Community Safety Dashboard

In the year of 2023, there were thre (3) incidents qualified for Use of of Force Reporting/Review.  One of the the incidents involved two separate uses of force.

1. A TUPD Commander observed an officier being assualted by the suspect on the parking lot after a high scool graduation.  Due to numerous people gathering around the officer and suspect, the commander used his OC spray causing the assualt to stop.  The suspect was taken into custody and received medical treatment at Sinai  hospital.

2. The second use of force occuredduring the same incident when an officer became engaged in a foot pursuit after another suspet.  The suspect stopped and complied after the officer displayed his electronic control device and warned the suspect that he would activate the device.

3.The third use of force occured when a TUPD officer attempted to stop a vehicle after observing a traffice violation at osler and Emerson Drives.  The drive of the vehicle failed to yiel to the Officer's emergency equipment and continued driving to elude the officer for several miles.  The driver eventually came to a stop after turning on a dead-end street. Two (2) TUPD Officers exited their vehicles, drew their firearms and took both the driver and passenger into custody without further incident.  One TUPD officer pointed his firearm at the driver while ith other officer ept his at low ready.

A review of the above incidents concluded that the use of force used in the cases are within departmental policy.  An Analysis of the specific facts and circumstances contained in each occurance oe not reveal any pattern or trends related to race, age, or gender of subjects involved.

 

 

In the year of 2022, there were two (2)  incidents qualified for Use Of Force Reporting/Review.

1.  While a TUPD officer was placing a non-affiliate suspect under arrest, both the subject and officer fell to the ground and the suspect struck her head on the floor.  Once the suspect was in handcuffs, she was escorted out of the building with the assistance of two officers.  While being escorted out of the building, she spat at the officers, became combative and refused to walk causing officers to lose their balance and fall on the floor and into a wall.  Both officers sustained injuries to their knees and one officer sustained an injury to his left arm.  

2. A TUPD officer transported a resident student to the hospital for an involuntary emergency evaluation.  Once there three TUPD officers used force to stop and handcuff a patient from leaving the hospital.  The patient was combative and proceeded to push pass the officers to escape from their custody and to avoid treatment required by the emergency petition.  Officers struggled to place handcuffs on the ptient in an attempt to kep him from leaving, hurting himself, hospital staff and others in the hospital waiting area.

A review of both incidents concluded that the use of force used are within departmental policy. An analysis of the specific facts and circumstances contained in each occurance oes not reveal any pattern or trends related to race, age or gnder of subjects involved.

The only use of force incident for 2021 occurred while two officers were attempting to arrest a subject for assault and disorderly conduct. Upon being placed in handcuffs, the subject discarded a knife and began to spit, kick and bite at the officers. The officers placed the subject on the ground with their hands. One officer suffered lacerations on his arm and injured his shoulder, which required medical treatment. A careful review of the incident concluded that the use of force was within policy. An analysis of the circumstances did not reveal any pattern or trends related to the race, age or gender of the subjects involved.

In calendar year 2020 three incidents qualified for Use of Force Reporting/Review.

1. The first incident occurred off-campus involving an off-duty TUPD officer. While engaged in a verbal altercation with an individual, the officer pointed his assigned weapon at the individual. The officer was placed on suspension without pay pending the conclusion of an internal and criminal investigation.
2. The second incident occurred while TUPD officers attempted to interview a subject regarding his involvement in a theft. The subject grabbed and elbowed the officer which resulted in the officer deploying his ECD. The use of force was found to be in policy.
3. The third incident occurred off-campus while a TUPD officer assisted Baltimore County Police with an arrest. The TUPD officer deployed his assigned ECD to gain compliance from a driver who appeared, to the TUPD officer, to become combative with Baltimore County Police Officers during a traffic stop. An internal investigation determined that the use of force was unnecessary and outside TUPD policy. The officer was subsequently sustained on the charge of unnecessary use of force.

The officers received updated Use of Force orders and training during the 2020 and 2021 calendar year. An analysis of the specific facts and circumstances contained in each occurrence does not reveal any pattern or trends that require modifications to the Police Department’s Manual of General Directives, Special Orders or business practices. 

