PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING March 7, 2022 @ 4:00PM City Hall Boards and Commissions Room 301 W 2nd Street, Austin Texas Some members of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely by telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation. To register please call (512) 974-5747 before noon on March 6, 2022 or email Janet.jackson@austintexas.gov AGENDA Amanda Lewis Rocky Lane Michael Sierra-Arevalo Rebecca Bernhardt Cory Hall-Martin CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS: Rebecca Gonzales, Chair Nelly Paulina Ramirez, Vice Chair Rebecca Webber Kathleen Hausenfluck Queen Austin John T. Kiracofe CALL TO ORDER 4:00-4:05pm Public Communication 4:05-4:20pm (from speakers signed up to speak) Items for Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Jan. 24, 2022 and Feb. 7, 2022 4:20pm-4:25pm 2. OLD BUSINESS a. Recommendation on consolidation of Forensics Lab and APD (sponsored by Commissioner Bernhardt and Ramirez) 4:25pm-4:35pm 3. NEW BUSINESS a. Public Safety Organizations Quarterly Report – Austin-Travis County EMS (sponsors: Commissioner Hausenfluck and Gonzales) 4:35pm-4:55pm Speaker(s): -Teresa Gardner, Assistant Chief, Austin/Travis County Emergency Medical Services b. Wildfire Resolution #20160512-016 Update (sponsors: Commissioner Gonzales and Ramirez) 4:50pm-5:15pm Speaker(s): -Chief Vires, Chief of Staff, Austin Fire Department -Justin Jones, Austin Fire Department -Carrie Stewart, Austin Fire Department c. Review of Kroll Consulting Report (Phase B) Austin Police Department (sponsors: Commissioner Bernhardt and Ramirez) 5:05pm-5:45pm Speaker(s): -Catherine Johnson, Assistant Chief, Austin Police Department -Dan Linskey, Managing Director, Kroll Consulting -Rick Brown, Senior Consultant, Kroll Consulting -Mark Ehlers, Managing Director, Kroll Consulting -Representative, Office of Police Oversight 4. Future Agenda Items 5:45-6:00pm Adjourn @ 6pm The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting date. Please call Janet Jackson at Austin Police Department, at 512-974-5747, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For more information on the Public Safety Commission, please contact Robin Henderson, Chief of Staff, Austin Police Department at 512-974-5030.
` PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 7, 2022 Rebecca Webber Michael Sierra-Arevalo John Kiracofe Rebecca Bernhardt The Public Safety Commission convened a hybrid in person and videoconferencing meeting Monday, February 7, 2022 at City Hall 301 W. 2nd Street in Austin, Texas. Commissioner Rebecca Gonzalez called the Board Meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Board Members in Attendance: Kathleen Hausenfluck Nelly Ramirez Amanda Lewis Rocky Lane Cory Hall-Martin Board Members Absent: Queen Austin Staff in Attendance: Robin Henderson, Assistant Chief, Austin Police Department Teresa Gardner, Assistant Chief, Austin/Travis County Emergency Medical Services Rob Vires, Chief of Staff, Austin Fire Department Citizen Communications - Citizens signed up to speak: none 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – This will occur at the March meeting for both the January and February minutes. 2. OLD BUSINESS a. TX SB69 from 87th Legislative Session -Vote on Recommendation for Council Action Sponsored by Commissioner Gonzales and Webber 4:02pm-4:06pm In the recommendation, Chair Gonzales is asking APD to create a policy that requires the reporting of whether use of force was prevented and if it took place. They also asked for a non-retaliation policy to ensure self-reporting. Commissioner Sierra-Arevalo asked for clarity on what was up for a vote. Chair Gonzales explained three points: if there is intervention and use of force still happens, if there is intervention and use of force is prevented, and a training plan for the officer who was 1 impacted by the intervention, such as further de-escalation. No further questions. Recommendation passed on unanimous vote. 3. NEW BUSINESS a. Public Safety Organizations Quarterly Report – Austin Police Department (sponsors: Commissioner Hausenfluck and Gonzales) 4:07pm-4:50pm Speaker(s): -Chief Henderson, Austin Police Department Chief Henderson, joined by Dr. Jonathan Kringen, presented on the APD quarterly report. Dr. Kringen presented on Citywide Crimes Against Persons between 2020 and 2021. There was an overall negligent reduction in crime. Aggravated assault has had a meaningful increase. For Crimes Against Property, for the same time period, there has been a meaningful increase in theft of car parts. Overall, a small reduction in crimes. Crimes Against Society, for the same time period, shows a reduction in drug violations, possibly due to cite and arrest. However, weapons violations has significantly increased. He explained clearance rates are hard to capture, as an crime committed in one month may be carried forward to a different month. Or they may have cleared an …
` PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SPECIAL CALLED MEETING MINUTES January 24, 2022 Rebecca Bernhardt Queen Austin Michael Sierra-Arevalo John Kiracofe Rebecca Webber The Public Safety Commission convened a hybrid in person and videoconferencing meeting Monday, January 24, 2022 at City Hall 301 W. 2nd Street in Austin, Texas. Commissioner Rebecca Gonzalez called the Board Meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. Board Members in Attendance: Kathleen Hausenfluck Nelly Ramirez Amanda Lewis Rocky Lane Cory Hall-Martin Board Members Absent: none Staff in Attendance: Robin Henderson, Assistant Chief, Austin Police Department Teresa Gardner, Assistant Chief, Austin/Travis County Emergency Medical Services Rob Vires, Chief of Staff, Austin Fire Department Citizen Communications - Citizens signed up to speak: Cathy Mitchell 1. Approval of Minutes – Chair Gonzales called for approval of the minutes by asking for any edits/changes, questions concerning the draft minutes of the December 6, 2021 meeting. Hearing no edits from the board, she deemed the minutes approved. 2. OLD BUSINESS a. Legislative update on SB69 (sponsors: Commissioner Ramirez and Gonzales) 4:00 pm-4:17pm Speaker(s): -Anni-Michelle Evans, Policy Compliance Consultant, Office of Police Oversight 1 As OPO was not online, Chair Gonzales moved on to the next item. This was picked back up at 4:00. Ms. Evans reported she was pleased to hear APD plans to revise the policy, but has not seen that language yet. She would like to highlight three points relating to duty to intervene: 1) proactive vs reactive language. APD seems to create a policy that is purely reactive. It needs to include proactive language. 2) Subjective vs. objective. APD needs to be revised to include objective (should know). 3). Reporting requirements. APD needs to be revised to mirror specifics of the bill, such as a making a written report. OPO also recommends more clarity on what should be included in report and timeline for report. Regarding neck restraints, APD should revise policy to reflect legislative intent to prevent all forms of prohibiting blood flow or air intake. Commissioner Webber wanted to know what the remedies for not intervening, which OPO stated was still up for debate. Ms. Evans stated she wasn’t aware of any changes yet. Commissioner Bernhardt was concerned that officers in Texas put knees in people’s backs. She wanted APD to ban that, which OPO agrees with and would support changes that reflect that. Commissioner Arevalo had a question on anticipated vs known excessive force – what kind …
1 Follow-up to BBB Complaint #16811494 March 5, 2022 Dear BBB, Feb. 26, 2022, I filed a BBB complaint (#16811494) against Starbucks Corporate. March 1, 2022, BBB’s electronic reply included the following suggestion: “should you desire to have your experience report publicly you may write a customer review by clicking "Get Involved" on bbb.org. “ However, there is NO “Get involved” to click on bbb.org, though I do want to publicly report what I documented in Complaint #16811494. Also, the BBB response said I am “not seeking BBB assistance in obtaining a specific resolution to your claim”. However, I am now seeking BBB assistance in obtaining an official written letter from Starbucks rightly overturning its new (2/28/22), wrongful Customer Restriction against me so that I am welcome at ALL Starbucks. STARBUCKS CUSTOMER RESTRICTION LETTER Feb. 28, 2022, Starbucks District Manager Anthony Rose (anrose@starbucks.com; 512- 571-7216) verbally told me, in person at Starbucks #691 at 3300 Bee Cave Road , Austin, TX, at about 10:45 AM, that I am now BANNED from ALL Starbucks stores in Austin, TX. At the same time, Mr. Rose handed me a letter dated 2/28/22 that appeared to be from Starbucks Coffee Company, entitled “Customer Restriction”, that says the following: “Dear Carlos Leon Our stores are a neighborhood gathering place for meeting friends and family. We are committed to creating a culture of warmth and belonging for all who enter our store. When using a Starbucks space, we respectfully request that customers behave in a manner that maintains a warm and welcoming environment by being considerate and respectful of others, communicating with respect, using spaces as intended and acting responsibly. We take very seriously the safety of our customers and partners (employees). Your recent conduct, which included: 2 Abusing our Third Place repeatedly by using obscene, harassing, abusive language, not limited to hate speech and racial slurs. Displaying inappropriate behavior by throwing a gifted granola bar while in the store on year 2021 at various stores in Austin, Texas and via emails to our Starbucks Care Team was disruptive and/or threatening to your fellow customers and our partners (employees). This behavior is unacceptable, and we can no longer permit you to visit any of our Starbucks stores. Please understand that if you choose to ignore this notice and return to one of our locations, you will be considered a trespasser. In that instance, we may elect …
