BPD Monitoring Team. First-Year Monitoring Plan Draft

Transcription

1 First-Year Draft January 8, 2018

2 Introduction This document contains a draft of the First Year ( ) that the Baltimore Police Department ( ) has prepared for structuring and assessing the compliance of the Baltimore Police Department ( ) and the City of Baltimore ( City ) with the court-approved Consent Decree that and the City entered into with the United States Department of Justice ( DOJ ) in The Consent Decree, which is a judicially-enforceable agreement, requires to adopt a comprehensive set of specific reforms designed to promote fair and constitutional policing, rebuild s relationships with Baltimore s communities, and ensure public safety. Taken as a whole, the Consent Decree prescribes transformational change for. Achieving transformational change in a large police department does not happen overnight. As the Consent Decree envisions, it takes time, and it requires adherence to a rigorous, methodical reform process. The is the blueprint for the first year of that process. It provides a clear, detailed, structured framework for the initial steps that and the City must take toward full and effective compliance with the Consent Decree. The draft is what it purports to be: a draft. Between now and January 29, 2018, the seeks to obtain the community s views on the draft. We would like to know whether community members and police officers believe the draft reflects the correct priorities based on the requirements of the Consent Decree and, if not, which Consent Decree requirements ought to be prioritized instead. We would also like to know whether community members and police officers believe the draft provides them a meaningful voice in the reform process laid out in the Consent Decree. Upon receiving and assessing the community s comments, we will assemble a final proposed plan for the Court s review and approval. In correspondence, in informal meetings, and at forums held in November and December 2017 at Mervo High School, Douglass High School, Dunbar High School, and Harford Heights Elementary School, the already has received the views of certain community members about Consent Decree priorities and community participation in the Consent Decree reform process. We have received similar feedback from officers. These communications confirmed our belief that community members and police officers should have an opportunity to review and comment on a written draft of the, now that one has been prepared, before a final proposed is submitted to the Court. What the Is and What It Is Not The does not take the place of the Consent Decree, and nothing in the changes any of the requirements of the Consent Decree. Just the opposite: the provides a timetable for implementing the requirements of the Consent Decree. Informed by the s experience with overseeing other police reform efforts and our sense of what is unique about Baltimore and, the furnishes a road map i Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

3 for ensuring that (1) and the City make swift progress in adopting lasting, sustainable reform and (2) all stakeholders Baltimore residents,, the City, and DOJ know what needs to be done, and when it needs to be done, as the compliance process unfolds. This document contains two parts: the and an Overview of Subsequent Years. The identifies the obligations of, the City, and the for the first year of monitoring, which will run from mid-february 2018 through mid- February The is necessarily detailed. It provides specific deadlines, weekby-week and month-by-month, that obligate and the City to comply with the Consent Decree requirements that the believes ought to prioritized, and can be achieved, by February These requirements include establishing policies, developing training curricula, and making systemic assessments, all of which are aimed at ensuring effective, safe, constitutional policing. The thus lays the groundwork for making tangible improvements in operations and performance, including positive changes in the ways officers interact with civilians. The does not flesh out each and every measure and the City must take to achieve full and effective compliance with the Consent Decree. It covers only one year of a multi-year project. As the indicates, the will present a similarly detailed Second Year in late 2018, after we have had time to assess s progress in the first year. We will then present a detailed Third Year near the end of the second year, after we have a chance to assess s progress under the Second Year. And so on. As its name indicates, the Overview of Subsequent Years contains an overview of the plan for meeting Consent Decree requirements that are either not prioritized or not realistically achievable in the first year. Unlike the, and as the Consent Decree requires, the Overview of Subsequent Years provides a general timetable not specific deadlines for achieving the Consent Decree s goals. In essence, it is a rough guide for drafting the more detailed annual plans in the coming years. What the Requires in Year One As the differences between the and the Overview of Subsequent Years make clear, not every Consent Decree requirement can be or will be addressed, much less met, in the first year. Full Consent Decree compliance cannot be achieved all at once., its officers and community members need sufficient time and opportunity to focus on each area of the Consent Decree, and on each requirement within each area, to ensure that reform is real and enduring. There is generally a logical progression for achieving sustainable reform in each area of the Consent Decree. first must establish revised policies in each area. Then it must develop and conduct training on those revised policies. It is only at that point that the can comprehensively assess whether the new policies are taking root that is, whether the new policies are actually resulting in the real-world changes the Consent Decree requires. Because it ii Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

