DOCSLIB.ORG

2021 RIPA Quick Facts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2021 RIPA Quick Facts R A C I A L A N D I D E N T I T Y P R O F I L I N G A D V I S O R Y B O A R D RI PA 2 0 2 1 R E P O R T Q U I C K F A C T S Between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019 the 15 largest law enforcement agencies in California collected data on nearly 4 million vehicle and pedestrian stops. RIPA defines a stop as a detention or search. California Highway Patrol (CHP) San Diego County Sheriff’s Department (SDSD) Oakland Police Department (OPD) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) San Diego Police Department (SDPD) Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department (SCSD) Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD) Fresno Police Department (FPD) Sacramento Police Department (SPD) San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (SBSD) Long Beach Police Department (LBPD) San Jose Police Department (SJPD) The full report contains several different types of analyses that were designed to measure disparities in stop outcomes. They include descriptive breakdowns of various stop elements (e.g., reason for stop), a comparison to residential population data, an analysis of search discovery rates, an analysis of stop frequencies by sunlight conditions, and an analysis examining use of force rates. Please see the full report to review all analyses in detail. Demographics of Stopped Individuals The data presented below is based on the perception of stopped individuals by officers. Hispanic White Percent of Middle Eastern/ Stopped Black Asian Pacific Native 38.9% South Asian Individuals 33.1% Multiracial Islander American 5.7% 4.7% 15.9% 0.9% 0.5% FT0.2% Officers Officers perceived perceived 4.1% of stopped 7,595 28.6% individuals were perceived 26,382 (0.7%) Perceived (0.2%) of stopped to have limited or Female stopped individuals 71.2% individuals to no English fluency to be transgender Perceived or gender Male nonconforming be LGBT Perceived Disability Perceived Age Officers perceived 46,035 (1.1%) of stopped individuals to have a disability. The graphic below is a breakdown of individuals officers 32.3% perceived to have a disability. 3.3% 21.9% Mental Health Cond. 0.1% 16.3% Developmental 15.5% Hyperactivity 0.2% 9.1% 13.4% Other 63.3% <0.1% 3.7% 7.7% DRAMultiple Disability 1.1% 5.6 Deafness % Speech Impairment 1 - 9 65+ 10 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 4.9% Blind 1.8% DRAFT REPORT – PENDING EDITING AND REVIEW This draft is a product of various subcommittees of the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board. It has been provided merely for the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board's consideration and its content does not necessarily reflect the views of any individual RIPA Board member, the full RIPA Board, or the California Department of Justice. R A C I A L A N D I D E N T I T Y P R O F I L I N G A D V I S O R Y B O A R D RI PA 2 0 2 1 R E P O R T Q U I C K F A C T S Actions Taken During Stop by Officers Across all stops, the most common actions taken by officers were: Searches Curbside or Patrol Car Detentions Handcuffing Ordered Vehicle Exits 3.9% 11.3% 8.4% 10.2% Officers stopped more than double the number of White individuals than they did Black individuals, but searched, detained on the curb or in a patrol car, handcuffed, and removed from vehicles more Black individuals than they did white individuals. T 25.0% Actions Taken by Race/Ethnicity 20.5% 20.0% 17.8% 14.1% 15.5% 12.2% 10.4% 8.9% 10.0% 8.2% 8.2% 7.7% 6.6% 5.1% 4.9% 4.9% 4.5% 5.0% F 2.1% 1.7% 0.0% Searched Detained Handcuffed Ordered Vehicle Exit Black Hispanic Other White Individuals whom officers perceived to have a disability were searched, detained on the curb or in a patrol car, and handcuffed at a higher rate than those perceived to not have a disability. Actions Taken by Disability 50.0% 45.1% 45.0% 43.4% 40.0% 39.4% RA 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.5% 11.0% 9.8% 10.0% 7.9% 3.9% 5.0% D 3.4% 0.0% Searched Detained Handcuffed Ordered Vehicle Exit Disability No Disability DRAFT REPORT – PENDING EDITING AND REVIEW This draft is a product of various subcommittees of the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board. It has been provided merely for the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board's consideration and its content does not necessarily reflect the views of any individual RIPA Board member, the full RIPA Board, or the California Department of Justice. R A C I A L A N D I D E N T I T Y P R O F I L I N G A D V I S O R Y B O A R D RI PA 2 0 2 1 R E P O R