You are on page 1of 16



civilian investigative panel

Mission 1

Background 1

Miami Police Department 2

Methodology 3

Extra Duty Complaint Trends 3

Alleged Biases 3

Poor Recordkeeping 4

Alleged Excessive Force Incidents 4

Contempt For Authority 5

Findings 6

Complaint Locations: 6

Hours Worked: 6

Job Coordinators: 7

Extra Duty Attendance & Payments: 8

Conflict Of Interest: 8

Conclusions 9

Recommendations 11

civilian investigative panel

The Civilian Investigative Panel serves the public and police by providing fair and impartial assessments
regarding concerns about sworn police officers. The CIP provides a truthful balanced judgment of issues
and complaints and provides a safe, open environment to express grievances, concerns and solutions.
The facts are assessed by community members in order to reflect the values of the community, improve
understanding and public safety.

In November 2001, a referendum was held to determine whether the City Charter should be amended
to establish the legal framework for creating independent civilian oversight over the sworn members of
the City of Miami Police Department. The referendum was supported by 73 percent of the electorate,
thus giving rise to Section 51 of the City of Miami Charter. The CIP was subsequently created in February
2001 by the City Commission, enacting City of Miami Code, Art. II, §11.5 (2002) (hereinafter, the “Enabling
Ordinance”). The CIP’s primary mission is to exercise “independent civilian oversight of the sworn police

Again, in November 2016, a voter referendum approved the Civilian Investigative Panel’s right to hire and
fire an executive director and independent counsel, as well as confirming its ability to investigate policies
and practices of the Miami Police Department. The referendum was supported by 78% of the voters.
Ordinance revisions were enacted by the City Commission to clarify the authorities and organization of
the Civilian Investigative Panel on June 8, 2017.

Section 11.5-31. (7) of Ord. No. 13688 authorizes the CIP to issue reports that may contain requests and
recommendations concerning any matter within its authority to the city manager, elected officials, the
police chief and the public.

The CIP reviews investigations already completed by the police department’s Internal Affairs Section and
investigates allegations filed directly with our agency. We can also self-initiate an investigation. Officers
and incident types are tracked and monitored for trends and recommendations to improve police services.
When troubling conduct is observed, those observations are relayed in writing to the police chief who is
required to correspond with CIP as to whether our recommendations were adopted.

For the past two years, Panel members noticed a disturbing pattern emerge and asked our staff to research
incidents involving “extra duty” assignments. Extra duty assignments are those where Miami officers are
privately hired for policing or security functions. Officers are expected to enforce all laws impartially and
without expectation of favors, as they would when on regular duty. Extra duty secondary employment
does not include officers who own businesses or have other jobs, unrelated to policing such as janitors
or realtors. Staff compiled internal affairs cases and CIP investigations involving extra duty conduct and
found at least forty (40) instances alleging misconduct by Miami Police officers (2017-2018). This report is
a summary of our findings and recommendations focusing on extra duty assignments.

The Specialized Operations Section, Special Events Unit (SEU) of the Miami Police Department is
responsible for overseeing hiring of extra duty officers, their attendance at venues, coordination with
private entities requesting officers and payments from vendors that hired officers. With few exceptions
such as large-scale sporting events, extra duty assignments are voluntary side jobs. Officers may decline
this work. There are three police supervisors, five officers and three civilians assigned to the SEU unit
overseen by a Captain and Major. The annual budget for the unit exceeds $1.3M in salaries alone.

Officer hourly pay rates for extra duty details are established by the police chief and are in accordance
with departmental orders and collective bargaining agreements. By ordinance, the City of Miami applies
administrative and surcharge fees per officer, per hour. Officers are prohibited from working more than 16
hours during a 24-hour period which includes regular duty work and overtime hours combined. Thirty-six
hours is the maximum number of total extra duty hours an officer may work in a single week. Regular shift
work for officers is four, ten-hour shifts per week, bringing the total authorized work week to seventy-six
hours (40 regular + 36 extra duty), not including court appearances. In 2017 alone, there were sixty-seven
officers that worked 1,000+ hours of extra duty and one officer, over 2,000 hours. Regular duty hours
and extra duty hours should not overlap and may constitute larceny and official misconduct. Despite
established written policies for maximum allowable hours and overlap prohibition, there are repeated
instances where officers violated both directives.

