San Jose police auditor wants to review all use-of-force data
San Jose’s independent police auditor wants to review every use-of-force case, the city council is pushing back. File photo.

San Jose’s independent police auditor wants to review every use-of-force case — a level of oversight already in place for countywide law enforcement. But the idea is facing resistance from city police and councilmembers.

Out of 400 total incidents where San Jose police used their weapons or hands on people, 13 resulted in great bodily injury in 2024, according to a new report by Independent Police Auditor  (IPA) Eddie Aubrey. It’s the first year his office was able to review these cases in-depth after scoring expanded oversight authority after voters approved Measure G in 2020. Going forward, Aubrey wants to review all incidents where police used force on someone – regardless of whether or not civilians were injured. But the San Jose City Council and police department said it would cost too much and open hundreds of new cases up for review.

The IPA’s report said all 13 incidents fell within the bounds of reasonable use of force – despite concerns about the high rate of police canine injuries and frequent police strikes to sensitive parts of people’s bodies. He also said staffing shortages hindered the depth of these reviews and assured a more detailed report later this year.

San Jose police and councilmembers say the current model for the IPA’s office balances accountability with efficiency. They warn that idea of expanding the scope to minor uses of force would divert focus from more serious incidents and introduce new strains on an already tight budget forecast.

They also oppose Aubrey’s recommendation to have the same level of access to officer-involved-shooting investigations as the department’s Internal Affairs division.

“San Jose’s current oversight system achieves this balance by providing (the IPA’s office) with timely access to serious incidents and ensuring civilian complaints – regardless of severity – are fully reviewed,” reads a memo responding to the report from Mayor Matt Mahan and three other councilmembers. “We share the concerns raised by Chief Paul Joseph and the City Manager’s Office that the OPIA’s Recommendations (…) would introduce operational and investigative risk and impose significant staffing and fiscal impacts.”

Mahan’s office declined to comment beyond the memo.

But advocates say expanding the auditor’s suggested scope would enhance transparency and community trust — and bring the office’s authority in line with the office that monitors the Santa Clara County Sheriff.

“We get to see whatever we want to see with regards to use of force. It’s important to look at low-level uses of force even though the consequences aren’t quite as significant with regards to injury,” Michael Gennaco, head of the Office of Correction and Law Enforcement Monitoring (OCLEM) for Santa Clara County, told San Jose Spotlight. “Even in those cases, if de-escalation was available and was used effectively, there may have not been a need to go hands-on at all.”

NAACP of San Jose/Silicon Valley President Sean Allen often finds himself at odds with Gennaco’s office about Sheriff monitoring. But the proposal to expand San Jose’s police oversight office puts them in agreement.

“It might make police uncomfortable, but the reality is that the independent auditor has to provide independent accuracy. The police can’t police themselves. We can’t trust them to. The auditors have to have access to everything,” Allen, a retired sergeant with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, told San Jose Spotlight.

Changing of the guard

Aubrey took over the office in April 2024 during a tumultuous time. He followed Shivaun Nurre, whose five years as the city’s top watchdog came to an end in 2023 after a drunken argument with police officers at a public festival. Just months after Nurre left, San Jose’s assistant IPA quit, leaving a scathing letter criticizing the city for ignoring the IPA’s office and its recommendations.

Aubrey’s report studied a variety of components to police accountability.

Use of force incidents resulting in great bodily injury – as well as civilian complaints about use of force – have decreased every year since 2021, according to the IPA’s report. However, officer involved shootings have gone up. K-9 bites—with the exception of 2024 — have become the leading cause of  bodily injury to civilians, even though police dog use has gone down every year since 2021, according to the report.

Formal misconduct complaints hit nearly 300 officers in 2024 – a 16.5% increase over 2023. About 29% of officers had at least one complaint filed by a community member. The most common allegation types were procedural violations at 33%, Fourth Amendment violations at 27%, “discourtesy” at 16% and biased policing at 15%, according to the report.

More than 260 misconduct complaints came from the community, with an additional 41 filed by the department itself. The department sustained 26 of the complaints it filed against officers and 34 of the complaints from the community.

Most complaints were filed against officers in their first four years of service. Several officers with at least 16 years experience each received five or more complaints in 2024. A single officer with at least 16 years experience received seven complaints.

The police department only disagreed with three out of the 12 IPA recommendations for policy changes, including the expanded use of force review, getting the same level of access as Internal Affairs and enhancing policies around the off-duty use of department vehicles.

Allen said he would like to see Aubrey’s office break down civilian complaints by racial demographics.

“And when complaints are sustained — they need to show the racial demographics behind that, as well,” Allen said.

Contact Brandon Pho at [email protected] or @brandonphooo on X.

Comment Policy (updated 5/10/2023): Readers are required to log in through a social media or email platform to confirm authenticity. We reserve the right to delete comments or ban users who engage in personal attacks, hate speech, excess profanity or make verifiably false statements. Comments are moderated and approved by admin.

Leave a Reply