T Q U I C K F A C T S Overall Search and Discovery Rates Search Rates Discovery Rates Black individuals were searched 2.5 times the rate Search discovery rates refer to the proportion of searched individuals that officers of White individuals. Officers searched discover to be in possession of contraband or evidence. Officers discovered approximately 8% of White individuals. Officers contraband or evidence on 22.2% of White individuals who were searched. searched a higher proportion of Black, Hispanic, Despite having a higher proportion of individuals searched officers and Multiracial individuals in comparison to discovered contraband or evidence at a lower rate in searches of Black, individuals from other racial/ethnic groups. Hispanic, and Multiracial individuals in comparison to White individuals. 11.3% 21.4% of stopped individuals were subject of searched individuals were found to be to a person or property search in possession of contraband or evidence Search Rate Discovery Rate 12.3% Greater than 4.9% White Rate 4.1% 1.7% 2.5% 2.1% 1.0% 0.3% 0.0% -0.6% -1.4% -2.1% -2.8% Less than -3.9% -5.1% White Rate Asian Black Hispanic Middle Eastern/ Multiracial Native Pacific Islander American South Asian Search And Discovery Rates by Race/Ethnicity and Gender Overall, transgender/gender nonconforming individuals were searched 4.5 times the rate at which officers searched (cisgender) females and 2.2 times the rate at which officers searched (cisgender) males. Despite large differences in search rates, discovery rates for transgender/gender nonconforming individuals were similar to the discovery rates of cisgender individuals. 30% 40% Percent of Black 30% 20% Stops of 20% Hispanic Racial/Ethnic 10% 10% Group Other 0% 0% SEARCH RATE SEARCH DISCOVERY RATE White Female Male Transgender/ Female Male Transgender/ Gender Gender DRAFTNonconforming Nonconforming Within each gender group, Black and Hispanic cisgender males and cisgender females had higher search rates but lower discovery rates in comparison to White cisgender males and White cisgender females. Black and Hispanic transgender/gender nonconforming individuals had higher search and discovery rates than White transgender/gender nonconforming individuals. DRAFT REPORT – PENDING EDITING AND REVIEW This draft is a product of various subcommittees of the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board. It has been provided merely for the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board's consideration and its content does not necessarily reflect the views of any individual RIPA Board member, the full RIPA Board, or the California Department of Justice. R A C I A L A N D I D E N T I T Y P R O F I L I N G A D V I S O R Y B O A R D RI PA 2 0 2 1 R E P O R T Q U I C K F A C T S Search and Discovery Rates by Race/Ethnicity and Age Overall, younger individuals were searched at a higher rate than older individuals with the highest search rate being for individuals between the ages of 25 to 29 (14.0%), and the lowest search rate being for individuals 65 years of age or older (3.6%). By race/ethnicity, White individuals between the ages of 30 – 34 were searched most frequently for White individuals, while Black and Hispanic individuals younger than 25 were searched most often for their respective racial/ethnic groups. Black individuals had higher search rates than White individuals in every age group. Officers searched a higher proportion of Hispanic individuals whom they stopped than White individuals for all age ranges younger than 50 years old. 30% 25% 20% 15% Search Rate 10% 5% 0% <25 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65+ White Black Hispanic Other Discovery rates for Black individuals started out lower and increased with age, while discovery rates for Hispanic individuals were less variable across age groups. White individuals had the widest range in discovery rates across age groups. 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% Discovery Rate 5% 0% <25 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65+ White Black Hispanic Other Search and Discovery Rates for Consent Only Searches by Race/Ethnicity A consent only search is a search where an officer indicates that the only basis they had for performing a search was that the person consented to the search.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Equitable Sharing Payments of Cash and Sale
