A Phoenix police officer was shot several times on March 29 at approximately 11:30 p.m. Police detectives are investigating the shooting of the officer, a husband and father who has been with the department for seven years.
Maricopa County Attorney General Rachel Mitchell said she is praying for the officer.
“Praying for the swift and complete healing of the officer,” she said on X.
— Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell (@Rachel1Mitchell) March 30, 2024
Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego did not comment on the shooting.
Multiple suspects attempted an armed robbery of a vehicle in a parking lot when a Phoenix Police Department officer, working in an off-duty capacity at a nearby business, was notified.
After the officer approached the area, at least one of the suspects, armed with a handgun, began to fire in the direction of the officer.
The officer suffered multiple gunshot wounds. He did not fire his firearm during this incident. The suspects left the area before additional officers arrived.
The officer remains hospitalized in stable condition.
Investigators are continuing to search the area where the incident occurred for surveillance videos from nearby businesses. Anyone who was in the area at the time of the incident are urged to reach out to police.
Interim Phoenix Police Chief Michael Sullivan has a message for the suspects.
“I’m going to encourage the folks who were involved in this incident to turn themselves in,” Sullivan said at a news briefing Saturday morning. “We will not rest, we will not stop until we hold them to account for their crimes to the fullest extent of the law.”
Elizabeth Troutman is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send her news tips using this link.
Arizona Legislative Republicans have joined the crescendo of voices pushing back against an impending consent decree from the federal government.
This week, Arizona State Representative David Marshall and 20 of his colleagues in the chamber sent a letter to City of Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego and members of the council, asking them to “swiftly reject any consent decree proposed by the DOJ and challenge the findings in the forthcoming DOJ report.”
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE🚨 Arizona House Republicans Urge Phoenix Mayor to Reject Federal Control of Police Department
“To preserve Arizona’s sovereignty consistent with our state constitution, you must reject the DOJ’s coercive consent decree.”
The coalition of lawmakers warned that “the DOJ has used consent decrees to remove local control from police departments in metropolitan cities across the United States,” and that “relinquishing local control of these critical agencies to the federal government has been disastrous for both the public safety of the residents in those cities and for taxpayers.” They pointed to the experience of the state’s largest county, Maricopa, writing, “Arizonans have already suffered the drastic consequences of the DOJ consent decree over the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department for the past decade.”
In their letter to City of Phoenix officials, the lawmakers also appealed to both the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions about how an enacted consent decree would violate both documents. The legislators stated, “The Arizona Constitution prohibits the state and its political subdivisions from ‘using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate’ with any federal action or program that does not protect the checks and balances of the United States Constitution… To preserve Arizona’s sovereignty consistent with our state constitution, you must reject the DOJ’s coercive consent decree.”
The request from these representatives follows other petitions from Arizona officials who oppose the imposition of a consent decree upon the city’s police department. Earlier this fall, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell posted her displeasure with the principle of federal monitoring of law enforcement departments, writing, “Look no further than MCSO to see what ‘federal monitoring’ does to agencies. Monitors (people paid to determine whether an agency is in compliance) have ZERO incentive to find compliance. It will cost the taxpayers MILLIONS and crime will increase.”
City of Phoenix Councilmember Ann O’Brien also wrote an op-ed for the Arizona Republic, voicing her sentiments regarding any arrangement handed down from the DOJ. In her piece, O’Brien wrote, “I have no intention of signing anything given to us by the Department of Justice without getting to read their findings first. That’s the thing: the DOJ gets agencies to sign an agreement in principle before ever releasing their findings, which essentially means that agency will negotiate a consent decree in good faith. Not Phoenix.”
On August 5, 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a “pattern or practice investigation into the City of Phoenix and the Phoenix Police Department (PhxPD)” to “assess all types of use of force by PhxPD officers, including deadly force.” The DOJ highlighted that its investigation would “include a comprehensive review of PhxPD’s systems of accountability, including misconduct complaint intake, investigation, review, disposition, and discipline.”
At the time of the announcement, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said, “When we conduct pattern or practice investigations to determine whether the Constitution or federal law has been violated, our aim is to promote transparency and accountability. This increases public trust, which in turn increases public safety. We know that law enforcement shares these goals.”
The City of Phoenix and Phoenix Police Department have updated people on the progress of the investigation, alerting readers that “city and police leaders have provided the DOJ with documents, videos, interviews, ride-a-longs, and access to training sessions with the department.” The City’s bulletin revealed that the DOJ investigation “has come with challenges, as it took several months to negotiate a method for sharing sensitive law enforcement information which complied with FBI standards.”
