o

ATLA.NTA CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD

55 Trinity Street, Suite 9100 I Atlanta I GA I 30303 404-865-8628 (Office) I 404-658-7450 (Fax) I acrbgov.org

o

, "0-

~ ......... ~

---~~ ~

Q::,Q

Rev\e~

ACRB STUDY OF SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITY

CASE NUMBER: 10-59

(ATLANTA POLICE DEPARTMENT)

o

o

o

o

o

EXHIBIT 1

APD - STANDARD OPERA TING PROCEDURES

EXHIBIT 2

INVESTIGA TIONS

o

ACRB STUDY OF SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITY

CASE NUMBER 10-59

EXHIBIT 3

TRAINING NEEDS

EXHIBIT 4

CASE LAW

12/09/2010

NOTES

o

o

o

o

BACKGROUND

o The Board received twelve complaints from patrons and employees of the Eagle Bar. The first complaint considered by the Board was from David Shepherd (10-16). Mr. Shepherd complained that he was falsely arrested while in his apartment. Mr. Shepherd is an employee of the Eagle Bar but he was not working on the night of the arrest. He lives upstairs from the bar in an apartment and was home on that evening. The Board recommended a finding of Sustained against the officers who participated in his arrest, Sergeant Brock and Investigator Bridges. The Board further recommended that the Chief of Police impose a three day suspension on each of the two officers in order to address this violation. This recommendation was sent to the Chief in a letter dated June 14, 2010. The Chief responded by explaining that the matter was still under investigation at the Office of Professional Standards.

The Board reviewed the investigation into the complaints filed by Robert Kelley and Ernest Buehl on August 12, 2010 (09-36 & 09-38). Mr. Kelley is an owner of the Eagle Bar and Mr. Buehl was working as a door man on the night of the arrest. Their complaints involve the use of abusive language by members of the Atlanta Police Department. Mr. Kelley aUeged that he heard officers say the following:

1. When he asked about his rights, an officer responded, "you are a fag and you have no rights."

2. When he and others asked why they were detained, they were told to, "shut the fuck up."

3. He heard an officer say, "raiding a fag bar was fun and they should do this every week."

4. He heard an officer threaten to hit a patron with a bar stool if he did not shut up.

o Mr. Buehl heard the following:

A customer asked about why he was being detained and an officer responded that, ifhe didn't put his head down and shut the fuck up, that the officer was going to take a bar stool and knock him down.

Many of the fifteen (15) employees and patrons that were interviewed heard the same language.

The ACRB staff interviewed twenty-four (24) of the officers present. All of the officers denied using this type oflanguage and all denied hearing another officer say the words reported. A series of photo arrays were viewed by Mr. Robert Kelley. He identified Officer Brandon Jackson, a member of the RED DOG Unit as one of the officers who uttered an obscenity. He additionally selected another officer who was not present at the Eagle Bar.

The Board considered all of the evidence. They voted to sustain the aUegation of abusive language.

All of the patrons and employees heard similar language. While it appears that Officer Jackson had some culpability, the Board was of the opinion that the supervisors should be held responsible for this type of conduct. The Board voted to hold their disciplinary recommendation in abeyance until they can get more information regarding the responsibility and knowledge of the supervisors.

The third group of complaints considered by the ACRB concerned the patrons of the Eagle Bar. The Board received nine complaints from people who were present when the police arrived (09-34, 10-08,10- 09, 10-10, 10-11, 10-12, 10-13, 10-14, 10-15). These nine complainants had no ties to the management

o of the bar and were not identified by officers as being involved in any criminal activity. They complained

2

that they were subjected to abusive language and that they were falsely imprisoned. The investigation

revealed that all of the patrons were placed on the floor. Many of the officers provided different estimates 0 of the time that the patrons were detained; varying from 10 minutes to one hour. Criminal record checks

of all of the patrons commenced at 23:20 and ended at 23:49. Most of the patrons explained that they

spent some time on the floor before being told to produce their identification. The patrons had their

identities checked and were released after the officers completed that task. The officers indicated that

they arrived at the bar between 10:45 p.m. and 11 :00 p.m. Thus, the patrons were detained between 30

minutes to an hour, depending upon when their identification was checked. The twenty four police

officers did not indicate that any of the patrons who made complaints conunitted an offense.