    Equitable Sharing Payments of Cash and Sale Proceeds by Recipient Agency for California Fiscal Year 2017 Agency Name Agency Type Cash Value Sales Proceeds Totals Alameda County District Attorney's Office Local $0 $2,772 $2,772 Alameda County Narcotics Task Force Task Force $0 $13,204 $13,204 Anaheim Police Department Local $8,873 $0 $8,873 Arcadia Police Department Local $3,155 $0 $3,155 Azusa Police Department Local $542,045 $0 $542,045 Bakersfield Police Department Local $16,102 $0 $16,102 Bell Gardens Police Department Local $10,739 $0 $10,739 Berkeley Police Department Local $1,460 $59,541 $61,001 Burbank - Glendale - Pasadena Airport Authority Police Local $0 $488 $488 Butte Inter-Agency Narcotics Task Force (BINTF) Task Force $300 $0 $300 Calexico Police Department Local $11,279 $0 $11,279 Chula Vista Police Department Local $86,150 $5,624 $91,774 Citrus Heights Police Department Local $21,444 $0 $21,444 City Of Baldwin Park Police Department Local $123,681 $419 $124,100 City Of Beverly Hills Police Department Local $199,036 $578 $199,614 City Of Brawley Police Department Local $18,115 $0 $18,115 City Of Carlsbad Police Department Local $24,524 $859 $25,383 City Of Chino Police Department Local $250,475 $9,667 $260,142 City Of Coronado Police Department Local $24,524 $859 $25,383 City Of Fresno Police Department Local $16,128 $10,935 $27,063 City Of Hawthorne Police Department Local $879,841 $4,765 $884,606 City Of Huntington Beach Police Department Local $9,031 $0 $9,031 City Of Murrieta Police Department Local $133,131 $0 $133,131
    [Show full text]
  • In the Line of Duty Magazine
    In The Line Of Duty 2016 California Peace Officers’ Memorial Ceremony Memorial Magazine Volume 22 THEY STAND TALL AND CAst A LONG SHADOW hey stand tall. At about nine feet, they cast a long shadow. They have to. For the three bronze figures Trepresent more than 1,500 peace officers who have died in the line of duty since California became a state. Vic Riesau, who retired in 1977 as a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Division Chief after a 25 year career, started a new career as an artist and sculptor. His bronze figures depict a county sheriff of the 1880s, a state traffic officer of the 1930s, and a city patrol officer of the 1980s. The three look down on a life-size bronze figure of a woman comforting a child sitting on a bench, representing the grief-torn families they left behind. “We pledge our best efforts to stand behind the men and women who stand behind the badge,” said Governor George Deukmejian in dedicating the memorial. “The job of a peace officer is perhaps the most difficult and challenging one of all in our society. We are very thankful to those willing to risk injury even death in order to provide greater protection and safety for all of us.” “While it can surely be said that these men and women who have placed their lives on the line for the safety of their fellow man are heroes, we must recognize that simply donning the uniform of a peace officer has in itself become an act of courage,” said dedication speaker David Snowden, Chief of the Costa Mesa This publication was Police Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Employment Data for California Law Enforcement 1991/92
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. EMPLOYMENT DATA FOR CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT 1991/92 - 1992/93 145590 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the p~rson or organization originating It. Points of view or opinions stated in this do.c~ment ~~e those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the offiCial position or pOlicies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by California Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further rep~duction outside of the NCJRS system requires permission of the copyrrght owner . • • EMPLOYMENT DATA FOR 0, CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT 1991/92 - 1992/93 • State of California Department of Justice Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training Information Services Bureau 1601 Alhambra Boulevard Sacramento, CA 95816-7083 @ Copyrighl 1993. California Commission on '. Peace 0fIi= Standards and Training .---------- Commission on Peace OMcer Standards and Training ---------........ • COMMISSIONERS Sherman Block Sheriff ., Chairman Los Angeles County Marcel L. Leduc Sergeant Vice-Chairman San Joaquin Co. Sheriffs Department Colleue Campbell Public Member Jody Hall-Esser Chief Administrative Officer City of Culver City Edward Hunt District Attorney Fresno County Ronald Lowenberg Chief of Police Huntington Beach Daniel E. Lungren Attorney General • Ex-Officio Member Raquel Montenegro Professor of Education C.S.U.LA. Manuel Ortega Chief of Police Placentia Police Dept. Bernard C. Parks Assistant Chief Los Angeles Police Dept. Devallis Rutledge Deputy District Attorney Orange County D.
