We find this pattern or practice in the following areas:
(1) Albuquerque police officers too often use deadly force in an unconstitutional manner
in their use of firearms. To illustrate, of the 20 officer-involved shootings resulting in
fatalities from 2009 to 2012, we concluded that a majority of these shootings were unconstitutional. Albuquerque police officers often use deadly force in circumstances
where there is no imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to officers or
others. Instead, officers used deadly force against people who posed a minimal
threat, including individuals who posed a threat only to themselves or who were
unarmed. Officers also used deadly force in situations where the conduct of the
officers heightened the danger and contributed to the need to use force.
(2) Albuquerque police officers also often use less lethal force in an unconstitutional
manner. We reviewed a random sample of the department’s use of force reports
completed by officers and supervisors between 2009 and early 2013. Our sample
consisted of over 200 force reports. We find that officers frequently misused
electronic control weapons (commonly referred to by the brand name “Tasers”),2
resorting to use of the weapon on people who are passively resisting, observably nonthreatening but unable to comply with orders due to their mental state, or posed only a minimal threat to the officers. Officers also often used Tasers in dangerous
situations. For example, officers fired Tasers numerous times at a man who had
poured gasoline on himself. The Taser discharges set the man on fire, requiring
another officer to extinguish the flames. This endangered all present. Additionally,
Albuquerque police officers often use unreasonable physical force without regard for
the subject’s safety or the level of threat encountered. Officers frequently use
takedown procedures in ways that unnecessarily increase the harm to the person.
Finally, officers escalate situations in which force could have been avoided had they
instead used de-escalation measures.
(3) A significant amount of the force we reviewed was used against persons with mental
illness and in crisis. APD’s policies, training, and supervision are insufficient to
ensure that officers encountering people with mental illness or in distress do so in a
manner that respects their rights and is safe for all involved.
(4) The use of excessive force by APD officers is not isolated or sporadic. The pattern or
practice of excessive force stems from systemic deficiencies in oversight, training,
and policy. Chief among these deficiencies is the department’s failure to implement
an objective and rigorous internal accountability system. Force incidents are not
properly investigated, documented, or addressed with corrective measures.
We found only a few instances in the incidents we reviewed where supervisors
scrutinized officers’ use of force and sought additional investigation. In nearly all cases,
supervisors endorsed officers’ version of events, even when officers’ accounts were incomplete, were inconsistent with other evidence, or were based on canned or repetitive language. The department has also failed to implement its force policies consistently, including requirements that officers properly document their use of force, whether by lapel cameras, audio tapes, or in reports. The department does not use other internal review systems, such as internal affairs and the early intervention system, effectively. These internal accountability and policy failures combine with the department’s inadequate training to contribute to uses of excessive force.
Additionally, serious limitations in the City’s external oversight processes have allowed many of these deficiencies to continue unabated.
As a result of the department’s inadequate accountability systems, the department often
endorses questionable and sometimes unlawful conduct by officers. The prior criminal history and background of individuals who are the subject of police force also typically receive greater scrutiny than the actions of officers. These practices breed resentment in the community and promote an institutional disregard for constitutional policing.