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION No. 20220307-02a March 7, 2022 Proposal that the Austin City Council make the Forensic Science Bureau independent of the Austin Police Department budgetarily and structurally Date: Subject: Motioned by: Rebecca Bernhardt Seconded by: Nelly Paulina Ramirez Recommendation: The Public Safety Commission recommends that the City Council move the Forensic Science Bureau from under the control of the Austin Police Department and make it budgetarily and structurally independent. WHEREAS, the City of Austin operates the Forensic Science Bureau, which provides forensic laboratory services related to the investigation of crimes, under the budgetary and managerial control of the Austin Police Department; which is a holistic approach to assessing and evolving public safety systems. Reimagine Public Safety is supposed to go beyond the scope of law enforcement and include decoupling some activities previously envisioned as under law enforcement purview to be independent; closed by the Austin Police Department in 2016 as a result of systematic failures to hire and retain qualified staff, properly maintain biological samples, process samples in a timely manner, and follow scientifically sound protocols for forensic testing; enforcement as an important value. Independence helps eliminate bias, can make an organization more agile in setting priorities, in procurement and in hiring. Independence enables a lab to be transparent without the need to get approval from law enforcement leadership; recommended that forensic labs be independent from law enforcement. WHEREAS, the predecessor to the Forensic Science Bureau, the Austin Crime Lab, was WHEREAS, the City of Austin is committed to the Reimagine Public Safety Initiative, WHEREAS, best practices for forensic labs recognize the independence from law WHEREAS, the 2009 National Academy of Science Report on Forensic Sciences WHEREAS, an independent Forensic Sciences Bureau would be placed at the same level in the criminal justice system hierarchy as the Austin Police Department, the defense bar and the Travis County DA’s Office. This enables the Bureau to advocate for what is best in evidence analysis with the key players in the criminal justice system on equal footing; WHEREAS, until 2020 the budget of the Austin crime lab was rolled into a bundle with other civilian services in the Austin Police Department, including vehicle services and building maintenance, making it impossible for elected officials to identify and allocate needed resources to the crime lab even after serious problems with both staffing and equipment had been identified; budgetary needs to ensure that the …
Emergency Medical Services Public Safety Commission Meeting FY22 Q1 Teresa Gardner, Assistant Chief 1 Incidents Jan. 2019 - Jan. 2022 Incidents 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 9 1 - n a J 9 1 - b e F 9 1 - r a M 9 1 - r p A 9 1 - y a M 9 1 - n u J 9 1 - l u J 9 1 - g u A 9 1 - p e S 9 1 - t c O 9 1 - v o N 9 1 - c e D 0 2 - n a J 0 2 - b e F 0 2 - r a M 0 2 - r p A 0 2 - y a M 0 2 - n u J 0 2 - l u J 0 2 - g u A 0 2 - p e S 0 2 - t c O 0 2 - v o N 0 2 - c e D 1 2 - n a J 1 2 - b e F 1 2 - r a M 1 2 - r p A 1 2 - y a M 1 2 - n u J 1 2 - l u J 1 2 - g u A 1 2 - p e S 1 2 - t c O 1 2 - v o N 1 2 - c e D 2 2 - n a J 2 Patient Contacts Jan. 2019-Jan. 2022 Patient Contacts 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 9 1 - n a J 9 1 - b e F 9 1 - r a M 9 1 - r p A 9 1 - y a M 9 1 - n u J 9 1 - l u J 9 1 - g u A 9 1 - p e S 9 1 - t c O 9 1 - v o N 9 1 - c e D 0 2 - n a J 0 2 - b e F 0 2 - r a M 0 2 - r p A 0 2 - y a M 0 2 - n u J 0 2 - l u J 0 2 - g u A 0 2 - p e S 0 2 - t …