    [Show full text]
  • Equitable Sharing Payments of Cash and Sale Proceeds by Recipient Agency for California Fiscal Year 2019
    Equitable Sharing Payments of Cash and Sale Proceeds by Recipient Agency for California Fiscal Year 2019 Agency Name Agency Type Cash Value Sales Proceeds Totals Alameda County Sheriff's Office Local $122,904 $0 $122,904 Alhambra Police Department Local $150,840 $0 $150,840 Anaheim Police Department Local $1,463,106 $0 $1,463,106 Antioch Police Department Local $28,318 $0 $28,318 Azusa Police Department Local $605,307 $0 $605,307 Banning Police Department Local $0 $12,555 $12,555 Buena Park Police Department Local $20,983 $0 $20,983 Butte Interagency Narcotics Task Force (BINTF) Task Force $0 $7,254 $7,254 California State University Fullerton Police Department Local $21,446 $0 $21,446 Chula Vista Police Department Local $247,848 $16,953 $264,801 Citrus Heights Police Department Local $24,966 $0 $24,966 City Of Baldwin Park Police Department Local $325,015 $10,938 $335,953 City Of Beverly Hills Police Department Local $46,694 $554 $47,248 City Of Brawley Police Department Local $10,363 $0 $10,363 City Of Carlsbad Police Department Local $14,923 $16,953 $31,876 City Of Chino Police Department Local $105,165 $0 $105,165 City Of Coronado Police Department Local $14,404 $16,953 $31,357 City Of Costa Mesa Police Department Local $4,799 $9,769 $14,568 City Of Fresno Police Department Local $75,910 $7,691 $83,601 City Of Hawthorne Police Department Local $705,656 $2,681 $708,337 City Of Huntington Beach Police Department Local $29,134 $0 $29,134 City Of Monterey Park Police Department Local $9,360 $0 $9,360 City Of Murrieta Police Department
    [Show full text]
  • Office of Criminal Justice Planning Sacramento, CA 95814 1130 K Street, Suite 300 (916) 551-1063 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 327-8704 Andrew L
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ~-===-~I ! 147229 Cal'lIornia - o.cf' Justice rl annlngL,lce of Cri mlnal' OFFICE OF CRIMINAL ~ ... .... i . .. USTICEP.............. LANNING \ ~UNE1882 : • FORTS TABLE OF CONTENTS STA1EWIDE ANTI-GANG EFFORTS ..................•........................................................... 1 ALA:tvmD A COUNTY ........................................................................ II" II ..••••.•.••...•.••. e8........ 2 CON1RA COSTA COUNTY ............... ............ ........ .................................... ........................ 3 FRESNO COUNIT ....................................... 1;1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0. •••••• 4 HUMBOLDT COUNTY ....................................................................................................... 4 Il\t1PERIAL COUNTY ......... "....................... 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• C/ •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5 KERN CO UNf'Y ............................... ................................................................................... 5 • KrnGS COUNTY ................................................. "............................................................... 6 LA.KE COUN1Y ........................................... e ............................................................................ 6 LOS ANGELES eoUNIT' ................................ 5 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7 MARIN' COUNTY .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Audit of Untested Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Kits: 2020 Report
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL XAVIER BECERRA Statewide Audit of Untested Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Kits 2020 Report to the Legislature DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT BUREAU OF FORENSIC SERVICES Executive Summary DNA evidence from sexual assault evidence (SAE) kits is often a key factor in attaining justice for survivors/victims of sexual assault. When tested, DNA evidence contained in SAE kits can be a powerful tool to solve and prevent crime by identifying unknown offenders and linking multiple crimes to repeat offenders. Unfortunately, there are still challenges in the way this evidence is collected, stored and tracked. A primary example is that California has no comprehensive data on the total number of SAE kits that remain untested. Untested SAE kits are stored at various law enforcement agencies (LEAs), laboratories and medical facilities throughout the state. Some of these kits are the subject of ongoing investigations, some are waiting to be tested or the cases investigated as resources become available, and some kits may never be tested at all. While the existence of a backlog of untested SAE kits in California is generally unquestioned, the exact scope of the backlog is unknown. A lack of data regarding the number and distribution of the state’s untested SAE kits, and uncertainty about the reasons kits remain untested, have posed challenges for policymakers who must decide how best to address the backlog. The purpose of this report is to summarize the data generated by a one-time audit of the untested SAE kits in the possession of California’s LEAs, crime laboratories, medical facilities and others, as mandated by Assembly Bill (AB) 3118, (Stats.