4 covers only the first year, the naturally focuses on the front-end of the reform process: policy revision and, where achievable within the first twelve months, training curriculum revision. And it does so in certain key areas. The has prioritized these areas because: (1) community members have identified them as priorities; (2) DOJ focused on them in its findings, which led to the Consent Decree; (3) they are achievable in the first year; and (4), the City and DOJ have identified them as ripe for early focus. These areas include: use of force; transportation of persons in custody; stops, searches, arrests and voluntary interactions; impartial policing; misconduct investigations and discipline; First Amendment-protected activities; and sexual assault investigations. The general focus on policies and training development does not mean that, in the first year, the will not examine the conduct of officers on the street, or determine how to measure whether is making tangible improvements in its performance, which is the ultimate goal of the Consent Decree. We will. As the indicates, we will work with and as the Consent Decree requires, to develop methodologies for determining whether officers are engaged in constitutional policing and whether, including its internal accountability mechanisms and data collection systems, are functioning in a way that promotes that goal. Importantly, we will also conduct preliminary assessments of performance in certain key areas stops/searches/arrests and impartial policing; use of force; and misconduct investigations with an eye toward determining what we need to look for once the implements revised training programs and upgraded data collection systems. There is more in the than the development of policies, training plans, and assessment measures. and the City are, for instance, required to install proper equipment in transport vans and perform foundational studies to determine what and the City need in critical areas like technology, staffing, and services to individuals with behavioral health disabilities. The also focuses on community policing and engagement. It requires to formulate a robust community engagement and policing plan, which is essential to achieving the Consent Decree s goal of building a relationship of trust between and the communities it serves. For each deliverable must achieve under the, the will conduct a compliance review to determine whether it satisfies the requirements of the Consent Decree. Because this is the first year, these compliance reviews will necessarily be limited to particular Consent Decree requirements. It is too early in the reform process to conduct compliance reviews for entire sections of the Consent Decree, and likewise too soon to conduct comprehensive outcome assessments. How the Will Communicate with the and the Parties The also outlines the s own engagement with the community. Consistent with the input received from community stakeholders in meetings and at the four community forums held in November and December 2017, we will be expanding our iii Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

5 community engagement team. Within the first several months of 2018, the will select and hire, through an application process, neighborhood liaisons in each of Baltimore s nine police districts. The purpose of this expansion is to provide Baltimoreans access to the that is both localized and familiar. Through the existing ties they have with residents in their communities, the neighborhood liaisons will serve as the s initial points of contact for information and opinions about the performance and conduct of officers, which the will need to fully assess s compliance with the Consent Decree. The also identifies how the will communicate with community members. We have (1) an office at 6 Redwood Street in Baltimore, (2) a website, and an address, info@bpdmonitor.com, (3) a telephone number, (410) , and (4) a presence on social media, with a Facebook account ( and a Twitter account ( which we will regularly use to let community members know about our work. Twice in the first year (and every year), we will publish detailed reports on s progress toward satisfying the Consent Decree s requirements. Four times during the first year, on dates in April, July and October 2018 and January 2019, we will hold community meetings in different areas of the City, which will be followed by formal presentations to the Court regarding s progress (on April 13, July 26 and October 9, 2018, and January 19, 2019). We will also conduct a comprehensive community survey that will gauge community and officer views about performance and needs. Finally, we will continue to meet informally with community members to discuss our work with small groups, as we seek and receive invitations to attend meetings of community organizations, and with individual stakeholders. In addition to establishing how the will communicate with the community, the implicitly establishes a protocol for communications with, the City and DOJ. For each deliverable in the, there is a prescribed give-and-take involving the and the parties. In addition, while the may communicate with only one party to facilitate compliance logistics and administration as needed, the and the parties agree that the compliance process is a collaborative one, so for any meetings, telephone calls or electronic communications that address how is expected to achieve compliance, the will include all parties. How the Developed the Since our appointment by Judge James K. Bredar on October 3, 2017, the has learned a lot about and how it currently functions. In meetings and at community forums, we have spent significant time hearing from community members to understand how they view, what they believe the s priorities ought to be under the Consent Decree, what they want to know from the, and what they believe the Consent Decree can and cannot achieve. In meetings, on ride-alongs, and in preliminary focus group sessions, we have also spent time with command staff, supervisors, union leadership, and rank-and-file officers to obtain their views about the measures already has adopted to achieve reform, the iv Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

