Consider adopting a policy or written procedures concerning guarding prisoners who are in unsecured locations.

Review policy concerning the release of confidential information: 1) State a clear and usable definition;  (Previously recommended in 2001)  2) Examine the apparent practice of affording special rights not found in the law to parents of those who have reached the age of 18.

Adopt BPD and APD policy language that:  1) Clearly articulates that shooting at a moving vehicle, its driver, and/or its passengers is inherently dangerous and generally ineffective;  2) Reminds officers of their public responsibility to avoid tactics that unnecessarily create dangerous circumstances or the need to use deadly force if other equally effective options are available; 3) Informs officers that moving out of the way of an on-coming vehicle, retreating, reposition, and obtaining cover are sound police tactics, not examples of cowardice or weakness;  4) Requires officers to take into account the presence of other vehicles, pedestrians, innocent bystanders, and occupied structures and weigh the potential danger to others before shooting at a moving vehicle, its driver, or any occupants;  5) Prohibits officers from intentionally placing themselves in front of or behind a station occupied vehicle;  6) Prohibits officers from intentionally stepping in the path of a moving vehicle;  7) Directs officers to avoid placing themselves in an inherently dangerous position which would expose them to danger should the suspect vehicle become mobile;  8) Requires officers to get out of the path of a moving vehicle if at all physically possible;  9) Prohibits officers from firing their weapons at a moving vehicle, its driver, and/or its passengers excepts as a last resort when:  a) The officer is physically unable to either get out of the vehicle’s path and/or, b) A deadly threat is present, other than the approach of the vehicle itself (e.g., shots are being fired at the officer or others from inside the vehicle) and the officer and/or those being threatened are able to obtain sufficient cover.

The ombudsman repeats and reinforces his 2005 recommendation that BPD make such changes to current audio recordings and critical incident policies and procedures as are necessary to require officers to audio record all statements made by involved parties, victims, suspects, witnesses, etc. officers and non-officers alike.

Work with CITF to institute those changes to CITF procedures and management oversight necessary to insure the proper identification, collection, handling, testing, and safeguarding of evidence in the course of a CITF investigation.

Design and implement on-going training for all officers to improve their ability to effectively accomplish the difficult responsibilities of being a primary officer for incidents that include an existing or potential threat to life or property and require the response of two or more officers.

Review media philosophy and practices regarding public statements and demonstrations by police officials.

Work with other CITF members to require that all interviews conducted by CITF investigators be audio (or video/audio) recorded and documented in a consistent manner. (Previously recommended in 2004.)

2004

Consider the use of digital recorders by APD officers and clarify the audio recording policy for officers.

Strengthen harassment policy training and communication for employees on this issue.

Strengthen the reimbursement policy and the collection practices for personal use of department cell phones.

Provide its officers with regular skill-building training (practical and experiential in nature) in the use of any and all “extreme measures” authorized for use during pursuit, or re-examine its policy and related training concerning the use of “extreme measures” so that the only measures authorized are those that can be safely taught, practiced, and used. (Previously recommended in 2002.)

Establish a set of minimum expectations for officers when ordered to terminate a pursuit.  These minimum expectations must be broad enough to be useful regardless of the particulars of any given situation and allow for the application of common sense.  Furthermore, BPD should incorporate communications of these standards into regularly scheduled in-service training and briefing communications so as to create and maintain a consistent understanding among all officers.

Work with CITF to add to their standard protocol that all involved officers who were present at the scene of an officer-involved shooting be directly asked to identify every weapons (including, but not limited to firearms) on their person and/or in their immediate control at any time during the incident.

Work with the Critical Incident Task Force (CITF) to establish a common and consistent format for conducting witness interviews. This would apply to interviews of both law enforcement personnel and civilians.  Recommend that all interviews be either audio or audio/video recorded and documented in a consistent, standardized format.

Policy and procedures manual (3.03.05) should be amended to explicitly prohibit BPD officers from becoming involved in any pursuit that has two or more police vehicles already involved, no matter what law enforcement agency that already-involved units belong to.  The policy should require specific authorization from the pursuit incident commander before any BPD unit gets involved in a pursuit that already has two or more units involved.

It is recommended that, if in the course of an administrative review, credible evidence is found that forms a reasonable suspicion that a criminal violation has occurred, and if the crime is a felony or is a misdemeanor that directly affects the reputation and/or operational effectiveness of the City of Boise, the administrative review should be halted immediately and the matter referred, through the Office of the City Attorney, to an appropriate outside (non-Boise City) law enforcement agency for investigation. The administrative review would recommence once any criminal investigation has been completed.

The City should adopt a formal policy and procedure that clearly define the process to be used when allegations are made against senior managers, department heads, and elected officials. Particularly with regard to allegations made against department heads and elected officials, a cooperative agreement with an outside (non-Boise City) investigative agency/ contractor should be put in place so that allegations against department heads and elected officials can be automatically referred to the outside agency/contractor for investigation.

Engage in a conversation with area hospitals, the courts, prosecutors, and the Department of Health and Welfare to determine when and how the medical treatment provisions of the Child Protective Act (Idaho Code § 16-1616) should be used. This provision seems to express the legislature’s desire that judges, not police officers, decide when medical treatment is necessary.

Consider the possibility of offering refresher training in dealing with emotionally distraught persons to the CID detectives who handle the investigation of violent crimes.

Provide Airport Police Department (APD) officers with training designed to enhance the officers’ skills in dealing with people under stressful and confrontational situations.  

Adopt policy language prohibiting employees from making statements that would accept liability on behalf of the City, unless specifically authorized to do so.

Develop a written brochure for sexual assault victims that would explain the process of filing claims and reimbursement for medical exams.

More clearly define for employees what information is confidential and the process for releasing information to members of the public.

Change policy GO II-A-22 (Investigation of Officer-Involved Critical Incidents Within Boise City) to include a specific supervisory role at the location to which principal and involved officers are transported after the incident.  This supervisor should have specific responsibility to ensure that every principal and involved officer remains separated from officers who were involved in the incident.

Change the probationary review process to require that the chief make the final decision on whether to end an officer’s probationary status and promote that officer to regular status.

Review policy of screening and hiring new officers to require written documentation of reasons why a person was recommended or not recommended for hire from all those involved in the decision making process.

Review policy and clarify handcuffing of hospitalized prisoners in order to remove any possible confusion for officers.

Consider changing policy to require that supervisors immediately notify the Office of Internal Affairs every time that they receive a Class I Complaint.

Review existing use-of-force training to determine if the principals of situation analysis, resource management, de-escalation, and re-evaluation are being adequately covered.

Provide officers with refresher legal training on entry without a warrant explaining that the exercise of one’s constitutional rights cannot be the sole basis for a charge of resisting and obstructing an officer.

Develop a policy or procedure for how officers are to respond to individuals with seizure disorders.