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION (PSC) MEETING: MARCH 7, 2022 AFD’s Six-Month Update Regarding Council Resolution No. 20160512-016 Chief Carrie Stewart and Justice Jones will be presenting virtually, updating the Commission on components identified in the resolution. Chief Stewart and Justice Jones will need to be able to share their computer screens for the briefing. AFD has created a specific page on the Austin-Area Wildfire Hub called the “Wildfire Readiness Update” that has a real-time representation on progress of these metrics. The components they will cover as identified in the resolution are: 1. Number of local Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPS) completed and implemented in high-risk Wildfire-Urban Interface (WUI) areas. 2. Number of local CWPPs started in high-risk WUI areas but not completed. 3. Percentage of high-risk WUI areas in which identification of potential local CWPP planning areas is still ongoing. 4. Number of public presentations and home assessments provided. 5. For high-risk WUI areas, provide the number of fuel-mitigation activities, location of activities (identify local CWPP where applicable), type of fuel- mitigation activities (mechanical or prescribed fire), and size of areas mitigated. 6. Number of wildfire training contact hours by City employees, including AFD firefighters, and number of employees receiving training. Break down by classroom hours and hands-on training hours conducted.
A US TIN FIRE D EP A RT MENT Wildfire Readiness Update Justice Jones – Wildfire Mitigation Officer BE IT RESOLVED... "Provide a progress report every six months to the Public Safety Commission for the following important components of a comprehensive WUI risk reduction plan." Council Resolution NO. 20160512-016 The information presented in this update are maintained in real-time through dynamic data 1 Wildfire Readiness Update 1. The number of local CWPP’s completed and implemented. 2. The number of local CWPP's started but not completed. 3. The percentage of high-risk WUI areas in which identification of potential local CWPP planning areas is still ongoing. 4. The number of public presentations and home assessments provided. 5. The number, size, type and location of fuel mitigation activities conducted. 6. The number of training hours received and conducted. 2 1) The number of local CWPP's completed and implemented is 20. Local level CWPP’s are community led initiatives that AFD facilitates and supports. We are pleased to have brought the community of Shepard Mountain as our newest Firewise community this year. A US TIN CW P P ’s 3 2) The number of local CWPP's started but not completed is 24. Local level CWPP’s are community led initiatives that AFD facilitates and supports. We are pleased to have brought the community of Shepard Mountain as our newest Firewise community this year. A c ti ve & En ga ged Sentence or subheading goes Here on the page in the header box. 4 3) The percentage of high-risk WUI areas in which identification of potential local CWPP planning areas is still ongoing is 49%. Of the 14% of Austin classified as high risk, 51% is covered by a local level CWPP, 49% are identified as opportunity zones. Hi gh Risk A rea s 5 4) The number of public presentations and home assessments provided in the past 6 months. 17 Presentations and events, including virtual events such as the annual Wildfire Symposium held virtually, and 15 home assessments provided. Ou t reach A c ti vities 6 5) The number, size, type and location of fuel mitigation activities conducted in the past 6 months. 9 Prescribed fires (1,170 ac) and 6 shaded fuel breaks (7.7 ac) completed, protecting 114 homes ($56 million value). Fu el Mi ti g ation 7 6) The number of training hours received and conducted in the past six months. 337 …
Kroll Phase B Report Evaluation of Austin Police Department: Use of Force / Public Interactions / Recruitment, Selection, and Promotions Presentation to Austin Public Safety Commission March 7, 2022 Introduction / Scope of Work Scope of Report Kroll’s evaluation addressed four distinct areas 2 3 1 Analysis of APD use-of-force incidents / Jan. 1, 2017 - Dec. 31, 2020 (48 months) Review of 1,321 APD use of force incidents / June – November 2019 (6 months) Analysis of public interactions with civilians (e.g., traffic stops, arrests, citations, and searches) / 2020 (12 months) 4 Evaluation of recruitment, selection, and promotion policies and practices 3 Report Overview Section 3 Section 4 Provides a 48-month analysis (2017-2020) and contextualized understanding of how, when, and against whom the APD uses force. Are there disparate impacts based on race, ethnicity, or gender / geographical sectors / other factors? Provides a qualitative analysis and review of 1,321 use-of-force incidents from June to November 2019. Is force appropriately applied? Does APD unnecessarily escalate encounters? Is their sufficient supervisory review? Section 5 Documents patterns and trends observed for APD motor vehicle stops during 2020 (1 year) and arrests from 2017-2020 (4 years) and examines racial/ethnic disparities in the outcomes. Section 6 Reviews and analyzes APD’s recruitment, selection, and promotion processes and potential impact on racial, ethnic, and gender diversity. Section 7 Kroll recommendations. 