    [Show full text]
  • Agency Data Sharing Report
    Agency Data Sharing Report Detections Shared The Garden Grove Police Department Agency is Sharing its Detection data with the following Agencies: Alameda County Narcotics Task Force Alameda Police Department Anaheim Police Department Antioch Police Department CA Arcade Police Department Azusa Police Department Bakersfield Police Department Blythe Police Department Brea Police Department Brentwood Police Department Buena Park Police Department California Franchise Tax Board Cathedral City Police Department Chino Police Department Claremont Police Department Clovis Police Department Contra Costa County Sheriffs Corona Police Department Costa Mesa Police Department CSU Fullerton Police Department Cypress Police Department DHS Bulk Cash Smuggling Center Fayette County Sheriffs Office Fayetteville Police Department Federal Bureau of Investigation Fontana Police Department Fountain Valley Police Department Fresno Police Department Fullerton Police Department Glendale Police Department AZ HIDTA - Central Valley California Huntington Beach Police Department Irvine Police Department L.A. County Sheriffs Dept La Habra Police Department La Palma Police Department LA Port Police Laguna Beach Police Department Las Vegas Metro Police Department Long Beach Police Department Los Alamitos Police Department Los Angeles County Sheriff Manhattan Beach Police Department Montgomery Police Department Newport Beach Police Department Ontario Police Department Orange County Sheriff Orange County Sheriffs Department Orange Police Department Phoenix Police Department
    [Show full text]
  • List of California Law Enforcement Agencies to Receive the Public Records Act Requests
    List of California Law Enforcement Agencies to Receive the Public Records Act Requests: California (Northern) Davis Police Department California (Northern) Fremont Police Department California (Northern) Fresno Police Department California (Northern) Lodi Police Department California (Northern) Manteca Police Department California (Northern) Marin County Sheriff's Department California (Northern) Novato Police Department California (Northern) Oakland Police Department California (Northern) Redding Police Department California (Northern) Richmond Police Department California (Northern) Sacramento Police Department California (Northern) Sacramento Sheriff's Department California (Northern) San Francisco Police Department California (Northern) San Jose Police Department California (Northern) San Rafael Police Department California (Northern) Solano County Sheriff California (Northern) Stanislaus County Sheriff California (Northern) Stockton Police Department California (Northern) Vallejo Police Department California (Northern) Visalia Police Department California (San Diego) Carlsbad Police Department California (San Diego) Chula Vista Police Department California (San Diego) City of Imperial Police Department California (San Diego) Coronado Police Department California (San Diego) El Cajon Police Department California (San Diego) El Centro Police Department California (San Diego) Escondido Police Department California (San Diego) Imperial County Sheriff California (San Diego) La Mesa Police Department California (San Diego) National City
    [Show full text]
  • Oakland Police Department Office of the Inspector General
    Oakland Police Department Office of the Inspector General ______________________________________________________________________________ Combined 2nd and 3rd Quarterly Progress Report April - September, 2019 Oakland Police Department Office of Inspector General 455 7th Street, 9th Floor | Oakland, CA 94607 | Phone: (510) 238-3868 Oakland Police Department, Office of Inspector General Combined 2nd and 3rd Quarterly Progress Report (April-September 2019) Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2 Review of Class I and Class II Employee Misconduct Complaint Investigations that Exceeded 180 Days ............................................................................................................................... 3 An Assessment of the Oakland Police Department’s 2018 Vehicle Pursuits ........................... 36 1 Oakland Police Department, Office of Inspector General Combined 2nd and 3rd Quarterly Progress Report (April-September 2019) Introduction Included in the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) 2019 Combined 2nd and 3rd Quarterly Progress Report are a review of the timeline requirements for employee misconduct complaint investigations and a review of 2018 vehicle pursuits. The Department’s Complaints Against Department Personnel or Procedures policy (Department General Order M-03, effective date 22 Dec 17) requires that complaints of employee misconduct are investigated and approved within 180 days. The Department had accumulated a backlog of cases waiting for review since late 2018 and had fallen out of compliance with meeting the 180-day timeline for cases resulting in a formal finding. This review was initiated to determine what contributed to the backlog and timeline issue and how to minimize the risk of falling out of compliance in the future. The OIG also conducted a review of 2018 vehicle pursuits due to a 75 percent increase in the number of pursuits between 2017 and 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Agency Name State NIBRS Sample Assignment (As of August 2014
