A protester jumps out of the way of a car that was speeding through tear gas to get away from oncoming police cars on West Florissant in Ferguson on Sunday, Aug. 17, 2014. The protesters had been throwing rocks and bottles towards the police until the police fired tear gas into the crowd. (Photos by J.B. Forbes / Post-Dispatch)
Story by St Louis Post-Dispatch
Written by Christine Byers
FERGUSON • Police trying to control the Ferguson protests and riots responded with an uncoordinated effort that sometimes violated free-speech rights, antagonized crowds with military-style tactics and shielded officers from accountability, the Justice Department says in a document obtained Monday by the Post-Dispatch.
“Vague and arbitrary” orders to keep protesters moving “violated citizens’ right to assembly and free speech, as determined by a U.S. federal court injunction,” according to a summary of a longer report scheduled for delivery this week to police brass in Ferguson, St. Louis County, St. Louis and Missouri Highway Patrol.
They already have the summary, still subject to revision, that was obtained by the newspaper.
It suggests that last year’s unrest was aggravated by long-standing community animosity toward Ferguson police, and by a failure of commanders to provide more details to the public after an officer killed Michael Brown.
“Had law enforcement released information on the officer-involved shooting in a timely manner and continued the information flow as it became available, community distrust and media skepticism would most likely have been lessened,” according to the document.
It also says that use of dogs for crowd control incited fear and anger, and the practice ought to be prohibited. And it complains that tear gas was sometimes used without warning and on people in areas from which there was no safe retreat.
Moreover, it finds inconsistencies in the way police used force and made arrests.
“The four core agencies dedicated officer training on operational and tactical skills without appropriate balance of de-escalation and problem-solving training,” it reads.
The Justice Department examined the response of the four agencies in the first 16 days after Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson shot Brown, 18, in a controversial confrontation Aug. 9. Those departments were the key players in managing unrest that drew help from about 50 jurisdictions across the region.
In all, the full report is expected to contain about 45 “findings,” with recommendations for improvement on each point.
Federal officials had a conference call last week with St. Louis Chief Sam Dotson, St. Louis County Chief Jon Belmar, Missouri Highway Patrol Superintendent J. Bret Johnson and Ferguson Interim Chief Al Eickhoff, seeking feedback on the summary, Dotson said Monday.
He said he requested an in-person review of the full report — almost 200 pages — later this week.
“I don’t know if I agree with them or not, because I don’t have enough information,” Dotson said. “I said we can’t comment without the whole document.”
Belmar declined to comment Monday, saying he would address his concerns directly to federal officials. His office later issued a statement, saying, in part, “... this was presented to us as a draft, confidential report, and our responsibility is to work with” federal officials “to ensure the accuracy of the draft...”
Ferguson officials issued a statement saying they are “reviewing these latest findings and will act accordingly.” The Missouri Department of Public Safety, which oversees the highway patrol, did not respond to a request for comment.
Dotson said he hopes the final report from the Community Oriented Policing Services branch of the Justice Department will provide a “road map” for police facing similar situations.
He said he once asked COPS officials about best practices in responding to such protests. “I was told, ‘There are none, you are forging new ground,’” Dotson said.
Dotson also said such “after-action” reviews are not uncommon, noting they followed incidents like Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.
This will be the third of four Justice Department reports in the wake of Ferguson unrest. The first two were released simultaneously in March. One said Wilson was justified in shooting Brown; the other strongly criticized past practices by the Ferguson police and municipal court, and triggered a continuing effort toward enforcing changes either by negotiation or lawsuit.
The fourth report will be an analysis of the St. Louis County Police Department’s practices. Sources say it is expected to be out sometime in July.
‘UNIFIED COMMAND’
County police headed up the initial days of the response, but Gov. Jay Nixon shifted command to the highway patrol. Ultimately, the county police, highway patrol and St. Louis police formed a “unified command” to oversee response as protests and rioting spread.
The summary primarily addresses actions and is not specifically critical of individual officials.
From the beginning, the summary finds, the use of a “highly elevated tactical response,” essentially set a tone that “limited options for a measured, strategic approach.”
For example, positioning an officer atop an armored vehicle to monitor the crowd through rifle sights was “inappropriate” and only served to “exacerbate tensions between protesters and the police,” it says.
It acknowledges that a tactical response was warranted at times, but an “elevated daytime response was not justified and served to escalate rather than de-escalate the overall situation.”
The summary faults as “ineffective” the control of officers with various levels of training from departments with differing police philosophies.
It says failures in traffic control resulted in “tactical advantages to the protesters and activists and safety hazards to the deployed officers.”
And it highlights several breakdowns in internal communications, suggesting that intelligence obtained about the protests was not well-used and that some departments had incompatible radios.
The four departments “underestimated the impact social media had on the incident and the speed at which both facts and rumors were spread and failed to have a social media strategy,” the summary finds.
The departments also were unprepared for the use of technology and hacks into personal computers which led to identity theft for some officers. The threats led some officers to remove name tags from their uniforms, which the report says “defeated an essential level of on-scene accountability that is fundamental to the perception of procedural justice and legitimacy.”
It says, “Officers were not prepared for the volume and severity of personal threats on themselves and their families, which created additional emotional stress for those involved in the Ferguson response. This includes threats of violence against family members and fraud associated with technology based attacks.”
It continues, “The intensity of the circumstances and the length of the event led to officers exhibiting fatigue and stress, which impacted health, well-being, judgment and performance.”
The report also focuses on transparency, noting that among the four agencies, only St. Louis County makes its policies publicly accessible on a website.
It says all four agencies have procedures for receiving and processing citizen complaints, but they “may not have been adequate for the unique circumstances of the Ferguson incident.”
County and city police each reported one officer complaint during the 16-day assessment period, but the report says the number is “misleading” because “a lack of confidence in the complaint process likely deterred citizens from filing complaints about police behavior.”
Along with the criticisms, the report outlines suggestions for improvements.
Those include keeping tactical teams out of sight unless needed, and color coding nonlethal weapons to calm the public and remind officers.
They call for regional training sessions that would emphasize de-escalation before resorting to force.
As for officer safety, the summary suggests that departments allow some alternate form of unique identification that still protects their names and to provide a more streamlined process for citizens to file complaints and compliments.