There were no use of force incidents for 2019.

Involved two separate incidents of personnel using hands-on techniques to acquire compliance with the same subject after assaulting an officer in the processing room and at the Commissioner's Office during a bail review. Both incidents were determined to be within departmental policy.

Eight (8) compliants receivd, all eight (8) involved sworn police personnel.

• Four (4) compliants involvedallegations of miscounduct by sworn epartmental employees while interacting with the public
• Four (4) compliants involved allegiations of internal miscounduct by sworn employees involving othre swonn personnel.
• Eight (8) formal investigation wre opened with resulted in the following findings:
  1. Five (5) compliants were found to be "sustained", meaining that it was determined that evidence existed sufficient to prove the allegations,
     1. In one (1) of the sustained complaints the officer voluntarily separted employment while under investigation.
  2. One (1) complaint was found to be "unfounded", meaning that it was determined there was lack of evidence to support the compliant's allegations.
  3. One (1) compliant was investigated at the Command Level.  The employee separted from the agency after failing to meet acceptable probationary standards in accordance with Towson University Police.
  4. One (10 complint for neglect of duty is still an active investigation.

Five complaints received, all seven involed sworn police  personnel.  Five formal investigations were opened in response.  The investigations resulted in the following findings:

• Three compliants were found to be "sustained", meaning that it was determined that evidence existed sufficient to prove the allegations.
• In one of the sustained complaints the officer voluntarily separated employment whle under investigation.
• Two complaints were found to be "unfounded", meaning that it was determined there was a lack of evidence to support the complainant's allegations.
• All sustained complaints involved sworn police officers and civilian personnel.

Seven complaints received; three involved sworn police officers interacting with the public. Four involved civilian personnel, with three of these involving the same employee.  Seven formal investigations were opened in response. The investigations resulted in the following findings:

• Seven complaints were found to be “sustained,” meaning that it was determined that evidence existed sufficient to prove the allegations.
• All sustained complaints involved sworn police officers and civilian personnel.
• Appropriate personnel actions were taken in accordance with TU and USM policy. 

Four complaints received, all involving sworn police officers:

• Three complaints involved allegations of misconduct by departmental employees while interacting with the public.  
• Two complaints involved allegations of inappropriate/illegal conduct by an employee.
• Four formal investigations were opened which resulted in the following:
  • Three complaints were found to be “sustained” (i.e., it was determined that sufficient evidence existed to prove the allegations). In two of the sustained complaints the officers voluntarily separated employment while under investigation.
  • One complaint was found to be “not sustained” (i.e. there was insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegations).
  • All sustained complaints involved sworn police officers.
  • Appropriate personal actions were taken in accordance with Towson University and University System of Maryland policy.

Fourteen complaints received, eleven involving sworn police officers and three involving civilian employees:

• Six complaints involved allegations of misconduct by departmental employees while interacting with the public.
• Four complaints involved allegations between departmental employees.
• Four complaints involved allegations of employees failing to adhere to administrative policies and procedures.
• Fourteen formal investigations were opened which resulted in the following:
  • Seven complaints were found to be “sustained” (i.e., it was determined that sufficient evidence existed to prove the allegations).
  • Six complaints were found to be “not sustained,” (i.e., there was insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegations).
  • One complaint was handled with mediation with involved parties.
  • All sustained complaints involved both sworn police officers and civilian employees.
  • Appropriate personal actions were taken in accordance with Towson University and University System of Maryland policy.

Six complaints received, all involving sworn police officers:

• Four complaints involved allegations of misconduct by departmental employees while interacting with the public.
• Two complaints involved allegations between departmental employees.
• Six formal investigations were opened which resulted in the following:
  • One complaint was found to be “sustained” (i.e., it was determined that sufficient evidence existed to prove the allegations).
  • Four complaints were found to be “not sustained,” (i.e., there was insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegations).
  • One complaint is pending presentation and review by a trial board in compliance with Maryland Law.
  • All sustained complaints involved sworn police officers.
  • Appropriate personal actions were taken In accordance with Towson University and University System of Maryland policy.