EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ‘OVERVIEW ‘Two noteworthy events involving protestors occurred atthe South Station during April 2022. (On April 14, 2021, protestors confronted officers, violently attempted to enter the station, and inflicted damage upon the building. On April 22, 2021, @ group of protestors were forced to leave a portion ofthe roadway directly in front ofthe South Station thet they had untawfully ‘occupied for six days. The Office of Professional Standards (OPS) investigated the actions of ‘Albany police officers in both incidents. The investigations into both incidents involved an ‘exhaustive review of video and audio sources as well as interviews with police personnel. INVESTIGATIVE RESULTS April 14 Incident (OPS investigators determined that the ations of the officers were reasonable, justified, and within standard operations procedures. The OPS investigators determined that the officers were attacked without provocation and thatthe force used to repe! the attack and protect police resources was reasonable and necessary. | concur with that determination. ‘April 22~Ineldent (095 investigators determined that the use of force employed by the officers was reasonable, justified, and within standard operating procedures. | concur with that assessment. However, itwas determined that there were two violations of departmental policies associated with this incident. One violation involved a body worn camera. The appropriate corrective action has been taken in that case. The second violation Involved some officers removing or concealing their police badges during the incident. ‘Removolor Conceoina of Police Badaes ‘Tobe clear, the policy with respect to police badges was clearly violated, The expectation was that police badges were tobe visible at all times, particularly during the Apri 22 operation ‘Obviously, that didnot happen. It was determined thatthe policy was violated because officers ‘were given confusing and unclear directions during the briefing immediatly prior to the operation. Officers are required to have theirnametags and badges affixed to and visible on ther police uniforms. During a command staff meeting @ day or two before the incident, a Commander ‘asked f officers could remove their nametags during certain detalis involving protestors. The ‘Commander said tat officers were concerned because some protestors were identifying offers by ther nametags and using that information to threaten or harass the afces andtheir families via social media. After hearing more from the Commander about the neture of the threats and the concerns that many officers had, | approved the request, but with two Important conditions. 1) Only the Chief, a Deputy Chief, or a Commander could approve the removal of the nametags. 2) f approved, the nametags could be removed, but the bedges ‘must always remain visib During the briefing ofthe officers immediately before the incident, the officers were told that they were allowed to remove their nametags for that particular operation. No other context or reasoning was given to the officers. The Commander who was present forthe briefing and responsible for the operational aspects of the detall failed to clarify the directive regarding the rnametags, despite being acutely aware thatthe directive was imited to nametags only ~ not the badges. The officers should have been clearly told that nametags could be removed for the detal, but their badges must remain Visible. Because ofthe communication fallure, there was confusion among the officers as to exactly what they were allowed to do, Some removed cor concealed thelr nametags and badges, some removed or concealed just their nametags, and ‘others kept their nametags and badges visible. ‘SUMMARY ‘The policy regarding police badges was violated during the April 2 incident. The policy was violated because ofa disappointing lack of communication from supervisory personnel, Officers were confused as to what was allowed and what was not, There was no nefarious intent involved. The Commander overseeing the operation violated the departmental policy ‘that mandates clear and concise communications. That Commander no ionger works for the Albany Police Department. The appropriate protocols have been instituted to ensure thet such violations do not occur again. Its also important to note that despite some officers removing cor concealing their badges, the actions of every officer involved in the April 22" incident have been accounted for. Eric D. Hawkins Chief of PoliceALBANY POLICE DEPARTMENT Office of Professional Standards CONFIDENTIAL REPORT Administrative Investigation of STA Protests ‘4D2021-054 (0n 4/29/21, the undersigned was asigned the folowing case (on 4/14/21 and 4/22/2, protestors were dspersed from in front of Soh Station, nfile + BWC (over 30) + SSTACameras + Incident Paperwork Use of Force