The Special Events Unit logs and tracks extra duty jobs and hours using a software program, “Trak”.
Beyond its full-time staff, SEU relies on “job coordinators” to act as liaisons between the police department
and temporary or permanent employers. Coordinators are responsible for a variety of tasks including:
• Submit permanent job operational plans to area commander for approval and update annually,
if applicable.
• Generate monthly schedule through SEU software program by the 20th day of the previous
month and submit corrections within two weeks.1
• File scheduling, surcharge reports and track duty hours of assignments.
• Ensure other officers comply with agency policies for extra duty assignments.
• Notify SEU of any issues or changes to the job.

Extra duty assignments generally fall within four types of work: special events, temporary, permanent and
special taxing districts.
SPECIAL EVENTS- Require specific planning, scheduling, logistics and coordination with outside resources
and include events such as festivals, concerts and sporting venues.
TEMPORARY- Short term, non-repetitive work with short notice such as parties and traffic control.
PERMANENT- Repetitive jobs extending more than one month, involving the same employer such as
supermarkets and hospitals.
SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICTS- Permanent jobs in small residential areas where property owners pay
special assessments for police security.

Departmental Order 12, Chapter 1, Section 5th day of the month the work is occurring.

Complaint case files and reports involving extra duty employment were compiled, as were police
department regulations, policies and procedures in effect for the 2017-2018 study period.2 While the
nature of complaints varies depending on the description provided by a complainant or how the matter
is ultimately investigated based on police standards and practices, common themes of allegations were
discernable and are categorized herein as:

Biased- where an off-duty officer was employed and appeared to be acting in favor of the private entity.
Recordkeeping- where internal affairs and/or our staff could not fully investigate a matter due in part to
poor recordkeeping by the Police Department for extra duty hires.

Use of force- an extra duty assignment where a police officer resorted to using force.

“Contempt of authority”- instances where an extra duty Miami officer was questioned or challenged by an
individual and the officer took enforcement based on the challenge.


In September 2017, a resident called Miami Police for loud music after 4:00 a.m. The
bar playing music was situated in a downtown high-rise and Miami Code Enforcement
was made aware of the multiple noise complaints. There were at least twenty previous
occasions where the resident complained of loud music from the bar late at night
during the same year. An extra duty MPD officer was stationed outside the bar and
greeted on-duty personnel responding to the noise complaint and stated he didn’t
hear loud music. The extra duty officer later knocked on the resident’s apartment
door and threatened the complainant with arrest for calling 911, when in fact the caller
used the non-emergency number to complain of the noise.

Another noise complaint involved a city code enforcement officer that issued a
summons for loud music at an establishment in February 2018. The extra duty officer had worked at the
club parking lot 14 hours per weekend for the previous four years. At the verbal request of the club owner,
the officer offered a sworn affidavit to defend the establishment in the city’s enforcement action against
the club. The officer traveled to the club attorney’s office in Coral Gables while on duty and without MPD
authorization. Internal affairs sustained its allegation for the officer leaving Miami without permission.

In March 2018, a woman was handcuffed and escorted by staff at a Miami Entertainment District Association
(MEDA) nightclub after 8:00 a.m. An exotic dancer/server contracted to work inside the club stated a
patron assaulted her. Club security directly contacted police working for MEDA and additional officers
from regular patrol areas went to the club to assist the extra duty officers sort the dispute. The woman was
not charged and was given a trespass warning by the head of security. While the complainant was being
released from police custody, extra duty officers were entertained as the exotic dancer was videotaped
performing a handstand on the hood of a marked Miami Police vehicle. MPD extra duty officers did not
document the trespass warning or the detention and handcuffing of the woman. She later filed an internal
affairs complaint.