The Board considered the evidence of abusive language and decided to sustain the complaint against the officers. The Board further decided to study and consider the supervisory responsibility concerning this issue before making a recommendation about discipline. Similarly, the Board voted to sustain tbe allegation of unlawful imprisonment against all oftbe officers who were present. It is

uncontroverted that the police officers conducted a detention, if not an arrest, of the patrons. In order to detain a person, there must be objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity. The standard must be particularized; that is that you may not detain everyone in a bar because one person may have committed an offense. The detention must be "justified at its inception and ... reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." U.S. v. Sharpe, 470 U. S. 675,682 (1985).

This operation violated APD.SOP. 3020, Section 4.3.3 and the corresponding Fourth Amendment law, particularly with regard to the patrons of the bar since there was no articulable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the patrons committed or were about to commit a crime.

o

Issues Presented

Were any Standard Operating Procedures ("SOP's") violated by members of the Vice Squad and Red Dog Unit?

Did supervisors and administrators provide adequate oversight to prevent violations of Standard Operating Procedures and constitutional principles?

SOP VIOLATIONS

The following Standard Operating Procedures were considered in order to perform the analysis requested by the ACRB.

a. APD SOP 10 10 - Mission and Organization of the Department (4.1.4 - Employee Performance & 3.2 Accountable to Immediate Supervisor)

b. APD SOP 2010 - Work Rules (4.2.03 Supervisory Responsibilities)

c. APD SOP 2010 - Work Rules (4.1.05 Obey the Law)

d. APD SOP 3020 - Search and Seizure

f.

APD SOP 5030 - Special Enforcement Section

o

3

g. APD SOP 5140 - Red Dog Vnit

o

h.

APD SOP 2010 - Work Rules (4.1.03 Truthfulness)

APD SOP 1010 - Mission and Organization of the Department (4.1.4 - Employee Performance & 3.2 Accountable to Immediate Supervisor) - states at 4.1.4 that, "(s)upervisory personnel are accountable for the performance of employees under their immediate supervision." In this case, the involved

members of the previously sustained (abusive language and unlawful imprisonment) violations included members of the Red Dog Vnit and the Vice Squad. Sergeant Willie Adams supervised the Red Dog Unit and Sergeants Kelley Collier and John Brock for the Vice Unit. The aforementioned SOP also states at 3.2.2 that, "(w)hen employees of different units, or having different functions, are engaged in a single incident or operation, the unit with primary responsibility of that incident or operation will be responsible for the overall supervision of all employees engaged in that operation." Thus, the Vice Unit supervisors had primary responsibility for this incident. However, each officer and sergeant cannot avoid individual responsibility for his or her own behavior.

o

Sergeant John Brock was interviewed both with regard to the planning and execution of these arrests.

He signed the tactical plan and participated in the briefing that was given before the Vice Unit went into the bar on September 10,2010. Sergeant Brock signed the tactical plan. He was present throughout all of the investigation as well as the detention of all of the patrons and employees of the Eagle Bar on September 10,2009. He stated that he did not see or hear any officer say or do anything improper, such as use coarse or foul language, point weapons, use cell phones or threaten the patrons of the bar. He admitted that the Red Dog officers detained all of the occupants of the building and that he had participated in the plan to place all of the people on the floor in order to avoid chaos. He notified Lieutenant Crawford at approximately 11 AM on September 10tl1 and requested the assistance of the Gang Unit. The Gang Unit was not available and he was told to check with the Red Dog Unit. He did not notify the Zone Commander or anybody else concerning his plan.

Sergeant Kelley Collier was interviewed twice by ACRB. He was assigned to the Vice Unit on September 10, 2009. He also participated in the earlier undercover investigations that took place on May 21 and June 11, 2009. He was asked to describe his role in the various aspects of these detentions and arrests. When he was interviewed by Investigator Marc Addington on March 17, 20 1 0, he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege when he was asked to describe what happened on the evening of September 10111• He admitted to participating in the briefmg that was held before the officers went to the Eagle.

When asked explain the nature of the offenses that he observed, he referred the staff to the police report. He admitted to going upstairs but denies going into the apartment. He denied hearing any officer use foul language and denies that he saw any officer place a foot on a person who was lying on the floor. He lacks memory about many of the activities, including the briefing on that night.