4 Section 3: Review and Data Analysis of APD Use of Force (2017-2020) Definitions • Disproportionality • Disparity • Bias o A difference in outcomes within a single racial/ethnic group (e.g., use of force against Black individuals) compared to that group’s representation in a selected comparison population (e.g., Black residential population) o A difference in outcomes across groups (e.g., racial/ethnic groups, gender, etc.) in policing o Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair • Racially biased policing o Occurs when law enforcement inappropriately considers race or ethnicity in their decisions to intervene in a law enforcement capacity 6 If you find disparity what does that mean? How much disparity is too much? • Statistical analyses measure disparity or disproportionality, not bias o Cannot be reliably used to determine the reasons for differences o Cannot conclude that disparity, even high levels of disparity, is proof of bias – bright line does not exist • Why do the analyses then? o …
Evaluation of Austin Police Department: Use of Force / Public Interactions / Recruitment, Selection, and Promotions Prepared for City of Austin, Office of Police Oversight / City Manager’s Office January 21, 2022 Status Final Report Kroll Associates, Inc. 2000 Market Street, Suite 2700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Kroll.com Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 2. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ................................................................................................ 11 3. REVIEW AND DATA ANALYSIS OF APD USE OF FORCE (January 2017 to December 2020) ........................................................................................ 16 3.1 APD Use of Force - Overview ........................................................................................... 18 APD Use of Force Policies ....................................................................................... 18 Measuring APD Use of Force ................................................................................... 21 APD Use of Force Descriptives ................................................................................ 23 Individuals’ Resistance ............................................................................................. 27 Individuals’ Impairment ............................................................................................. 30 Types of Force -- Severity ........................................................................................ 33 Individuals with Repeat Uses of Force ..................................................................... 34 Post-Use of Force ..................................................................................................... 36 Geographic Analyses ............................................................................................... 37 3.2 Racial/Ethnic Disparity Analyses ...................................................................................... 41 Disparity Ratio Findings............................................................................................ 45 Summary: Disproportionality Use of Force Benchmark Analysis by Sector ............ 53 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 53 3.3 Predicting Use of Force .................................................................................................... 53 APD Uses of Force 2017-2020 ................................................................................ 54 APD Arrests with Use of Force 2017-2020 .............................................................. 55 Factors Influencing the Use of Force ....................................................................... 59 Limitations ................................................................................................................ 63 Descriptive Analyses ................................................................................................ 64 Multivariate Analyses ................................................................................................ 66 Summary .................................................................................................................. 71 4. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF APD USE OF FORCE (June to November 2019) .................... 73 4.1 Incident and Demographic Comparisons ......................................................................... 73 4.2 Lack of Reasonable Suspicion and APD Use of Force .................................................... 75 4.3 Additional Trends and Issues within the Problematic Cases ............................................ 77 4.4 Individual Examples of Problematic Use of Force Cases ................................................. 80 4.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 85 5. ANALYSIS OF APD TRAFFIC STOPS, CITATIONS, ARRESTS, AND SEARCHES (January – December 2020) .................................................................................................. 