6 Consent Decree requirements that are achievable in the short term, s long-term needs for satisfying other Consent Decree requirements, and the challenges officers face as they seek to protect communities afflicted by violent crime. In addition, we have reviewed a substantial number of documents, including existing policies and training curricula, to gauge what is doing and intends to do to comply with the Consent Decree. Using the Consent Decree as our guide, and relying on our own experience monitoring other consent decrees and overseeing other police reform efforts, we considered all of this information and drafted a that accounts for what should do, and what it is capable of doing, in the first year of monitoring. Correspondingly, we drafted an Overview of Subsequent Years that outlines what must do in the following years. As the Consent Decree requires, we then consulted with, the City, and DOJ to obtain their feedback on the preliminary draft of the, made the recommended adjustments we felt were warranted, and rejected others. The result is the attached document: a that charts in detail what we expect and the City to work on, deliver, and implement in the first year, and generally outlines what and the City must do in the years to come, to achieve full and effective compliance with the Consent Decree. How the Is Structured The responsible for assessing s compliance with the Consent Decree and for creating the to facilitate that assessment includes specialists in policing and police reform, civil rights enforcement, psychology, social science, organizational change, data and technology, and community engagement. The leadership of the includes Kenneth Thompson, the Monitor; Charles Ramsey, Principal Deputy Monitor; Seth Rosenthal, Deputy Monitor; Theron Bowman, Deputy Monitor; and Hassan Aden, Deputy Monitor. Mr. Thompson oversees the entire project and is the final decision-maker for the. Mr. Ramsey assists Mr. Thompson in his general oversight role. So does Mr. Rosenthal, who is the principal drafter of the s public reports, manages the bulk of the s administration, and oversees responsibilities in the areas of community engagement and First Amendment-protected activities. Mr. Bowman and Mr. Aden are also responsible for directly overseeing responsibilities in certain areas. Mr. Bowman manages responsibilities for community policing, stop/search/arrest, impartial policing, interactions with people with behavioral health disabilities and in crisis, sexual assault investigations, recruitment, and technology. Mr. Aden manages responsibilities for use of force, transportation of persons in custody, interactions with youth, coordination with school police, misconduct/discipline, supervision-policies, supervision-training, supervision and early intervention systems, staffing and promotions, and officer assistance and support. Other team members include Matthew Barge, Kevin Bethel, Jessica Drake, Dr. Randy Dupont, Terry Gainer, Maggie Goodrich, Shantay Guy/Baltimore Mediation Center, v Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

7 Rachel Harmon, Nola Joyce, Tracey Meares, Robert McNeilly, Kathleen O Toole, Stephen Parker, Dr. Ellen Scrivner, Sean Smoot, Dr. Ralph Taylor, George Turner, and Roberto Villasenor. The biographies of each team member are at The roles of each team member are set forth in the following chart: Engagement Lead Chuck Ramsey Seth Rosenthal Other Members Assigned Shantay Guy (primary liaison) Jessica Drake Hassan Aden Chuck Ramsey Kevin Bethel Nola Joyce Terry Gainer Ellen Scrivner George Turner Stops, Searches, Arrests, and Voluntary Police- Interactions Theron Bowman Steve Parker Tracey Meares Ralph Taylor Impartial Tracey Meares Theron Bowman Responding To and Interacting with People with Behavioral Disabilities or in Randy Dupont Seth Rosenthal Roberto Villasenor Use of Force Roberto Villasenor Steve Parker Rachel Harmon Ralph Taylor Interactions with Youth Kevin Bethel Roberto Villasenor Transportation of Persons in Custody Roberto Villasenor Kevin Bethel Terry Gainer First Amendment Protected Activities Chuck Ramsey Seth Rosenthal Rachel Harmon Handling of Reports of Sexual Assault Nola Joyce George Turner Rachel Harmon Technology Maggie Goodrich Theron Bowman Supervision Policies Theron Bowman Hassan Aden Kathleen O Toole Supervision Hassan Aden Theron Bowman Kathleen O Toole Supervision Early Intervention System Maggie Goodrich Bob McNeilly George Turner Sean Smoot vi Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

8 Misconduct Investigations and Discipline Coordination with Baltimore City School Police Force Recruitment, Hiring, and Retention Staffing, Performance Evaluations, and Promotions Officer Assistance and Support What Happens Next Hassan Aden Kevin Bethel Theron Bowman Sean Smoot Nola Joyce Sean Smoot Steve Parker Matthew Barge Bob McNeilly Sean Smoot Roberto Villasenor Sean Smoot Roberto Villasenor The is now making the draft available for formal public comment. We want to hear from as many voices as possible about the draft. We invite all members of the community to let us know their impressions. The public comment period will run for three weeks, from today, January 8, 2018, through January 29, Comments can be submitted in one of three ways: (1) By completing a survey online on the s website, This is the preferred method; (2) By visiting the s office at 6 Redwood Street in Baltimore and completing the survey in person; or (3) By mailing a letter to the at the following address: c/o Kenneth Thompson Venable LLP 750 East Pratt Street, Suite 900 Baltimore, MD As the survey form available online indicates, individuals who submit comments should focus on the following general questions: Does the identify the right priorities under the Consent Decree, or should it focus on different Consent Decree requirements? vii Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

9 Will the timetables in the facilitate progress that is fast, but also real and lasting? Does the give community members and police officers alike an adequate voice in the reform process? If not, what changes should be made to make sure it does? The will post the comments received on our website and share them with the parties. The and the parties will consider the comments received, incorporate the comments into the as warranted, and submit a final proposed to the Court for review and approval on February 5, viii Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

