Case: DOJ Investigation of Inglewood Police Department

This Civil Rights Division investigation of the Inglewood Police Department (IPD) began on March 16, 2009, pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141. After two site visits and other investigation, the DOJ wrote a "technical assistance" letter in December 2009, setting out recommendations regarding some of the IPD's written policies and procedures. The letter explained that DOJ's review was not yet complete.

The DOJ primarily recommended ensuring new policies were clear, consistent, comprehensive, and reviewed before implemented.

Substantively, the DOJ recommended changes to the IPD's use of force policies to include an "appropriate force matrix," which would illustrate appropriate uses of force in various situations and would be used as a training guide for officers. This matrix would enable the IPD to implement a uniform guideline, including information on de-escalation, and emphasizing use of lower levels of force first, when appropriate. Specifically, the DOJ recommended updating the IPD's definition of "immediate threat" to comport with current law and specifying the tools that constitute lethal force; prohibiting officers from carrying secondary firearms without supervisors' approval; limiting the number of weapons an officer may carry at once; promulgating policies with specific guide on intermediate-force weapons; specifying the circumstances in which Tasers may be used; guiding officers how to use chemical weapons appropriately; and updating its Canine Manual. The DOJ also recommended that the IPD revise its police to require all officers to report incidents involving the use of force. This policy would also include a review mechanism that would ensure that the force used was appropriate.

Further, the DOJ suggested that the IPD implement a formal and consistent system for receiving complaints of officer misconduct. This system should create a process that: makes it possible for people to lodge complaints; does not discourage complaints; and requires investigation of every complaint. The IPD should also train all of its personnel on how to accept and report complaints. This policy would go hand in hand with a new, updated, and clear policy governing the internal affairs of the IPD. Finally, the DOJ recommended a clear disciplinary policy that, like the use of force policy, would include a clear matrix linking various levels of improper action to an appropriate form of discipline or corrective action. These new systems require a comprehensive review of the Department's supervisory system as well as the measures to detect and minimize police misconduct.

Given all of these proposed changes and updates to the IPD's various policies, the DOJ recommended the development of comprehensive training programs for new and current officers as well as community outreach initiatives to improve the Police Department's relationship with the Inglewood community.

The technical assistance letter requested a written response from the IPD within 30 days. There has been no additional information in this investigation, including evidence of adopted reforms, nor has a complaint been filed.