86 5.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 86 5.2 Data Description and Limitations ...................................................................................... 86 Data Limitations ........................................................................................................ 88 5.3 Motor Vehicle Stops January 1 – December 31, 2020 ..................................................... 89 5.4 All Arrests January 1, 2017 – December 31, 2020 ......................................................... 105 5.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 114 6. RECRUITMENT, SELECTION, AND PROMOTIONS ............................................................... 117 6.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 117 6.2 APD Demographics and Diversity .................................................................................. 118 6.3 Recruitment ..................................................................................................................... 121 6.4 The APD Selection Process ........................................................................................... 133 6.5 The APD Promotion Process .......................................................................................... 142 6.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 150 7. RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................. 152 7.1 Data Collection Recommendations ................................................................................ 152 7.2 Use of Force Recommendations .................................................................................... 156 7.3 Organizational Recommendations.................................................................................. 158 7.4 Recruitment, Selection, and Promotion Recommendations ........................................... 161 7.5 Appendix to Section 7: Data …
Name of Board or Commission: Public Safety Commission Request Number: PSC Recommendation #20220307-02a Description of Item: Recommendation Proposal that the Austin City Council make the Forensic Science Bureau independent of the Austin Police Department budgetary and structurally Board or Commission Vote to refer item to Council: Unanimous Date of Approval of Request: March 7, 2022 Attachments: ☒ Yes ☐ No If yes, please list the attachments: Attest: Janet Jackson, Public Safety Commission Liaison (512) 974-5747 Janet.jackson@austintexas.gov Council Committee Assigned: ☐Audit and Finance Committee ☐Austin Energy Utility Oversight Committee ☐Austin Watery Oversight Committee ☐Public Health Committee ☐Housing and Planning Committee ☐Mobility Committee ☐Public Safety Committee Recommend a Fiscal Analysis be completed? Recommend a Legal Analysis be completed? Notes: Mayor Signature & Date: MAYOR’S OFFICE USE ONLY 2 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION No. 20220307-02a Date: March 7, 2022 Motioned by: Rebecca Bernhardt Seconded by: Nelly Paulina Ramirez Subject: Proposal that the Austin City Council make the Forensic Science Bureau independent of the Austin Police Department budgetarily and structurally Recommendation: The Public Safety Commission recommends that the City Council move the Forensic Science Bureau from under the control of the Austin Police Department and make it budgetarily and structurally independent. WHEREAS, the City of Austin operates the Forensic Science Bureau, which provides forensic laboratory services related to the investigation of crimes, under the budgetary and managerial control of the Austin Police Department; WHEREAS, the City of Austin is committed to the Reimagine Public Safety Initiative, which is a holistic approach to assessing and evolving public safety systems. Reimagine Public Safety is supposed to go beyond the scope of law enforcement and include decoupling some activities previously envisioned as under law enforcement purview to be independent; WHEREAS, the predecessor to the Forensic Science Bureau, the Austin Crime Lab, was closed by the Austin Police Department in 2016 as a result of systematic failures to hire and retain qualified staff, properly maintain biological samples, process samples in a timely manner, and follow scientifically sound protocols for forensic testing; WHEREAS, best practices for forensic labs recognize the independence from law enforcement as an important value. Independence helps eliminate bias, can make an organization more agile in setting priorities, in procurement and in hiring. Independence 3 leadership; enables a lab to be transparent without the need to get approval from law enforcement WHEREAS, the 2009 National Academy of Science Report on Forensic Sciences recommended that forensic labs …