10 Row 1 First-Year 2 General Notes: For all deadlines established below, the Monitor and Parties agree that the deadlines might, in some instances, need to be extended by a brief interval to allow or accommodate unforeseen circumstances or unexpected, minor delays. Accordingly, if and only if all of the Monitor, United States, and the City agree that an extension for any of the deadlines outlined below is warranted and acceptable, the deadline may be extended by an interval of fourteen (14) calendar days without receiving formal approval of the Court for an extension of the deadline. No deadline may be extended by more than fourteen (14)) calendar days without approval of the Court. If any or all of this 14-day period is used, the Monitor will formally notify the Court of the deadline extension(s). The extension of any specific deadline, or deadlines, will not change or otherwise affect any other deadline. Unless the identifies problems with a deadline extension or otherwise raises issued with the Court, none of the Parties, the Court, or the public should interpret changes in deadlines to reflect problems in implementation or a lack of progress. Instead, all should understand that, for progress to be comprehensive and enduring, it may be necessary to take more time initially to refine policies, procedures, or training so that progress, ultimately, is faster, more effective, and more efficient. 3 For purposes of the following deadlines, and unless otherwise expressly noted to the contrary, "semi-annual" means two times per year at a pace of once per six months. "Annual" means once per calendar year. "Bi-weekly" means once every two calendar weeks. "Monthly" means once per calendar month. "Days" means calendar days. If a listed deadline falls on a weekend or federal, state, local, or Court holiday, the deadline may be satisfied by submission or completion of the identified deliverable on the next business and/or non-holiday day. 4 Consent Decree Responsible Paragraphs Area Sub-Area Milestone Stakeholder(s) Deliverable Deadline 5 6, Engagement General As required by the Consent Decree, direct community participation and involvement in police reform will be an overriding objective and goal throughout work under the First-Year. In addition to specific periods of community feedback and engagement provided for elsewhere in this plan, during the initial 30 to 45 days of work on any specifically-designated "sub-area" of the, the, potentially in partnership with the Parties and, will conduct an affirmative and focused community engagement effort to identify issues, feedback, concerns, experiences, values, and histories of Baltimore's diverse communities including officers regarding the subject matter at hand. The nature of this outreach may include, depending on the issue area, electronic feedback mechanisms; meetings with community organizations and leaders; engagement with existing -community partnerships; general community forums; or community focus groups., City, Ongoing Engagement Ongoing 1 Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

11 6 6, Engagement 7 6, Engagement General General To facilitate community engagement, the will select between one and three neighborhood liaisons in each district. These liaisons will serve as access points to the. The will issue a request for applications for neighborhood liaisons. The will receive applications from throughout the Baltimore City community. Request for Applications Issued Deadline for Applications 08-Feb Mar , Engagement General The will select the liaisons and will contact the liaisons and Parties. Announcement of Neighborhood Liaisons 04-Apr Policies General will certify, and the will independently verify that is making all policies publicly available electronically on 's website. will certify, and the will independently verify that adequate, specific procedures are in place to ensure that each new or revised policy or procedure is published on the website promptly upon initial implementation. This certification will contain a schedule for subsequent verifications of compliance with paragraph Policies General will certify, and the will independently verify, that all officers and employees have access to a readily usable electronic format of all policies. If all officers and employees do not have such access, will provide a Access that provides specific milestones, deadlines, and responsible Oversight Task Force stakeholders for ensuring such access. To ensure compliance with paragraphs 10 to 14, the shall have at least monthly communications with the Oversight Task Force., COTF Certification to of Availability on Public Website, Procedure for Updating Certification of Availability or Access Monthly Conference Calls 23-Feb Feb-18 Ongoing Oversight Task Force The Oversight Task Force will present a public report with its recommendations, with the City post[ing[ any COTF report on its website and invit[ing] public comment. COTF Public Report Presented 06-Mar-18 2 Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

12 13 1 3, 15 Mission, the Parties, and the will actively solicit public comment on issues relating to the mission statement. Stakeholders will synthesize public input into a written document for stakeholder and public review during the Collaboration. City, Initial Comment 07-Feb-18 through 13- Mar , , , , , , , 15 Mission Mission will submit a first draft of a mission statement that "reflects its commitment to community-oriented policing" and the objectives of the Consent Decree. will work with the Parties and to address the submitted initial feedback during the Collaboration. will produce subsequent iterations of the Draft Mission Statement as necessary through this process, which the Parties and will review and provide additional comments or feedback, as appropriate. During this period,, the Parties, and will work together to establish working timeframes for collaborating and, City, Draft Mission Statement Collaboration exchanging subsequent policy iterations. Mission will submit a Proposed Final Mission Statement. Proposed Final Mission Statement Mission Mission will post the Final Mission Statement on its website and provide affirmative, intensive opportunities for both the public and officers to comment on the Final Mission Statement. shall consider whether any further revisions are appropriate in light of public and officer feedback received in the Comment. will notify the Parties and as to whether resumption of the Collaboration is necessary or desired. 14-Feb Feb-18 through 13- Mar Mar-18 Comment 21-Mar-18 through 21- Apr-18 Consideration of Comment Feedback Mission will submit a Final Mission Statement. Final Mission Statement Mission The Parties review the Final Mission Statement. DOJ indicates its formal approval or disapproval, in writing, to the Monitor. DOJ Final Mission Statement 21-Apr-18 through 21- May May May-18 3 Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