Per the City of Phoenix’s information, the DOJ’s Civil Pattern or Practice investigation into the Phoenix Police Department “is the 71st investigation of its kind since the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.” If DOJ finds “patterns or practices of misconduct,” then Phoenix will likely find itself with a federal monitor.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Phoenix officers and residents have expressed concerns that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will use a consent decree to take over the Phoenix Police Department (PPD), as they have done for several dozen other major cities across the country.
Activists accused the DOJ of using a rinse-and-repeat playbook: launching opaque investigations into police departments over alleged misconduct that invariably churn out multimillion-dollar consent decrees containing politicized departmental reforms that result in higher crime rates.
Arizona Women of Action (AZWOA), a right-leaning grassroots nonprofit, said they have received emails from police officers expressing concern over Phoenix entering into a consent decree. AZWOA urged their network to have the Phoenix City Council oppose a consent decree in a press release.
“Please VOTE NO to a DOJ consent decree, and protect our city from high crime and high costs that come with it,” stated AZWOA. “Simply issue a letter of acknowledgement instead of taking on the costly and unnecessary Federal Monitor and decree.”
Consent decrees came to be during former President Bill Clinton’s first term in office under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the specific goal of remedying alleged civil rights violations based on alleged patterns or practices of racial discrimination or excessive use of force. Under a consent decree, a city agrees to federal reforms and monitoring outlined as Recommended Remedial Measures (RRM) within a court-enforced settlement agreed upon by the city and DOJ. Should a city refuse an agreement, the DOJ will then sue the city to ensure compliance.
The DOJ began investigating PPD in August 2021. Their investigation focuses on types of force used, retaliatory activity against First Amendment-protected activity, discriminatory policing, unlawful seizures or disposals of homeless belongings, and responses to disabled individuals.
In August, two years after initiating their investigation, the DOJ and city of Phoenix offered an update. PPD provided over 20,000 body-worn camera videos, 80,000 documents, 200 hours of ride-alongs, and access to trainings at Phoenix Police Academy to DOJ investigators. PPD Interim Chief Michael Sullivan indicated in a video corresponding with the two-year update that PPD would seek to be independent of DOJ oversight.
“We need to be a self-assessing, self-correcting agency, and that’s not just something that we say,” said Sullivan.
Albuquerque, New Mexico; Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Cleveland, Ohio; Ferguson, Missouri; Los Angeles County, California; Miami, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; Newark, New Jersey; Portland, Oregon; the Puerto Rico Police Department; Seattle, Washington; Springfield, Massachusetts; and Suffolk County, New York are among those major cities who have operated under a DOJ consent decree.
These consent decrees come at a great cost, with cities paying anywhere from several to tens of millions annually. Cleveland taxpayers have paid anywhere from $6 million to $11 million annually since 2015.
Part of the great cost comes from independent monitors charged with ensuring law enforcement’s compliance with the consent decree. Albuquerque has paid out millions to its independent monitor: six figures a month, totaling about $11 million since his work began in 2015. The monitor has made over $1.5 million annually, despite reportedly not living in the city. What’s more, investigative reporters found in April that Albuquerque’s violent crime rate has doubled since DOJ oversight began in 2015. Albuquerque Police Officers Association president Shaun Willoughby said that DOJ oversight has cost much for worsening returns.
“We have spent millions upon millions upon millions of taxpayers’ dollars, for what?” said Willoughby. “What did you get, Albuquerque? What did you receive out of this process but higher crime, a smaller police department, and you’re waiting longer for calls? That’s it.”
Consent decree timelines are subject to change as well.
Despite the worsening crime conditions, Albuquerque may only leave the consent decree if it achieves 95 percent operational compliance; as of May, the city had achieved 92 percent. The city originally agreed in 2015 to attempt full compliance within four years, or 2019, but has been kept under the agreement for over eight years now.
Studies have linked consent decrees to excess crime. A 2020 Harvard University report claimed that consent decrees created the conditions for 900 excess homicides and nearly 34,000 excess felonies.
Axios found that seven of 12 agencies experienced jumps in violent crime rates within the two years after enacting a consent decree.
Earlier this month, Law Officer reported that the city of Phoenix posted a job opening for a DOJ policy writer — despite the DOJ not having yet completed its investigation. The job listing appears to have since been removed.
“We aren’t sure what is happening in Phoenix but the DOJ has not even completed an investigation and it appears that officials within the city are simply assuming that they will be under a DOJ Consent Decree?” questioned the report.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Phoenix Police Department (PPD) is focusing its recruitment efforts on bringing in more women and diversity staff.
PPD announced they wanted female officers to make up 30 percent of their force. Presently, women make up 14 percent of PPD’s force. The push by PPD is part of the 30×30 Initiative, a national effort to increase the number of females in police departments. PPD signed a pledge in January to fulfill the initiative.
