LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION REPORT Officer Inve ape | CRB Case# Officer Calder P#15330 (Gangs) | 19-222 Officer Gross P#14538 (Gangs : ‘Allegations: | Name of Complanae Hearing Standards of Conduct | Dates: Use of Force Rashawn Hunter | 10-13-20, 10-27-20, & 11-24-20 DISPOSITION (Check appropriate box) - 7 SUSTAINED: ‘The investigation andlor evidence proved that the officer(s) committed acts of misconduct, Nor sustaINeo The investigation andlor evidence falled to prove or disprove thatthe alleged act(s) occurred Q EXONERATED: The investigation andlor evidence proved that the alleged acts occurred but was/were justified, legal andlor properly within Departmental policy UNFOUNDED: ‘The investigation andlor evidence proved that the officer(s) did not commit the alleged acts of misconduct. POLICY FAILURE: The investigation andlor evidence proved that the alleged acts occurred but were justified by the Department policy or procedures: however, the Citizen Review Board recommends that the policy or procedure be changed (_SUPERVISION/TRAINING FAILURE: The investigation and/or evidence proved that the alleged acts occurred and were the result of inadequate supervision or training Q MisconbUCT NoT BASED ‘The investigation disclosed misconduct which ON COMPLAINT: was not stated in the complaint COMPLAINANT NOT COOPERATIVE: —_No contact can be made with complainant for a proper investigation to take place, or complainant withdraws complaint. (Note: In some limited circumstances, even when’ the complainant is not cooperative and not interviewed, Internal Affairs may determine that there is sufficient evidence to reach a disposition. OTHER ~ SEE ATTACHEDCITIZEN REVIEW BOARD LAS VEGAS, NEVADA In the Matter of: CRB Case No: 19-222 Rashawn Hunter, Complainant Allegations: Officer Gross P#15348 ‘Standards of Conduct/Use of Force Officer Calder P#15330 Date of Incident: 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS On October 17, 2019, a complaint was filed with the Citizen Review Board (hereinafter CRB’) by Rashawn Hunter (hereinafter, "Mr. Hunter’) in reference to a traffic stop that took place (on May 22, 2079. In his complaint to the CRB, Mr. Hunter alleges that there was no valid basis for the traffic stop. Mr. Hunter believes that the stop was conducted by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (hereinafter, “LVMPD") Officers Gross and Calder in an effort to harass him. Mr. Hunter further believes he was targeted by Officers Gross and Calder because he was a young, dark-skinned male driving an expensive vehicle in a lower socioeconomic. status neighborhood, Mr. Hunter's complaint also lists several collateral consequences he claims to have suffered as a result of what he called a “false arrest”. Mr. Hunter's compiaint was first heard by a CRB screening panel on October 13, 2020. After discussing the complaint and accompanying documents, the Screening Panel decided to refer the complaint to a CRB Hearing Panel. On October 13, 2020, a CRB Hearing Panel met to discuss Mr. Hunter's complaint. It should also be noted that prior to a CRB Hearing Panel reviewing this case, an Internal affairs bureau (hereinafter, “IAB") investigation was conducted. AS wil be discussed below, the IAB investigation generally focused on whether a traffic offense was conducted by Mr. Hunter, the validity of Mr. Hunter's arrest, and the towing of the vehicle Mr. Hunter was driving During the October 13, 2020 meeting, the Hearing Panel reviewed Mr. Hunter's intial complaint, all documents provided with the IAB investigation, Body Worn Camera (hereinafter, “BWC footage of the traffic stop and the LVMPD policy manual, It should be noted that the IAB investigation concluded that the only LVMPD policy violated by Officers Gross and Calder was,LVMPD Policy No. 5/207.05 in reference to the towing of a vehicle without proper notice to the ‘owner. After a full review of the above referenced items the CRB Hearing Panel finds that while we agree that LVMPD Policy No. /207.05 was violated, we believe that was not the only policy violated by Officers Gross and Calder. As such we find as follows: Policy 4/102.12 — Interaction with the Public ‘This CRB hearing panel finds that Officers Gross and Calder violated LVMPD policy 4/102.12. LVMPD Policy 4/102.12 states, in pertinent part, “Members should at all times be courteous, patient and respectful in dealings with the public. Members should avoid answering ‘questions in a short and abrupt manner and should not use harsh, coarse, violent, profane, insolent, indecent, suggestive, sarcastic, or insulting language. Members should maintain an even-tempered, professional demeanor regardless of the provocation, remaining cool and collected at alltime...” Here, after reviewing BWC of the traffic stop itis clear to this CRB hearing panel that policy 4/102.12 was violated. First, this Panel understands that Mr. Hunter's actions during the traffic stop were not proper and likely influenced Officers Gross and Calder's behavior. Mr. Hunter should have remained in the vehicle, he should have given his name immediately upon request, and he should have not used insulting language to officers. Mr. Hunter's language to the officers was inappropriate, condescending, and at times borderline confrontational. We also understand that the approach or demeanor of an officer likely changes based upon the nature of the call, e.g. a jaywalking call vs. a person-with-a gun call. Based on the information provided by Officers Gross and Calder we view their actions through the lens of @ simple traffic stop. We believe the officers’ actions during this traffic stop to be unnecessary and that they further escalated the situation, From the beginning of the trafic stop, the general tone of Officers Gross and Calder was aggressive and accusatory, Again, Mr. Hunter should not have exited his vehicle but when he did, he was holding a cup of ice cream. Upon exiting the vehicle, Mr. Hunter was forcefully grabbed then quickly handouffed and patted down. Those actions do not appear necessary from Mr. Hunter's actions or demeanor in the video. Next, the BWC shows OfficerGross lose his cool with Mr. Hunter. Mr. Hunter was clearly