Savannah Citizens Accountability and

Review of Emergency Services

Committee

Status Report with Interim Recommendations

September 25, 2020

Background

On July 7, 2020 Mayor Van Johnson established the Savannah CARES

(Citizens Accountability and Review of Emergency Services) Committee and
charged its members with the following responsibilities:

1. Review the Use of Force Policy established by the Savannah Police

Department (SPD)
2. Review Internal Affairs investigative reports relative to use of force
3. Receive public input concerning use of force issues and concerns, and
4. Issue a report with findings and recommendations to the City Manager

The committee is comprised of community members from throughout the City

of Savanah.

Actions

Since its inception the committee has been reviewing the written policies and
procedures of the police department, interviewed the Chief of Police,
interviewed officers, and started a review of Internal Affairs Investigative
reports. While the committee has not completed its full charge from the Mayor,
the members want to provide the City Manager with a status report and some
interim recommendations that would have an immediate effect on community
perception as it relates to the use of force by members of the police
department.

Interim Recommendations

Based on the tasks completed thus far, the committee is making the interim
recommendations listed below. The members believe that with the
implementation of these recommendations that a higher level of mutual trust
can be obtained between the SPD and members of the community. While these
recommendations are labeled as interim in this document, it is expected they
will be made permanent as part of the final report. These are interim only
because the work of the committee is not yet complete.

The committee members offer the following specific interim recommendations:

1. Professionalism—The Department’s General Orders should be written to

be more direct as it relates to the use of profanity as well as
dehumanizing and discriminatory language. As an example, GO#ADM-
004, Oath of Office, Ethics, and Conduct, Section I, 5, C states, “No
employee will engage in grossly indecent or vulgar talk which would
detract from the efficient operation…” It could be assumed that use of
 grossly indecent or vulgar talk is acceptable if it did not affect the
operation of the police department. Instead the use of profanity should
be specifically prohibited at all times by members of the department
whether speaking with other officers or members of the community.

2. De-escalation training--The department should require ALL members to

complete de-escalation training a minimum of 2-3 times per year.

3. Crisis Intervention Training—SPD should endeavor to train a minimum

of 20 percent of its members in crisis intervention yearly until every
member has been trained. Once all members have been trained, an
annual recertification for each member should be undertaken as well.

4. Use of Force Review Committee—Under GO#ADM-007 Police Response

to Aggression/Resistance/Force, Section IX, C, the Use of Force Review
Board is comprised of two community members. It is the committee’s
understanding that there are no community members currently on this
Use of Force Review Board. Community members should be appointed to
this Board immediately.

5. Use of Force—Currently, GO#OPS-067, Body Worn Camera, Section I, A

3, provides that an officer can review the body worn camera video to,
“Enhance the officer’s ability to document and review statements and
actions for both internal reporting requirements and for courtroom
preparation and presentation.” As it relates to a use of force
investigation, the committee believes officers should NOT BE ALLOWED
to review the video until AFTER they complete their initial formal
statement to investigators. Viewing the video before writing the report
may alter the police officers’ reasons for use of force. The committee
believes it is important to understand why officers deploy use of force
based on their memories of the incident. Their perceptions and thought
processes can best be documented prior to viewing the video. The
committee believes that if shown the video prior to making their formal
statement they may see activities and behavior they missed during the
incident that alter their initial thought process and thus alter their
statements. The committee is not stating that an officer would be
providing an inaccurate statement if they were not allowed to view the
video. Instead, the purpose of this change is to enable the SPD to better
understand what the actions were that required the officer to use force.
We recommend that the officer only be allowed to view the video once
they have submitted their formal statement to investigators.
6. Calls for Service—in interviews with several officers the committee has
learned that officers believe that a normal shift has so many calls for
service that they can’t adequately engage with the community. The
officers only have time to go from one call to the next, giving the
community cursory attention. There appears not to be available time for
an officer to engage community members in a meaningful manner. One
method to alleviate this large amount of calls for service is to explore and
possibly implement alternative means of handling calls for service.
Alternative means could include having telephone reporting units handle
some Part 2 (non-critical) calls. Examples of Part 2 calls are theft from
vehicles, destruction of property, stolen bikes, and lost and stolen
property. Offloading these non-critical calls for service would provide
more time for directive patrol as well as more community engagement by
patrol officers. The committee recommends that the SPD explore the
potential of implementing alternative means of handling calls for service.