The pledge comes at a time when PPD continues to sustain significant staffing shortages. Although PPD departures from Jan. to April were less than they were during the same time period last year according to PPD data, PPD still has over 560 vacancies to fill. Vacancies totaled 500 last June.
In an interview with 12 News, a PPD spokesman credited the reduction in departures to the $20,000 raise given to officers.
PPD credits Commander Aimee Smith for persuading the department to sign the initiative. Smith has served in PPD since 1997, working 11 years in patrol as both undercover and investigative positions, five years as a sergeant, four years as a lieutenant, and for the past five years as a commander. Smith also teaches as an adjunct criminal justice professor at Rio Salado College within the Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD).
PPD follows in the footsteps of other police departments across the state who have already signed onto the 30×30 Initiative: Tempe, Mesa, Apache Junction, Gilbert, Queen Creek, Tucson, University of Arizona, and Arizona State University. Over 320 law enforcement departments in the U.S. have signed onto the initiative
The Secret Service, Marshals Service, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Agriculture, Supreme Court of the United States Police, IRS Criminal Investigation division, and FBI have also signed on to the 30×30 Initiative.
The 30×30 Initiative encourages special accommodations for women, including nursing stations for female officers. Some departments, like in Mesa, are developing special accommodations for women: medical benefits for life, alternative work schedules, part-time positions, and around-the-clock daycare.
The 30×30 Initiative was launched to establish “gender equity,” over equality, by artificially reducing natural disparities in law enforcement departments. The initiative is based on a Critical Race Theory (CRT) approach of weighing individuals based on intersectionality.
“Each of a woman officer’s many identities — race and ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ability, and more — defines her experience, and often multiplies her exposure to discrimination,” states the initiative. “Black women and other women of color, in particular, face compounding experiences of bias and discrimination in law enforcement because of their race or ethnicity, in addition to their gender. Transgender and gender non-conforming officers face discrimination on the basis of their gender identity and presentation. Other identities, too, shape a woman officer’s experience in law enforcement: a mother or caregiver may require a modified schedule for caretaking duties, or a pregnant officer may require certain physical accommodations.”
The 30×30 Initiative issues a lengthy list of action items that it ranks “essential,” “strongly recommended,” and “recommended.” Those that are deemed essential are considered integral to fulfilling the pledge to the initiative.
Essential action items include: collecting gender, race/ethnicity, and age data on sworn officer applicants, hires, promotion applicants, promotion recipients, and separations and retirements. Also deemed essential was bias training for individuals seated on promotional panels, and for recruitment content to exactly reflect the community demographics.
The 30×30 Initiative declares that “latent bias” may exist if a department has more female applicants than female hires, and that “gender-relevant issues” may exist if a greater number of female officers voluntarily leave than men.
The initiative justifies purposeful prioritization of hiring female staff over males based on research showing that females present a reduced risk of excessive force incidents, make fewer arrests, and are named in fewer lawsuits and complaints.
However, other research shows that female officers are at a greater risk of enduring assault and sustaining injuries when responding to calls.
The 30×30 initiative works in partnership with the New York University School of Law Policing Project, the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives (NAWLEE), Crime and Justice Institute, Police Executive Research Forum, National Policing Institute, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, International Association of Women Police (IAWP), NOBLE National Headquarters, Women Leaders in Law Enforcement Foundation, and Women in Federal Law Enforcement.
The initiative receives funding from Arnold Ventures, a progressive philanthropic organization, and Mark43, a law enforcement-oriented technology company.
Arnold Ventures was founded by John Arnold, a billionaire hedge fund trader, and his wife, Laura.
Mark43’s angel investors included Goldman Sachs, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Hollywood actor Ashton Kutcher, and General David Petraeus.
Mark43’s co-founders — Scott Crouch, Matt Polega, and Florian Mayr — attended Harvard University together in the early 2000s. Polega interned for three months for major defense technologies contractor Raytheon in the summer of 2012 while co-founding Mark43.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
It is a standard officer safety, public safety protocol for an officer to draw his or her duty weapon and point it at a suspect during a high-risk arrest. But a proposal by Phoenix PD Interim Chief Michael Sullivan would make pointing a firearm at anyone, regardless of the situation, a Level 1 reportable Use of Force action even if the gun is never discharged.
It is just one of several changes to Phoenix PD’s Use of Force policy for which Sullivan is seeking public comment, and which clearly notes the policy will be “deliberately stricter than the Constitutional and legal minimums established by the Courts.”
A number of national law enforcement organizations, however, have come out in opposition to the underlying direction of the agency’s proposal, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).
According to a recent IACP Use of Force position paper, managing use of force by officers is “one of the most difficult challenges” facing law enforcement agencies.