13 21 1 3, , , , , 25 Mission General General General General The will approve or disapprove of the Proposed Final Mission Statement, explaining its rationale and justification with the Court. will submit a first draft plan for ensuring the specific community policing and engagement mechanisms outlined in paragraphs 19 through 21 of the Consent Decree (the "Draft "). The should include specific information about particular milestones, sub-deadlines, responsible actors or stakeholders for coordination and implementation, and mechanisms for measuring success or compliance. It should also include concrete performance indicators, which will then inform required status reports., the Parties, and the will actively solicit public comment on issues relating to community policing and engagement. Stakeholders will synthesize public input into a written document for stakeholder and public review during the Collaboration. will work with the Parties and to address the submitted initial feedback by all stakeholders (Parties, community (including officers)) during the Collaboration. will produce subsequent iterations of the Draft as necessary through this process, which the Parties and will review and provide additional comments or feedback, as appropriate. During this period,, the Parties, and will work together to establish working timeframes for collaborating and exchanging subsequent iterations of the. will submit a Proposed Final. City,, City, Filing of Memorandum to the Court re: Final Mission Statement Draft Initial Comment Collaboration Final to Parties, 11-Jun Sep Sep-18 through 30- Oct Sep-18 through 30- Nov Dec , 25 General will post the Proposed Final on its website and provide affirmative, intensive opportunities for both the public and officers to comment on the Final policies. Comment 17-Dec-18 through 18- Jan-19 4 Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

14 , , 25 General General shall consider whether any further revisions are appropriate in light of public and officer feedback received in the Comment. will either submit a Final or notify the Parties and as to whether resumption of the Collaboration is necessary or desired. The Parties review the Final. DOJ indicates its formal approval or disapproval, in writing, to the Monitor., City, CPC, Department of Justice DOJ Final Final 30-Jan Feb , 25 General The will approve or disapprove of the Final, explaining its rationale and justification with the Court. Filing of Memorandum to the Court re: Final 01-Mar , 25 General will implement the approved per its terms, with the providing technical assistance. and the Parties will meet periodically to discuss the status of implementation., City, Implementation of & ic Implementation Status Updates Beginning 15-Mar Engagement Engagement Engagement Assessments: Report Assessments: Report Assessments: Report will submit a Draft Report that complies with the requirements of paragraph 22. The Parties and will review and provide feedback on the Draft Report will file with the Court and make public a Final Report that incorporates the feedback and recommendations of the Parties, where appropriate. City, Draft Report to Parties Feedback re: Draft Report to Report 12-Nov Dec Dec-18 5 Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

15 34 23 Survey Survey General General The will draft an RFP for an external vendor or vendors to conduct surveys and/or focus groups of (1) residents, (2) police personnel, and (3) custodial arrestees. The vendor(s) will be a subcontractor of the. The will submit the draft RFP to the Parties for feedback and comment. The Parties will provide feedback and comment on the draft RFP to the. City, DOJ Draft Survey RFP Feedback re: Draft Survey RFP 24-Mar Apr Survey Survey Survey Survey General General General General In consultation with the Parties and, the will issue an RFP for an external vendor or vendors to conduct surveys and/or focus groups of (1) residents, (2) police personnel, and (3) custodial arrestees. The vendor(s) will be a sub-contractor of the. The and ultimately selected vendor(s) will actively pursue opportunities to incorporate members of the community in the process and administration of the survey. The will select a final vendor or vendors will be selected pursuant to the RFP after receiving comments and feedback from the Parties and. The will notify the Parties of the selected vendor(s). The selected vendor(s) and will work with the Parties and to design and facilitate the required surveys and/or focus groups. The vendor and will submit a final Survey Methodology to the Parties providing final details on survey design, methodology, approach, and timetable. The surveys will be conducted and completed pursuant to the design, methodology, approach, and timetable outlined in the Survey Methodology. RFP Issued Notification of Parties of Vendor(s) Selected Survey Methodology Provided to Parties Surveys Conducted 28-Apr Jun Jun Jul-18 through 30- Aug Survey General A draft final report on the surveys will be provided to the Parties for comment and feedback. Draft Survey Report Submitted 24-Sep Survey General The Parties will provide comment and feedback on the draft survey report. City, DOJ Feedback re: Draft Survey Report Provided 15-Oct Survey General A final report on the surveys will be provided to the Parties,, and the Court and be publicly available on the Monitor's website. Final Report on Survey Results 04-Nov-18 6 Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