Reports, Sif’, Arrest Records, Op Order) ‘There were a total of 14 arrests on 4/22. Sal charges included NYS Penal Law 1.24026 Disordery Conduct) 195.05 (Obstruction) 240.20 (Unawful assem) 240.05 (Riot) 240.06 (Riot 1") 120005 (Assautt2"9) 265,01 (Criminal Possession of a weapon) FOA Warrant for other Agency) Some of those arests were also for protestors ileal activity on 4/14 and for protestors that cused domage tothe Schenectady Police Deparment on 4/33, officer interviews 5/20/21 Commander Joseph McDade reported to OPS for en nteriew. Present forthe Interview was Cm. Battelle, Dit, Decker, and Det. Shane. Cr. MeDade stated the following: Submited by: Det M.Shane Paget dha whack Date: 2/4/22 approved byALBANY POLICE DEPARTMENT Office of Professional Standards CONFIDENTIAL REPORT Administrative Investigation of STA Protests ‘AD2021-054 "Ihave been employed with APO for27 years anda Cammmander fr three months. Prior to being promoted to ‘Commander was leutenant fr the Neighborhood Engagement Unit. My current asignment is SSTA patrol dvson, NEU and Central Booking. Ido recall what happened Thursday, April 22. | was the incdent Commander fr that event. Josiah and Je Lynch put together an Operational Order, afar asthe expectation af the offices, Josiah aid out early in the detective ffce garage what the pln was gong tobe (Ut osiah ones and Ofcer Joe Lynch). They crafted an ‘operational erder. The purpose oft was the plan going forvara'on moving encampment. I standard poly fr us to do for specific events. | did have oversight over that order before it went Out and approved the content ofthe order. (The dette office garage briefing) Ate officers and superiors responsible forthe detall were assembled inthe detective office garage. Lt. Josiah Jones gave instructions an what was gong to take place. Iwas present for that meeting. | gave Lt. Jones adrective to command that briefing. Iwas there, Lt. Jones, Cmdr. Dar Gipson, various “supervisors and about 40 cops. No one else from Command level. Ut. Jones was the only one speaking. He sid they can over ther name tags, but would hve to activate ther BWC upon extng the garage. don't belleve he gave any reason sto why they can cover thei name tgs. fm aot sure any communication was sent to patolas to why, but we knew wy we could do that as Command staff fram the Chie dont thiok that was arculated to patel. Lt. Jones aid they ‘an cover thor name tags end activate their DWE when the leave the garage. He never mentioned covering thet badges. Based onthe fect that officers apparently covered their badge, there was a miscommunication on our evel relying that information to them. Idon't eal UL Jones mentioning badges at all can sy looking backon it, 1can understand the evel of confusion the afces may have had. We sald they can cover thelr name tgs, cat speak for cach officer individually, some of them may have considered a badge apart ofthat. Obviously that’s nt what we wanted, we don't wont the badge covered because we can identi officers by badge number and BWC footage there was an incident, complaint so we could've been mare cles on our end. I dont think we talked about Covid masks. They were told to have gas masks ready. Ofcers were instructed not to wear helmets, hat shields, or gasmasks. There Were lferent sections of officer, scts, andthe st two lines were not golng to have anything and we were gong to have @ team of officers inthe gorage geared up with helmets and shieksin the event that we needed them. We were taking & ‘more pase ooking approach, The officers wearing them were part ofthe secondary wave that were called in by Ut Jones. The Fst set of ofers the protestors, were gong to varate without any issues you would've never saw those ‘officers, they wouldve never exited the garage. Thats because we had a couple arrest. | saw individuals being arrested taken tothe ground, and handcuffed and was thee directing them hurrying them to get them up and get ’em ‘ut as supposed te spending alt of ime onthe ground cause danger tothe person arrested and creating 2 harardous Situation forthe cops aswel. Ast why they were specifealy arrested dont know, they were just taken down {arrested in front of me and then taken toan arcest team and hand of to the detectives for processing. tones had patrol Ofer help him, can't think of his name, he was.a raster from Rensselaer, Adams Mike Adams. Each ine has supervisors, Every four or fe cops has a sergeant asigned to them sof you haa line of 15 cops there were two oF ‘three sergeants benind them another ine of 15 cops there were two or three sergeants with thase cops se had sergeant wth him giving orders. He had operational command by voice, | id by rank. Before APD engaged the Indvidual Ut Jones was out thereto gue a warning. He gave a warning and what was tobe expected. did not tl hrm SN ‘Submitted by: Det Shane Page2 sowrveary: Dt VL ah ate: 1/421