7. Contacting the Complainant— the SPD should explore the potential of

having officers call the complainant prior to their arrival on scene of a
call for service to get a better understanding of the circumstances on the
scene. The committee understands that this may not be practical for
every call for service and that driving safety is important. The committee
believes that if an officer is hesitant to provide a cell number to
community members that there is an app available online that allows
officers to mask their phone numbers. (It’s called 10-21 Police Phone
app). If this recommendation is implemented, the committee believes that
it would increase communication, reduce citizen stress as it relates to
the event, as well as improve relations between the SPD and the
community.

8. 60-Day Limit on IA Investigations—GO #OPS-016, Office of

Professional Standards, II, F states: All complaint investigations should be
completed within ninety days of the dated (sic) assigned. (CALEA 52..2.3)
Any delays should be cleared through the OPS Commander… As part of
its review, the committee obtained a list of all investigations for the
period May 28, 2019 through July 21, 2020 and found many of the
investigations to be well beyond the 90-day limit. It is the
recommendation that the SPD require that ALL investigations be
completed within 60 calendar days from the date of its discovery. Should
an investigation need to go beyond the 60-day limit the extension should
only be granted by the City Manager. It is unfair to the officer and the
community member for any investigation be open longer then necessary.
 A 60-day period is not unreasonable and the committee believes it will
improve trust in the SPD’s handling of complaints against members.

9. Eliminate the use of Warning Shots—GO # ADM-007, Police Response

to Aggression/Resistance/Force, V states: Warning shots are prohibited
except when the officer would otherwise be justified in the use of deadly
force… The SPD should prohibit the use of warning shots completely. To
expect an officer to fire a warning shot in a means that is not dangerous
to the community at large is unreasonable. The fired bullet has to land
somewhere: either into some place or someone. While the intention of
this order is to eliminate the possible use of deadly force by frightening
the suspect into surrendering, the damage to innocent people and
property outweighs the benefit. It is the committee’s recommendation
that warning shots be prohibited under all circumstances.

10. Increase Public Education—SPD should develop public service

announcements or other educational means to have the community
better understand its use of force policy and standards. The committee
believes that this educational process would enhance community police
relations and allow community members to better understand police
operations and expectations relative to use of force.

11. Battle Dress Uniforms—The SPD should prohibit the use of

military style fatigues by all members with the exception of SWAT
operations and special operations members. Warrant Squad and patrol
officers should always be clothed in typical police uniforms. The wide
spread use of military style fatigues gives the community members the
impression that an occupying army is patrolling our city. These
uniforms are not conducive to good police -community relations.

12. Explicitly Prohibit Choke Holds—GO# ADM-007, Police Response

to Aggression/Resistance/Force should be amended to explicitly prohibit
the use of holds and restraints that restricts the air and blood flow of a
person. These prohibitions would include choke holds, knees applied to
the back of a persons neck while prone, and the forcing of a person’s
head into the ground as a control technique.

Next Steps

The committee will continue its mission by completing its review of

investigative reports as well as scheduling community engagement meetings.
Socially distanced meetings will be scheduled so that community members can
provide
input to the committee. Once these actions have been completed the
committee will submit its final report with recommendations.

Respectfully Submitted,

Attorney Diane Morrell McLeod, Chair

Dawn Baker

Attorney James Blackburn

Willie Brooks

Rev. Katie Callaway

Attorney Michael Edwards,

Kenneth Glover

Michael Johnson

Dr. Larinda King

Cpl. Sharif Lockett

Anthony Maben

Pastor Ricardo Manuel,

David McDonald,

Dr. Marie Miller

Pam Miller

David Minor

Jim Morekis

Eugene Priester

Natavia Sanders

Attorney Abda Quillian