Sergeant Collier's memory did not improve when he was interviewed for a second time on October 22, 20 1 O. In fact, he said that he was not in charge of supervising anyone on that date and that he was not sure when he began his shift on this evening or who advised him that he was going to be assigned to the Eagle investigation or whether there was a lieutenant available at the time of the arrests. He doesn't think he spoke with any lieutenant. He didn't know when he went to the Eagle Bar prior to the day of the

o arrest. He recalled observing illicit sex acts on the prior occasions that he went to the Eagle Bar. He

4

couldn't say who he had observed performing the illicit sex acts. He couldn't remember whether he

observed any prohibited type of dancing. He could not describe the persons who participated in the illicit 0 sex acts. He never observed drugs or weapons.

Sergeant Collier said everyone spoke at the Tactical Briefing. He didn't remember whether Lt. Pautsch was present. He says that he may have said something but could not remember if he did or not. He thinks that Sergeant Brock directed the Tactical briefing but he was not sure. He could not remember the instructions given to the officers at the briefing. When he was presented with the tactical plan, he read the plan out loud. He could not remember exactly what he saw and he may have observed some people dancing on the bar. He was assigned to observe the bar. He then said that there were two three or four bartenders working. He didn't know how many officers came into the bar. He does remember that the Red Dogs officers told everyone to be quiet. He wasn't sure who told the people in the bar to go to the floor. He claims that he thinks it was Sergeant Brock's idea to have the occupants go to the floor. He was not sure how long the people were kept on the floor. He only remembers that someone in the bar tried to warn the other patrons that the police were coming. He denies seeing any officer unholster his weapon. He only remembers that patrons got down on the ground and they were told to be quiet. He did not hear anyone use foul language. He did not know who told the patrons to produce identification. No one was told to produce identification at the bar. He did not provide any direction to any of the other officers. He said that he just stood at the bar. When asked specifically, he said that he went to the stairs and then admitted that he went up the stairs with Investigator Bridges and Sergeant Adams. He could not remember if the officers knocked at the door and can't remember how and when the door was opened.

He could not remember how many times he observed criminal behavior in the Eagle Bar. Sergeant

Collier did not do anything to establish the identity of the persons who committed these acts. He said that 0 Sergeant Brock notified the lieutenant. He did not remember the contents of the email that he submitted

to Major Williams after the arrests on September 10,2009.

He was not sure whether he has received any in service training concerning the Fourth Amendment in the last two or three years.

Lieutenant Crawford was interviewed for this report. He did not participate in the investigation or the arrests of the Eagle employees and patrons. He was the commander in charge of the Vice Unit on September 10,2009. He explained that he received the e-mail from the Mayor's office from Major D. Williams and assigned the case to Sergeant Brock in May of 2009. He checked on the status of the investigation a number of times and was informed by Sergeant Brock on the day of the arrests that the Vice Unit was planning to go to the Eagle and make arrests in order to complete this investigation into public indecency. He was aware that Sergeant Brock requested the assistance of the Red Dog Unit and approved of that request. He allowed Sergeant Brock to sign the Tactical Plan because, he explained, that the Vice Unit often produces these reports, it was commonplace to allow a sergeant to approve the plan. He did not specifically know that the Red Dog Unit was going to order all of the patrons onto the floor, but explained that this was not unusual. This was done to protect the officers' safety.

Lieutenant Crawford was asked about his training. He said that he attends in-service training each year. He does not recall any recent training concerning constitutional law .

o

5

o

o

o

Lieutenant Scott Pautsch was interviewed once by the ACRB. He was not interviewed by the Office of Professional Standards. He was assigned as the Lieutenant in charge of Red Dog on September 10, 2009. He explained that on either September 9 or io", he was contacted by Sergeant Brock. Sergeant Brock explained that they need a couple of Red Dog teams in order to work the perimeter of the Eagle because they were planning to make some arrests and he did not want people to be able to leave the bar. Lieutenant Pautsch agreed to provide the officers and instructed Sergeant Adams to contact Sergeant Brock. Lieutenant Pautsch does not remember the exact words he said to Sergeant Adams, but he informed Sergeant Adams to assist the Vice Unit with their request. Lieutenant Crawford explained that he did not notify anyone else and was unaware that the Red Dog officers would be entering the bar and forcing people onto the floor and detaining them; he said that he thought that they would be assigned to the outside of the building.