16 , 43-44, 47-58, , 43-44, 47-58, , 43-44, 47-58, , 43-44, 47-58, Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions will submit to the Parties and its policies, including any "recently implemented revised policies" referenced in paragraph 29, on (1) voluntary contacts, (2) field interviews, (3) involuntary investigatory stops and detentions (non-vehicle), (4) vehicle stops, (5) searches, and (6) arrests (the "Policies re: Stops, Searches, Arrests, and Voluntary Police- Interactions") that it believes are compliant or relate to implementation of paragraphs 27 through 40, 43 through 44, 47 through 58, and 60 through 66 of the Consent Decree. It will include policies relating to supervisory response and review of the same. It will not include policies relating to the documentation or logging of information of such interactions. The Parties and the will review and provide feedback on the submitted policies on stops, searches, arrests, and voluntary contacts. The Parties and will provide initial feedback to., the Parties, and the will actively solicit public comment on issues relating to stops, searches, arrests, and voluntary police-community interactions. Stakeholders will synthesize public input into a written document for stakeholder and public review during the Collaboration. will work with the Parties and to address the submitted initial feedback during the Collaboration. will produce subsequent iterations of the Policies re: Stops, Searches, Arrests, and Voluntary Police- Interactions as necessary through this process, which the Parties and will review and provide additional comments or feedback, as appropriate. During this period,, the Parties, and will work together to establish working timeframes for collaborating and exchanging subsequent policy iterations. City, City,, City, Current/Recently Revised Policies on Stops, Searches, Arrests, and Voluntary Contacts Initial Feedback to re: Draft Policies re: Stops, Searches, Arrests, and Voluntary Police- Interactions Initial Comment Collaboration 07-Apr Apr Apr-18 through 25- May Apr-18 through 15- Jul-18 7 Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

17 , 43-44, 47-58, , 43-44, 47-58, , 43-44, 47-58, , 43-44, 47-58, Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions will submit Proposed Final Policies re: Stops, Searches, Arrests, and Voluntary Police- Interactions., the Parties, and the will post the Proposed Final Policies on Stops, Searches, Arrests, and Voluntary Police- Interactions on its website and provide affirmative, intensive opportunities for both the public and officers to comment on the Proposed Final policies. shall consider whether any further revisions are appropriate in light of public and officer feedback received in the Comment. will either submit Final Policies re: Stops, Searches, Arrests, and Voluntary Police- Interactions or notify the Parties and as to whether resumption of the Collaboration is necessary or desired. The Parties review the Final Policies. DOJ indicates its formal approval or disapproval, in writing, to the Monitor., City, DOJ Final Policies on Stops, Searches, Arrests, and Voluntary Police- Interactions Comment Final Policies on Stops, Searches, Arrests, and Voluntary Police- Interactions Final Policies on Stops, Searches, Arrests, and Voluntary Police- Interactions 30-Jul Jul-18 through 15- Sep Sep Oct-18 8 Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

18 , 43-44, 47-58, Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions The Monitor approves or disapproves the Final Policies on Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions, explaining its rationale and justification with the Court. The determination will be based on the extent to which the policy adequately complies with the requirements of the Decree incorporates feedback of the Parties, and reflects the values and specific input of community and Department stakeholders. Note: When approved, the Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions policies do not become effective, and officers are neither expected to conform to its requirements or be subject to discipline or any employment action pursuant to it, until the Parties and Monitor have certified that the requirements of the policy have been sufficiently communicated to officers and any necessary training completed. will submit a Draft Stops, Searches, and Arrests. This training plan will provide a summary but sufficiently specific overview about the objectives and content to be addressed, a breakdown of the not fewer than 16 hours of training, and a general explanation about the types of learning techniques that may be utilized. It should also analyze and incorporate resource and operational considerations into proposed implementation timelines. will work with the Parties and to address the submitted initial feedback during the Collaboration. will produce subsequent iterations of the Draft Stops, Searches, and Arrests as necessary through this process, which the Parties and will review and provide additional comments or feedback, as appropriate. During this period,, the Parties, and will work together to establish working timeframes for collaborating and exchanging subsequent iterations. provides a Final Stops, Searches, and Arrests., City, Filing of Memorandum to the Court re: Final Policies on Stops, Searches, Arrests, and Voluntary Police- Interactions Draft Stops, Searches, and Arrests Collaboration Final Stops, Searches, and Arrests 31-Oct Jul Jul-18 through 30- Sep Oct-18 9 Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

