, living in their own delusion speaks out (Danielle Martel comes to mind), they can't say a thing.
Do they have work to do in addressing the concerns and healing the community as it relates to their work? They do. And, they will, I, for one, am proud of our Police force.
|
|
Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Nov 1, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Hmmm is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online Web Link
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
Why was Tim Morgan's actions not mentioned in this article pertaining to the audit?
|
|
Comments on this topic have been limited to registered users who are logged in.
If you are a registered user, login here.
If not, registration is very simple and may be done here. | |
2007 Awards from the California
Newspaper Publishers Association
Palo Alto Weekly
First Place
Local News Coverage
Local Breaking-News Story
Feature Story
Second Place
Feature Story
Environmental Reporting
Sports Coverage
General News Photo
Photo Essay
Freedom of Information
The Almanac
First Place
Environmental Reporting
Editorial Pages
Lifestyle Coverage
Second Place
Environmental Reporting
Mountain View Voice
Second Place
General Excellence
Editorial Comment
Front-Page Design
|
|
|
Send this story
Print this story