When Lieutenant Pautsch was shown the tactical plan, and asked what it means to send in "take down units," he explained that is when officers enter an establishment and put people on the ground. He doesn't know why the officers would detain people for 40 or 45 minutes even if they had a warrant. He explained that sergeants are frequently the highest ranking officer at the scenes of high risk warrant operations. He also understood that there was no warrant for the Eagle Bar.

When Lieutenant Pautsch was asked about the training provided for the Red Dog officers, he explained that the Red Dog unit trains every other week and they often practice entries for high risk warrants. Most of the training is tactical and operational. He said that he has attended in service trainings where Fourth Amendment law updates were presented, however, he could not recall specifically when it was presented.

Major Deborah WilUams was interviewed for the purpose of this study. She was the Major in charge of both the Vice Unit and the Red Dog Unit in September 2009. She became aware of the complaint that was received by the Mayor's office in May and forwarded it to Lieutenant Crawford with instructions to : conduct an investigation into the anonymous complaint. She was briefed after the officers conducted the first surveillance in June 2009. She asked for them to keep her informed. She did not learn about the arrests until after they had taken place. She did not receive information from Lt. Pautsch or Lt. Crawford. However, she explained that Vice was responsible for the activity at the Eagle.

When asked about the Tactical Plan, she explained that a lieutenant must sign a tactical plan and a sergeant would only be authorized to sign it if the lieutenant had knowledge of the details of the plan. She said that if the lieutenant is not available, a major would be the appropriate contact. When asked if a sergeant can employ the entire Red Dog unit, she explained that the unit commander would need to make this type of request for assistance. Sometimes, the unit commander is a sergeant.

When asked if Red Dog units did this type of detention each time they enter a public place where they need to make an arrest. Major Williams said that Red Dog is utilized as an entry team when the police are executing warrants. Sometimes Red Dog is used when there is a need for extra personnel. She explained that any time there is the possibility of a crowd or where there is probable cause to believe that someone might be armed, that Red Dog would require people to get on the floor. She says that other bars have been treated similarly to the arrests that were made at the Eagle Bar but could not recall the names of the bar. Red Dog has been used by the License and Warrants to assist with enforcement efforts.

6

When asked about Constitutional Law training, she says that updates are sent out by the Academy in written form. She could not specifically recall when a class was offered concerning this topic. Red Dog receives specialized training. She did not specifically recall any training on the Laws of Arrest over the last few years. She stated that this information can be provided by the Major in the Training Academy.

Major Williams explained that she did not know what happened at the Eagle until she heard it on the radio on the morning of September 11 Ul. She then had a conversation with Lieutenant Crawford and learned the details of the arrests.

The Police Training Academy was contacted and asked for records of the prior two annual in-service training. The records indicate that officers received 50 minutes of legal updates in 2008. When asked for the substance of these updates, a list of new Georgia Criminal Statutes was provided. Very few of the entries have any connection to the day to day work of police officers and supervisors.

Analysis

Standard Operating Procedure 1010 at 4.1.4 states that, "(s)upervisory personnel are accountable for the performance of employees under their immediate supervision." The same SOP at 3.2 further explains, "(w)hen employees of different units, or having different functions, are engaged in a single incident or operation, the unit with primary responsibility for that incident or operation will be responsible for the overall supervision of all employees engaged in that operation." Application of the two rules results in a conclusion that the Vice UnH supervisors were responsible for any of the violations adjudicated by the ACRB (unlawful imprisonment and abusive language). Sergeants Brock and Collier were the supervisors with primary responsibility for the overall supervision of the officers involved in the operation. The rule does not require that the supervisors have direct knowledge of the underlying violation. It is unlikely that they were unaware of the language that was used when the officers entered the bar and ordered the patrons and employees onto the floor. It is well recognized in law that supervisors may not turn a blind eye to misconduct in order to absolve themselves of responsibility. Fundiller v. City of Cooper City, 777 F.2d 1436, 1443 (11 th Cir, 1985). The liability of the supervisors does not depend upon their personal participation. It is determined by whether the supervisor has done something or failed to do something which he ought to have done, which was a proximate cause of the violation of the complainant's rights. I In this case, Sergeants Collier and Brock failed to ensure that the persons whom they had detained were not subjected to abusive language. Sergeant Brock explained that he did not hear the bad language even though he was present in the bar. Sergeant Collier's statement that his only assignment was to watch the bar is not consistent with his supervisory responsibilities and his duty to ensure that all employees adhere to policy. His failure to remember important details concerning what occurred was not credible. His decision to merely watch the bar is not consistent with his rank and does not absolve him of the responsibility to supervise the operation.