19 Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions , , , 86 Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Data Collection Data Collection Data Collection The Parties review the Final Stops, Searches, and Arrests. DOJ indicates its formal approval or disapproval, in writing, to the Monitor. The Monitor approves or disapproves the Final Stops, Searches, and Arrests, explaining its rationale and justification with the Court. The determination will be based on the extent to which the policy adequately complies with the requirements of the Agreement, incorporates feedback of the Parties, and reflects the values and specific input of community and Division stakeholders. implements the approved Stops, Searches, and Arrests training plan. The curricula for initial and/or follow-up training will be subject to the Comment and Collaboration s required by the Consent Decree. will convene regular, ongoing meetings with the Parties and, to include relevant and City IT professionals, to discuss and plan for the implementation of an electronic tracking system for all investigatory stops and searches (the "Investigatory Stop System")., working with the Parties and, will produce a project implementation plan for the Investigatory Stop System containing specific objectives, tasks, deadlines, and responsible stakeholders for ensuring the implementation of an Investigatory Stop System by March 30, The Parties and will review and provide feedback on the Draft Investigatory Stop System. DOJ, City, City, Final Stops, Searches, and Arrests Filing of Memorandum to the Court re: Final Stops, Searches, and Arrests Implementation of Stops, Searches, and Arrests Regular, Ongoing Meetings Begin Draft Investigatory Stop System to Parties Feedback on Draft Investigatory Stop System to 29-Oct Nov-18 Beginning 01-Jan May Jul Aug Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

20 , , , , , , 96 Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Stops, Searches, Arrests and Voluntary Police- Interactions Impartial Impartial Impartial Data Collection Data Collection Data Collection shall consider whether any further revisions are appropriate in light of feedback received. will either submit a Final Investigatory Stop System or notify the Parties and that a resumption of the Collaboration is necessary or desired. The Monitor approves or disapproves the Final Investigatory Stop System, explaining its rationale and justification with the Court. Final Investigatory Stop System Investigatory Stop System to Court will implement the Investigatory Stop System. Implementation of Investigatory Stop System will submit to the Parties and policies, including its new July 2016 policy ( 87), on impartial policing, anti-discrimination, that it believes to comply or otherwise relate to the requirements of paragraphs 87 through 89 (the "Current Impartial Policies"). The Parties and the will review and provide feedback on Current Impartial Policies. The Parties and will provide initial feedback to., the Parties, and the will actively solicit public comment on issues relating to impartial policing. Stakeholders will synthesize public input into a written document for stakeholder and public review during the Collaboration. City, City, Current Impartial Policies to Parties, Initial Feedback to re: Impartial Policies. Initial Comment 02-Sep Sep-18 Beginning 01-Dec Mar Apr Apr-18 through 15- May Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

21 , , 95 Impartial Impartial will work with the Parties and to address the submitted initial feedback during the Collaboration. will produce subsequent iterations of the Impartial Policies as necessary through this process, which the Parties and will review and provide additional comments or feedback, as appropriate. During this period,, the Parties, and will work together to establish working timeframes for collaborating and exchanging subsequent policy iterations. will submit Proposed Final Impartial Policies., City, Collaboration Impartial Policies 02-Apr-18 through 28- May Jun , , , 95 Impartial Impartial Impartial, the Parties, and the will post the Proposed Final Impartial Policies on its website and provide affirmative, intensive opportunities for both the public and officers to comment on the Final policies. shall consider whether any further revisions are appropriate in light of public and officer feedback received in the Comment. will either submit Final Impartial Policies notify the Parties and as to whether resumption of the Collaboration is necessary or desired. The Parties review the Final Impartial Policies. DOJ indicates its formal approval or disapproval, in writing, to the Monitor., City, DOJ Comment Consideration of Comment Feedback Final Impartial Policies 07-Jun-18 through 09- Jul Jul Aug Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

22 , , 16(h) Impartial Impartial The Monitor approves or disapproves the Final Impartial Policies explaining its rationale and justification with the Court. The determination will be based on the extent to which the policy adequately complies with the requirements of the Consent Decree, incorporates feedback of the Parties, and reflects the values and specific input of community and Department stakeholders. Note: When approved, the Impartial Policies do not become effective, and officers are neither expected to conform to its requirements or be subject to discipline or any employment action pursuant to it, until the Parties and Monitor have certified that the requirements of the policy have been sufficiently communicated to officers and any necessary training completed., the Parties, and the will convene regular, ongoing meetings regarding training addressing impartial policing and the specific sub-topics outlined in paragraph 93. Discussion will include exploration of either or both outside training programs or initiatives from other organizations and the development of Baltimore-specific training., City, Filing of Memorandum to the Court re: Final Impartial Policies Regular Meetings re: Fair & Impartial Begin 20-Aug Aug , 16(h) , 16(h) , 16(h) Impartial Impartial Impartial submits a First Draft Impartial Curriculum to the Parties and. The Parties and the will review and provide feedback on the First Draft Impartial Curriculum. The Parties and will provide initial feedback to. will work with the Parties and to address the submitted initial feedback during the Collaboration. will produce subsequent iterations of the First Draft Impartial Curriculum as necessary through this process, which the Parties and will review and provide additional comments or feedback, as appropriate. During this period,, the Parties, and will work together to establish working timeframes for collaborating and exchanging subsequent policy iterations. City,, City, First Draft Impartial Curriculum Initial Feedback to re: First Draft Impartial Curriculum Collaboration 21-Sep Oct Oct-18 through 13- Dec Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

