By John R. "Rick" Brown, Robin S. Engel, et al.

The Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD) commissioned this report in partnership with the City of Colorado Springs to provide a proactive, independent systematic review of the patterns and trends associated with use of force by the CSPD. In response to Request for Proposal, Consultant Services (R20-093 IP), Assessment of Colorado Springs Police Department’s Use of Force released on July 20, 2020, the Transparency Matters, LLC (hereafter TMLLC) team was selected to complete this work. This report documents the results from comprehensive analyses of use of force incidents reported by the CSPD, specifically focusing on understanding how, when, why, and against whom officers use force, as well as the context of police encounters with the public, from both the community and officer perspectives. The purpose of this study is to examine current practices and identify opportunities to reduce the frequency and severity of use of force incidents, racial/ethnic disparities in force, and injuries to both officers and citizens through improvements to policies, training, and supervision. This report includes nine sections: (1) Introduction, (2) Review of CSPD Policies and Practices, (3) Data and Research Methods, (4) Physical Force and Weapons Used, (5) Types of Force, Force Effectiveness, and Injuries, (6) Pointing of Firearms, (7) Community Perspectives, (8) CSPD Officer Perspectives, and (9) Recommendations. This executive summary provides an overview of the primary findings from each of these report sections. 

Lancaster, PA:Transparency Matters and University of Cincinnati, 2022. 280p

By Simon A. Cole and Juan R. Sandoval

Police misconduct represents a profound societal issue with far-reaching consequences. Its detrimental effects encompass the discriminatory application of laws, harassment, physical violence and murder, corruption, wrongful arrests and wrongful convictions.1 These concerns are particularly pressing for underserved communities of color, where heightened levels of police contact and incarceration have effectively eroded the legitimacy of law enforcement.2 While police misconduct has been a long-standing concern, it has garnered heightened attention in recent years, primarily fueled by extensive media coverage of egregious acts of police violence, such as the killings of Michael Brown, George Floyd, and Tyre Nichols. An important recent concern about police violence has been the problem of “repeat offenders”— instances of police misconduct are not isolated events but rather involve particular officers who engage in misconduct repeatedly, with impunity. Discussion of this issue has focused on two key aspects: first, the existence of officers with extensive histories of misconduct that are often concealed from criminal defendants, judges, reporters, and the public; and second, the phenomenon of the “wandering officer” who commits misconduct in a particular department, is fired or leaves that police force, and then is hired by another police department in a different jurisdiction, where stakeholders are unaware of that officer’s history.3 The first issue came to light when it was revealed that in certain jurisdictions, including Los Angeles County and Baltimore, prosecutors maintained undisclosed “do not call” lists of police officers who should not be presented as witnesses in criminal trials due to their known histories of misconduct, perjury, or both. 4 The second problem came to light through the exposure of several infamous cases in which police officers effectively erased records of serious misconduct, secured  more widely accessible to stakeholders. This type of information has historically enjoyed legal protection, making it challenging for the public to access in numerous states.6 Notable disclosure efforts include the Invisible Institute’s publication of Chicago police misconduct data on a dedicated website, 7 and the New York Legal Aid Society's creation of a mobile device “app” designed for recording and accessing public information about individual police officers, which subsequently gained national traction through the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.8 Finally, there have been persistent lobbying efforts aimed at persuading legislators to increase the transparency of information related to police misconduct for the general public. In California, these lobbying efforts have succeeded. In 2019, the legislature enacted new laws transforming the state from one that “without question, had the worst laws governing the disclosure of adjudicated findings of police misconduct” to one with “some of the strongest transparency laws” in the U.S.9 A consortium of stakeholders, including academic institutions, civil rights organizations, journalists, public defenders, and innocence organizations (including the National Registry of Exonerations), has formed the California Law Enforcement Accountability Network (CLEAN) to coordinate efforts of gathering, archiving, analyzing, and making public this newly accessible data.10 This report seeks to support these initiatives by exploring possible uses of information from the National Registry of Exonerations. This online publicly accessible archive contains data and narratives about all known exoneration cases in United States history. Police misconduct is important to the Registry because it is widely recognized as one of the key contributors to wrongful convictions in the United States. Police misconduct contributed to 43% of the wrongful convictions that resulted in exonerations since 1989.11 In addition, the Registry tracks clusters of exonerations through its Groups Registry. This includes exonerations centered around notorious rogue officers, such as former sheriff's deputy Tom Coleman in Tulia, Texas, former Sergeant Ronald Watts in Chicago, and Rafael Perez, the former Los Angeles Police detective at the heart of the Rampart scandal.   

 Ann Arbor: National Registry of Exonerations, 2023. 13p.

By Sean E. Goodison,  and Connor Brooks

In 2020, 57% of local police departments almost always or always authorized oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray or foam, and 53% almost always or always authorized conducted energy devices, such as Tasers and stun guns (figure 1). Figure 1 displays the authorization of less-lethal equipment and techniques in 2020. Less-lethal equipment and techniques are weapons and tactics that are not intended to cause death or serious injury. Among less-lethal techniques, 73% of local police departments almost always or always authorized open-hand techniques and another 25% authorized them in  limited circumstances. Similarly, about 65% of departments almost always or always authorized takedown techniques and another 31% authorized them under limited circumstances. Conversely, more than half (59%) of local police departments never authorized vascular restraints or carotid holds. About 69% of local police departments never authorized respiratory neck restraints, while 29% did so under limited circumstances and 1% almost always or always authorized them.  This report uses selected variables from the 2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) data collection, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), to describe equipment, policies, and procedures in local police departments by population served. Additionally, this report describes the percentage of officers who work in departments with said equipment, policies, and procedures. Local police departments include general-purpose law enforcement agencies such as municipal, county, and regional police departments, but exclude other types of general-purpose law enforcement agencies, such as sheriffs’ offices and primary state and highway patrol agencies. For information on personnel in local police departments, see Local Police Departments Personnel, 2020 (NCJ 305187, BJS, November 2022). Findings in this report are primarily based on the 2020 LEMAS survey. Conducted periodically since 1987, the LEMAS survey collects data on a range of topics from a nationally representative sample of general-purpose state and local law enforcement agencies. (See Methodology in Local Police Departments Personnel, 2020 (NCJ 305187, BJS, November 2022).)     

 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics ,2023. 36p.