    Sample Assignment Agency Name State NIBRS (as of August 2014) SEWARD POLICE DEPARTMENT AK NO Main COLBERT COUNTY AL NO Main CHICKASAW POLICE DEPARTMENT AL NO Main ARAB POLICE DEPARTMENT AL NO Main GILBERTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT AL NO Main GOODWATER POLICE DEPARTMENT AL NO Main WEAVER POLICE DEPARTMENT AL NO Main UNION SPRINGS POLICE DEPT AL NO Main LAFAYETTE POLICE DEPARTMENT AL NO Main MONTGOMERY POLICE DEPARTMENT AL NO Main CULLMAN COUNTY AL NO Main BIRMINGHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT AL NO Main SAN LUIS POLICE DEPARTMENT AZ NO Main PEORIA POLICE DEPARTMENT AZ NO Main PIMA COUNTY AZ NO Main CHANDLER POLICE DEPARTMENT AZ NO Main SIERRA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT AZ NO Main MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT AZ NO Main TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT AZ NO Main PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT AZ NO Main COLORADO RIVER TRIBAL PD AZ NO Main CALFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL CA NO Main GLENN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT CA NO Main UNIV OF CALIFORNIA: SANTA CRUZ CA NO Main BLYTHE POLICE DEPARTMENT CA NO Main CRESCENT CITY POLICE DEPT CA NO Main FARMERSVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT CA NO Main MERCED COUNTY CA NO Main RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT CA NO Main ONTARIO POLICE DEPARTMENT CA NO Main PASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT CA NO Main OXNARD POLICE DEPARTMENT CA NO Main GLENDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT CA NO Main SANTA CLARA POLICE DEPARTMENT CA NO Main SANTA BARBARA POLICE DEPT CA NO Main GARDEN GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT CA NO Main SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CA NO Main CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CA NO Main FRESNO COUNTY CA NO Main RIVERSIDE POLICE DEPARTMENT CA NO Main ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT CA NO Main TEHAMA COUNTY
    [Show full text]
  • Agency Data Sharing Report
    Agency Data Sharing Report Detections Shared The Sausalito Police Department Agency is Sharing its Detection data with the following Agencies: 100th Judicial District Attorney Traffic Enforcement 17th Judicial Circuit Drug Task Force 21st Drug Task Force 24th Judicial District Drug Task Force 32nd Judicial District Attorney Office Alachua County Sheriff Alameda County Narcotics Task Force Alameda Police Department Alpharetta Police Department (GA) American Canyon Police Department Anaheim Police Department Antioch Police Department CA Arizona Department of Public Safety ATF National Account Athens-Clarke Police Department Auburn Police Department CA Auburn Police Department Austin Police Department Bakersfield Police Department Baldwin County Sheriffs Office Bartow County Sheriffs Office Bay Area Rapid Transit Police (CA) Bell Police Department Belvedere Police Department Beverly Hills Police Department Biloxi Police Department (MS) Boone County Sheriff Office Brea Police Department Brentwood Police Department Brentwood Police Department CA Bronxville Police Department Buena Park Police Department Burbank Police Department (CA) Burleson Police Department Burr Ridge Police Department Byron Police Department CA DOJ - Bureau of Firearms (CA) Caldwell Police Department (NJ) California Highway Patrol (CA) Cape Coral Police Department Carlsbad Police Department Carson City Sheriffs Dept Casa Grande Police Department Cathedral City Police Department CBP - NTC Cedar Rapids Police Department Chino Police Department Christian County Sheriff MO
    [Show full text]
  • Agencies with Non-Sworn CSI's
    Agencies with Non-Sworn CSI’s Arizona: Apache Junction Police Department Arizona Department of Public Safety Avondale Police Department Buckeye Police Department Bullhead City Police Department Casa Grande Police Department Chandler Police Department Cottonwood Police Department Eloy Police Department Gilbert Police Department Glendale Police Department Goodyear Police Department Marana Police Department Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Mesa Police Department Oro Valley Police Department Peoria Police Department Phoenix Police Department Pima County Sheriff’s Office Pinal County Sheriff’s Office Pinetop-Lakeside Police Department Prescott Police Department Scottsdale Police Department Surprise Police Department Tempe Police Department Tucson Police Department US Customs and Border Protection Yuma Police Department California: Alameda County Sheriff’s Office California Criminalistics Institute Carlsbad Police Department Chula Vista Police Department Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department El Cajon Police Department Escondido Police Department Fairfield Police Department Fresno Police Department Hayward Police Department Livermore Police Department Long Beach Police Department Los Angeles Police Department Marin County Sheriff’s Office Modesto Police Department Monterey Police Department Napa City Police Department Napa County Sheriff’s Office National City Police Department Oakland Police Department Oceanside Police Department Orange County Sheriff’s Department Pacifica Police Department San Bernardino County Sheriff San Diego Police
    [Show full text]