attempting to upset the officers, but this panel believes Officers Gross and Calder had a duty to remain calm and act professionally even when faced with Mr. Hunter's verbal abuse. The BWC shows Officer Gross noticeably irritated with Mr. Hunter and state, “you want to play fucking games I'm done". Officer Gross also says, "you can go to jail then... you get to go to jail for playing games". It appears to this panel that these statements were indicative more of Officer Gross being upset with Mr. Hunter versus Mr. Hunter's actions actually warranting going to jail Officer Calder illustrates his frustration with Mr. Hunter when he suggests that the officers book Mr. Hunter in as “Code 5°. In response, Officer Gross stated "Let's code 5 him then, fuck him...". This panel believes the decision to report Mr. Hunter as Code 5 (a classification usually reserved for combative or extremely disruptive arrestees) to the Clark County Detention Center further supports the belief that officers acted out of emotion, not necessity. While the officers’ frustration and anger is generally understandable, this panel stil believes that policy 4/102.12 was violated Policy 4/103.26 ~ Respect for Individual Rights of Persons This CRB hearing panel believes that there may have been a violation of Policy 4/103.26 and that IAB should have conducted an investigation related to that policy, which states, in pertinent part, “Members of this Department are expressly prohibited from engaging in biased- based policing activities. Members will not discriminate against any person. Any arrest, detention, interdiction, asset seizure or forfeiture or other law enforcement action or statement based in whole or in part on the actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color,... economic status or other trait of a person or group is strictly forbidden unless such trait is a part of an identifiable description of a specific suspect for a specific crime... Members will act, speak, and conduct themselves in a professional manner and all contact with the public... All complaints alleging the use of bias-based profiling in any law enforcement action will be thoroughly investigated by the internal affairs section.” Here, this hearing panel does not believe a ‘thorough investigation” was conducted into ‘Mr. Hunter's claim of racial/economic bias. ‘The first sentence of Mr. Hunter's complaint refers to him being a young darker-skinned man driving a Rolls Royce in a povertyldrug neighborhood. Mr. Hunter also repeatedly claimed he was harassed by officers both in his complaint and on the BWC. We believe that these statements put IAB on notice that Mr. Hunter was alleging “biased-based policing activities”. Despite Mr. Hunter’s statements, there is no reference to Policy 4/103.26 in the IAB investigation report. Further, the officers that conducted the traffic stop on Mr. Hunter were “gang-unit officers. It seems unusual to this panel that officers assigned to a specialized unit like the gang unit would conduct random, routine traffic stops. It seems much more likely that, as Mr. Hunter stated, officers Gross and Calder observed a young black male driving a Rolls Royce in a “bad” neighborhood, it caught their attention, and they wanted to investigate, Mr. Hunter also alleged that the officers that conducted this traffic stop waited for him to return to his vehicle after he stopped at Philly Freeze Me for a shaved Ice. (Mr. Hunter is seen eating @ shaved ice in the BWC). If this allegation is true, it would further support Mr. Hunter's belief that he was being profiled by officers Gross and Calder. However, without additional Information this panel cannot confirm Mr. Hunter’s claim. Mr. Hunter's allegations should have been investigated in order to ascertain their validity. Based upon the limited information this panel has related to a possible violation of Policy 4/103.26, we are not in a position to determine if a Violation related to “biased-based policing” occurred. It should be noted however that this panel does believe officers violated the requirement contained in Policy 4/103.26 that “Members will act, speak and conduct themselves in a professional manner in all contact with the public.” However, we find this specific sentence to be duplicative of Policy 4/102.12 and as such we do not believe additional sanctions are warranted for the previously mentioned Policy 4/102.12 violations under Policy 4/103.26.Conelusion and Recommendations ‘This Panel makes the following recommendations to the Sherif with regard to the investigation by Internal Affairs as well as findings on the specific allegations of misconduct by Officers Gross and Calder. 1. AS to Policy 4/103.26 (Respect for Individual Rights), this board understands that Mr. Hunter's Complaint does not specifically address racial profiling or LVMPD Policy 4/103.26, However, as Outlined above, Mr. Hunter's complaint clearly puts anyone that reads it on notice that he is claiming that he was treated differently because of his race. This board believes that Internal Affairs had a duty to investigate Mr. Hunter's claims as they related to racial profling and Policy 4/103.26 violations. Upon review of all documentation provided to this board by Intemal Affairs, it does not appear any investigation regarding Policy 4/103.26 was conducted, This board strongly recommends Internal Affairs investigate all future allegations regarding Policy 4/103.26 violations, ‘even when key words such as “racial profling” or “Policy 4/103.26" are not specifically mentioned. 2. AS to Policy 4102.12 (Interaction with the Public), upon review of the BWC and documentation Provided, this board believes there was @ clear violation of this policy. There are, however, several mitigating circumstances that this board believes lessens the severity of said violation ‘Those mitigating circumstances include Mr. Hunter's words, actions, and demeanor throughout the traffic stop. Despite the existence of these mitigating factors, a violation of Policy 4/102.12 took place. As such, this board recommends that both Officers Gross and Calder receive verbal supervisory counseling related specifically to LVMPD Policy 4/102.12 Shido boskpse aT IQR PADY ITERS, Vice-Chair