The e-mail received from the Mayor's office should have been evaluated pursuant to the Special Enforcement Section SOP. This requires that information received be evaluated and assigned a reliability level number. (See SOP 5030 at 4.9.1). The policy is designed to ensure that sensitive investigations be conducted objectively and responsibly. This is an administrative function that would naturally be

I See Mackinney v, Nielsen, 60 F.3d 1002,1008 (9th Cir. 1995); Black v. Stephens, 662 F.2d 181,189 (3rd Cir. 19810; Bowen v. Watkins 669 F.2d 979,988-989 (5th Cir. 1982); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978).

7

o

o

o

o

assigned to a police lieutenant in charge of the Vice Unit. Lieutenant Crawford admits in his interview that this was not performed. Major Williams shares in the responsibility to ensure officers adhere to policy. It is unlikely to have changed the outcome, however, because the officers assigned the investigation verified at least some of the information contained in the anonymous email.

Sergeant Brock, Sergeant Collier, Lieutenant Crawford and Major Williams did not ensure that the officers conducting this investigation and the subsequent arrests followed the procedures for evaluating information, and ensuring that officers did not violate the constitutional rights of the patrons. Additionally, Sergeant Brock, Sergeant Collier and Sergeant Adams are responsible, pursuant to this rule, for the abusive language that was heard by all of the non police witnesses.

o

Standard Operating Procedure 4.2.03 addresses the responsibilities of Supervisor. It states that, "supervisory employees will enforce rules and regulations of the Department and will ensure the proper conformity to Department policies and procedures. It also requires supervisors to take immediate appropriate actions(s) when the conduct of any employee is contrary to the public interest or the good reputation or proper operation of the Department. This rule addresses the same behavior discussed regarding the violation of SOP 1010,4.1.4. It further requires that supervisors take immediate action. Clearly, the supervisors that were not present at the Eagle on September 10,2010 could not take immediate action. However, Sergeants Brock, Collier and Adams are required by this rule to address the abusive language and the constitutional violations immediately. This did not occur. The denials from both the officers and the supervisors are not credible. All of the complainants heard at least the use of the "f' word. Not all heard the slurs, but all heard the patrons being ordered to the floor. The failure of the supervisors to acknowledge this violation reflects on their overall honesty and taints their credibility with the regard to the other alleged violations. Sergeants Brock, Collier and Adams should be held accountable for the failure to enforce rules and regulations regarding the constitutional violations and the abusive language.

Atlanta Police Department SOP 3020 - Search and Seizure - states correctly at 4.3.3.3 that, "officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person detained of criminal activity." If further explains that, "the authority to detain or stop does not automatically include the authority to frisk or pat down. A stop is a brief investigative detention of an individual short of arrest. A frisk is an intrusion reasonably necessary to discover weapons, based on the officer's belief that the person may be armed. The authority to frisk or pat down must not be driven by an investigative motive, but propelled by the officer's concern for their safety or the safety of to others. If, following the stop, the officer reasonably believes that the person is armed and dangerous, they may frisk the suspect for weapons." There was no reason to lawfully detain any of the patrons in the Eagle Bar. There was no reliable information that the patrons were involved in any criminal activity. This is the reason that Mr. Kelley and Mr. Buehl's complaints were sustained only as to the abusive language. The officers involved in the arrests must take responsibility for the unlawful detentions, however, the supervisors and Major Williams must take responsibility for not insisting that this fundamental constitutional principle was known and practiced by both the Vice Unit and the Red Dog Unit.

Conclusions and Recommendations

o

It appears by the preponderance of the evidence that the following supervisors and administrators violated the following SOP's.

8

Sergeant Brock

a.

APD SOP 1010 - Mission and Organization of the Department (4.1.4 - Employee Performance & 3.2 Accountable to Immediate Supervisor)

o

b. APD SOP 2010 - Work Rules (4.2.03 Supervisory Responsibilities)

c. APD SOP 2010 - Work Rules (4.1.05 Obey the Law)

d. APD SOP 3020 - Search and Seizure

e. APD SOP 5030 - Special Enforcement Section

Sergeant Collier

a. APD SOP 1010 - Mission and Organization of the Department (4.1.4- Employee Performance & 3.2 Accountable to Immediate Supervisor)

b. APD SOP 2010 - Work Rules (4.2.03 Supervisory Responsibilities)

c. APD SOP 2010 - Work Rules (4.1.05 Obey the Law)

d. APD SOP 3020 - Search and Seizure

e.