23 , 16(h) , 16(h) , 16(h) , 16(h) , 16(h) Impartial Impartial Impartial Impartial Impartial Behavioral Disabilities/ General: CIT Coordinator will submit Proposed Final Impartial Curriculum., the Parties, and the will post the Proposed Final Impartial Curriculum on its website and provide affirmative, intensive opportunities for both the public and officers to comment on the Final training. shall consider whether any further revisions are appropriate in light of public and officer feedback received in the Comment. will either submit a Final Initial Impartial Curriculum or notify the Parties and as to whether resumption of the Collaboration is necessary or desired. The Parties review the Final Impartial Curriculum. DOJ indicates its formal approval or disapproval, in writing, to the Monitor. The Monitor approves or disapproves the Final Impartial Curriculum, explaining its rationale and justification with the Court. The determination will be based on the extent to which the policy adequately complies with the requirements of the Consent Decree, incorporates feedback of the Parties, and reflects the values and specific input of community and Department stakeholders. will "designate an officer at the rank of Sergeant or above to act as a Intervention Coordinator ("Coordinator") to better facilitate communication between and members of the behavioral health provider community and to increase the effectiveness of s crisis intervention program." will submit a memorandum documenting compliance with the requirement., City, DOJ Proposed Final Impartial Curriculum Comment Consideration of Comment Feedback Final Impartial Curriculum Filing of Memorandum to the Court re: Final Impartial Curriculum Submission to of Memorandum Documenting Compliance 20-Dec Dec-18 through 21- Jan Jan Feb Feb Feb Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

24 Behavioral Disabilities/ General: CIT Coordinator The Parties review the memorandum. DOJ indicates its formal approval or disapproval, in writing, to the Monitor. DOJ Memorandum Documenting Compliance 20-Mar Behavioral Disabilities/ Behavioral Disabilities/ Behavioral Disabilities/ Behavioral Disabilities/ General: CIT Coordinator General: CPIC General: CPIC General: CPIC The will approve or disapprove of the memorandum, explaining its rationale and justification with the Court. will seek to expand the membership of the Collaborative ning and Implementation Committee ( CPIC ) to include representatives from the community listed in the Consent Decree as well any other representatives that might be helpful to accomplish the tasks identified in the Consent Decree. The committee "will also include the Intervention Coordinator and Behavioral Services Baltimore." will submit a list of expanded membership of the Collaborative ning and Implementation Committee ( CPIC ). The Parties review the CPIC expanded membership. DOJ indicates its formal approval or disapproval, in writing, to the Monitor. The will approve or disapprove of the expanded membership, explaining its rationale and justification with the Court., City, BHSB,, DOJ Filing of Memorandum to the Court re: memorandum Collaboration Membership List Filing of Memorandum to the Court re: List 17-Apr Jan-18 through 28- Feb Mar Mar Draft First-Year January 8, 2018

25 88 96, 97, , 97, , 97, , 97, 105 Behavioral Disabilities/ Behavioral Disabilities/ Behavioral Disabilities/ Behavioral Disabilities/ Workplan: Goals and Objectives Workplan: Goals and Objectives Workplan: Goals and Objectives Workplan: Goals and Objectives and the City will work with the CPIC to develop a workplan with goals, objectives and appropriate timelines in order to ensure that when responding to individuals with Behavioral Disabilities or those in crisis, will use appropriate crisis response techniques. These techniques should be designed to help prevent situations that could lead to unreasonable use of force, promote connection of people with Behavioral Disabilities or in crisis to the behavioral health system, and decrease inappropriate criminal justice involvement for people with Behavioral Disabilities or in crisis. The workplan shall include a plan for developing the Needs Assessment ("Gap Analysis") process as delineated in the Consent Decree. will also encourage CPIC to identify and implement, as appropriate, strategies to reduce the number of people with Behavioral Disabilities who have unnecessary encounters with the police. As part of the Workplan,, the City and CPIC will submit the Workplan to DOJ and the. and CPIC will work with the Parties and to address the submitted initial feedback during the Collaboration. and CPIC will produce subsequent iterations of the Workplan as necessary through this process, which the Parties and will review and provide additional comments or feedback, as appropriate. During this period,, CPIC, the Parties, and will work together to establish working timeframes for collaborating and exchanging subsequent iterations. will submit a Proposed Final Draft Workplan at the conclusion of the Collaboration. The Parties review the Final Draft Workplan. DOJ indicates its formal approval or disapproval, in writing, to the Monitor. The will approve or disapprove of the Proposed Final Workplan, explaining its rationale and justification with the Court., City, CPIC, CPIC, City, DOJ initial draft of Workplan Collaboration Final Draft Workplan Filing of Memorandum to the Court re: Proposed Workplan 14-May May-18 through 14- Jun Jul Jul Draft First-Year January 8, 2018