Independent auditor reviews Modesto police practices, recommends earlier officer interviews and closer review of taser/canine use

Steve Conley, the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) contractor from OIR Group, presented the IPA office’s second annual audit covering Modesto Police Department cases completed in 2024 at the Community Police Review Board meeting on April 16.

Conley said the audit covered designated categories — complaints and allegations of misconduct, uses of force, and critical incidents — drawing on completed investigations, body-worn camera recordings and department files. He told the board the office reviewed 28 misconduct/internal affairs cases and the completed administrative reviews and criminal investigations for multiple officer-involved shootings during OIR’s tenure.

Conley said the office supports Modesto’s new Major Incident Review Team (MERT) process, which convenes subject-matter experts and command staff within days of a critical incident to identify operational or systemic changes. “We have been invited to those. They’ve had three of these events, and we have been invited to all three of them,” he said, calling the practice a “holistic review” that lets the department address improvements quickly rather than waiting for months while criminal investigations proceed.

Key findings and recommendations

- Officer-involved shootings: OIR reviewed the completed administrative investigations and said it agreed with the department’s administrative determinations that officers’ uses of deadly force in the reviewed cases were justified under the totality of the circumstances. Conley recommended tightening post-incident procedures, especially around the timing of officer interviews after shootings.

- Officer interviews: OIR recommended moving toward formal interviews conducted as soon as practicable — ideally before the end of an officer’s shift — to avoid the risk of outside influences before a statement is taken. Conley said, “We are proponents of a model where that statement is happening as soon as possible and ideally it's going to happen before the end of the shift.” He acknowledged Modesto’s concerns and procedural reasons for later interviews but noted the potential investigative tradeoffs.

- Body-worn camera and statements: OIR endorsed Modesto’s practice of taking an officer’s statement before allowing review of body-worn camera footage. Conley said that practice helps preserve a “pure” contemporaneous account and called it a best-practices alignment.

- Tasers and canines: In a small sample, OIR found several taser deployments that were ineffective at incapacitating subjects and multiple instances in which officers did not give a warning before deploying force, contrary to policy where practicable. The office also flagged instances where canine deployments were not clearly integrated into the broader use-of-force review and recommended better cross-referencing of canine after-action documentation with the main force-review process.

- Stops and complaints: OIR reported a pattern in some complaints involving repeated traffic or equipment stops that began with minor vehicle-code infractions (pretextual stops). Conley noted this can be legally permissible, but it has been a community friction point and recommended community discussion and policy consideration.

- De-escalation and training: OIR urged continued focus on de-escalation and said the department had begun to incorporate de‑escalation considerations more explicitly in reviews by the end of 2024.

Board questions and public comment

Board members asked whether OIR could review specific cases upon request; Conley said that was not part of the standard scope but could likely be accommodated for incidents occurring after the office began its work. Board members also pressed about the IPA’s access to canine-unit assessments; Conley said he had not reviewed separate canine-unit paperwork and recommended better integration going forward.

Multiple public commenters raised concerns about mental‑health responses, policing of unhoused people, and requests for more community outreach and public notice when the office’s public reports are released. One public commenter asked about the timeline for an arbitration involving a named officer (Joseph Lamatilla); staff said there was no update at the meeting.

Ending: OIR said the department generally takes investigations seriously and that the recommendations aim to improve clarity, timeliness and systemic learning. The department will be asked to provide a formal written response and follow-up on recommendations at a future board meeting.