APD SOP 2010 - Work Rules (4.1.03 Truthfulness)

o

Sergeant Adams - It is worthy of note that his responsibility is mitigated by SOP 1010- 3.2.2 which states, "(w)hen employees of different units, or having different functions, are engaged in a single incident or operation, the unit with primary responsibility of that incident or operation will be responsible for the overall supervision of all employees engaged in that operation."

a. APD SOP 1010 - Mission and Organization of the Department (4.1.4 - Employee Performance & 3.2 Accountable to Immediate Supervisor)

b. APD SOP 2010 - Work Rules (4.2.03 Supervisory Responsibilities)

c. APD SOP 2010 - Work Rules (4.1.05 Obey the Law)

d. APD SOP 3020 - Search and Seizure

g. APD SOP 5140 - Red Dog Unit at 4.3.1 which requires Red Dog supervisors to notify the commander of the involved zones of the current areas of operations.

Lieutenant Crawford (Vice Unit)

a.

APD SOP 1010 - Mission and Organization of the Department (4.1.4 - Employee Performance & 3.2 Accountable to Immediate Supervisor)

9

b. APD SOP 2010 - Work Rules (4.2.03 Supervisory Responsibilities)

o Lieutenant Pautsch

No violations detected due to the fact that the Vice Unit had primary responsibility for the actions.

Major Williams

a. APD SOP 1010 - Mission and Organization of the Department (4.1.4 - Employee Performance & 3.2 Accountable to Immediate Supervisor)

b. APD SOP 2010 - Work Rules (4.2.03 Supervisory Responsibilities)

In order to further assist the Hoard in determining the appropriate recommendations, the APD disciplinary guidelines were applied. These violations fall into Category A. The underlying violations include Profanity to a Citizen and Improper Arrest Procedures. It may also fall into the category of Unsatisfactory Performance which would be a Category B-D violation. The failure to supervise adjudication applies the same level as the employee who was not supervised. If the Board decides that

the applicable category is A, the SOP recommends a penalty of an oral admonishment or a reprimand and allows for training and counseling. If the Board decides that this is "unsatisfactory performance," then the applicable category is B. The SOP recommends a penalty of a written reprimand to a three day suspension. It also permits training and written counseling for these violations.

o

The remaining violation concerns Sergeant Collier. If the Board agrees that the violation of Untruthfulness should be sustained, the suggested penalty is termination.

Other Recommendations

Training

It became evident during the course of the investigation that many officers are unfamiliar with the constitutional requirements for conducting a search and/or a seizure. They genuinely believed that it was proper to place all of the patrons on the floor and frisk them because of officer safety considerations. This is simply not the law. Fourth Amendment law can be complicated and counterintuitive. Officers need reminders about the limits of their authority. The training materials provided included no mention of constitutional principles. The Atlanta Citizen Review Board previously recommended that officers receive more training on the subject of Terry Stops (July 14, 2009 in re 09-02). This recommendation was rejected by Chief Pennington in his letter dated September 16,2009. The Board should re-new this recommendation.

o

It is also clear that while the lieutenants were aware of the plans to make arrests at the Eagle, no one above that rank was informed before the operation was planned. There was no contact with the Zone Commander and this is troubling. A Zone Commander is in the best position to make judgments about the propriety and priority of making multiple arrests in his or her zone. There was a deployment of more than 20 officers and no one above the rank of Sergeant was at the scene and no one above the rank of Lieutenant knew of the plans. This is not good practice. An SOP should address the limits of a sergeant's authority to deploy this large a number of personnel.

IO

Finally, it is notable that the Board found that the officers used profane language and all of the officers

denied the use of the words that were heard by many of the patrons. The Atlanta Police Department 0 should use all of the tools available to them to ensure that officers answer questions honestly, including

the use of the Voice Stress Analysis when this many people have un-reconcilable versions of the same

event.

Exhibits

1. Standard Operating Procedures

2. Prior ACRB Investigation Summaries

3. Training Records

4. United States v. Glenn, 2009 WL 2390353 (S.D.Ga)

Submitted By:

Cristina Beamud Director

o

o