“The responsibility of law enforcement officers to enforce the law, protect the public, and guard their own safety and that of innocent bystanders is very challenging,” the IACP noted. “Interactions with uncooperative subjects who are physically resistant present situations that may quickly escalate.”
Ideally, an officer is able to gain cooperation through the use of verbal persuasion and other de-escalation skills. But there are situations, the ICAP noted, where use of force is unavoidable.
In such instances, use of force to gain control and compliance of subjects must be “objectively reasonable,” according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, which acknowledged that an officer’s decision to use force is often made under varied scenarios and often on a split-second basis.
Most agencies base their Use of Force policies and training around Graham v. Connor, in which the justices recognized that officers do not need to use the minimum amount of force in any given situation. Instead, the officer’s use of any force must be “objectively reasonable” based upon the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time force was used.
The totality of the circumstances could include the immediate threat to the officer or others; the time available for an officer to make decisions in tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving circumstances; the seriousness of the crime(s) involved; whether the subject is attempting to evade or escape; and the danger the subject poses to the community.
Other factors may include prior contact with the subject; the number of officers on-scene; the age, size, and strength of the subject versus the officer; specialized skills of the officer; injury or exhaustion of the officer; whether the subject appears affected by mental illness or the influence of alcohol or other drugs; crowd-related issues; and the subject’s proximity to potential weapons.
But Sullivan wants to change the Phoenix PD Use of Force policy away from the objectively reasonable standard to a standard of “reasonable, necessary, and proportional” that goes outside the Supreme Court’s analysis and relies on a more subjective review or interpretation.
IACP has “significant concerns” with any policy or legislation which replaces the Graham v. Connor standard with a standard which opens an officer’s split second decision to a new level of interpretation that results “in endless scrutiny and second-guessing by investigators, prosecutors, and civil courts.”
AZ Free News spoke with several officers about their reaction to the proposed Use of Force changes. The officers are not being identified due to concerns of retaliation although their identities and employment have been confirmed.
One Phoenix officer said his biggest worry is that he and other officers “will hesitate for fear of being disciplined” when confronted with a threatening or potentially threatening situation.
“A moment’s hesitation can cause someone their life,” the officer said, adding he expects more officers to be injured on duty under such a vastly different standard.
He also pointed out that officers would be prohibited from using “any force” on a person whose health, age, condition, or circumstances “make it likely” that death or serious physical injury will result.
The prohibition is so broadly worded to be unclear whether an officer cannot use force to subdue a gun-wielding 80 year old who has just shot a neighbor.
Another Phoenix PD officer points to concerns with the proposed change to de-escalation tactics, which Sullivan wants to expand to include withdrawing from the scene.
According to the officer, current policy allows for retreating from a volatile or dangerous scene as a method of de-escalation. This is often utilized when dealing with someone having a mental health crisis or when a criminal suspect can be apprehended in another, less risky manner.
But under the proposed policy, Phoenix officers could be disciplined for not opting to deescalate by completely withdrawing and leaving the scene. While this may appear to resolve the immediate issue at hand, the officer says the tactic could place the public “at further risk” once the police presence has left.
One example is an uncooperative trespasser on private property. If the officer withdraws from the scene to avoid escalating into physical contact, the property owner would be left to protect the property and the residents’ safety.
Or officers will be called back to the scene to deal with a now more dangerous set of circumstances.
And then there are those high-risk arrests where a suspect could have a weapon or has shown a propensity for physical violence. It is common practice to point a gun at such suspects to protect the safety of officers and the public.
Sullivan’s proposal, however, would now add a Use of Force demarcation on an officer’s record for such conduct. This means, according to another Phoenix officer, that an officer involved in a few hundred arrests over several years in which their gun was drawn could be alleged to have poor de-escalation skills because the majority of their arrests involved “force” even if no physical contact was involved.
Another activity which could result in a Use of Force report against an officer under Sullivan’s proposal involves Phoenix PD’s highly touted utilization of a Less-Lethal Launcher that fires a 40mm rubber projectile as well as a Pepperball Launcher, both of which can temporarily incapacitate a suspect.
Public records show these proven best-practice tools have been successful by officers to reduce more dangerous encounters. Yet under Sullivan’s proposed policy changes, the use of such tools could easily end up being considered “deadly force” in many instances.
Attorney Steve Serbalik explains his concerns with Chief Sullivan’s proposed Use of Force policy:
Other agencies which support the current objectively reasonable threshold for the use of force include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies. Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Federal Law Enforcement Officer Association, Fraternal Order of Police, Hispanic American Police Command Officer Association, International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement, National Association of Police Organizations, National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, National Organization Black Law Enforcement Executives, and National Tactical Officer Association.
Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.