In October 2018, the Miami Police Department changed its policy and added the requirement that
officers activate their body worn cameras while working extra duty assignments

An extra duty MPD officer working at a video
production event was approached by a
complainant in March 2017. The man sought a
police report for an incident that just occurred
with a production employee. He was rebuffed by
the officer and drove towards a second extra duty
officer that was sleeping in a marked police vehicle
down the street. The man approached, and the
second officer emerged from the police vehicle [in
uniform] and brushed his teeth as the man waited
for his assistance. The complainant also called 911.
The officer admitted to internal affairs he rinsed
with mouth wash he kept in a [hygiene] bag when
the gentleman approached. Neither extra duty officer wrote a report concerning the man’s complaint.
Three officers and a supervisor responded to his 911 call. One of the extra duty officers threatened to
arrest him in front of a supervisor that responded as a result of his 911 call. Ultimately, one of the patrol
officers wrote the incident report the two extra duty officers refused to write. Internal affairs did not
sustain the complaint or inquire how one extra duty officer worked 23.5 hours in a 24-hour cycle, contrary
to department regulations. This officer worked from 6:30 a.m. until 8:30 p.m. on March 25, 2017 at a
production site for a Coca Cola commercial. A half hour later, he began his regular 10 hour shift.

In another example, a person was backing out of a parking space in a small strip mall lot in April 2018 when
an MPD officer pulled in with his personal car, in full uniform. The off-duty officer confronted the man
about his driving and recorded a portion of the interaction on his personal cellular phone as he prevented
him from exiting the lot. The man later filed a complaint due to the officer’s conduct and MPD could not
definitively determine whether the officer was working, off duty or on an extra duty shift, before or during
the incident, demonstrating poor recordkeeping.


A young woman attended Ultra Music Fest where more than 200
MPD extra duty officers, supervisors and internal affairs personnel
worked in March 2018. An officer escorted a woman from the
event when she allegedly turned around to head back inside. The
officer grabbed her arm and a supervisor filed a force report for the
incident because the woman sustained injury and was transported
to a hospital. The woman’s pending law suit states she was
approached by four police officers and suffered a fractured elbow
due to their actions.

In another incident in September 2018, a man visited Mercy Hospital

and was involuntarily committed. He left the hospital and was restrained by staff. An MPD officer was
working a 12-hour extra duty shift and assisted staff. The man later complained of mistreatment and
excessive force by the police officer. He showed CIP staff photographs of injuries he claimed were from
the force and the handcuffs used to restrain him. The officer did not file any MPD reports of the police
action where he detained and handcuffed the man. He worked 59 hours at the hospital in the same
month. Our review revealed policy violations which indicate that two officers exceeded the maximum
number of hours permitted to work on extra duty assignments. Internal affairs closed the matter without
investigation after reviewing hospital video footage which properly exonerated the officer regarding the
alleged force used. However, internal affairs did not identify or address other violations noted by CIP.

A taxi driver was stationed outside a MEDA venue in May 2017 waiting for a fare when an extra duty
officer waved him on to leave the area. The driver said it was not his first encounter with the officer and in
the past, the officer had another MPD officer issue the driver a ticket. Internal affairs began to investigate
the man’s allegations and had enough evidence to proceed but the driver withdrew his complaint and
internal affairs closed its investigation without interviewing the extra duty officer.

In June 2018, a shared-ride driver was stationed outside the same MEDA venue waiting for a passenger
when an extra duty officer waved him on to leave the area. The driver did not move and was issued a ticket.
Potential video footage of the incident was not sought by internal affairs. This was the second complaint
against the same extra duty officer at the same MEDA venue within three months. It was the fifth incident
involving the same MEDA location which accounted for 50% of all extra duty investigations near alcohol-
licensed establishments during the study period (January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018).

In August 2018, a high-ranking MPD commander was working extra duty and left his assignment to perform
a “go-by” and check on a fellow officer who already had assistance during a traffic stop. The motorist
was being issued tickets and was about to leave when the commander approached his vehicle and saw
him recording the interaction with his cellular camera. The commander said, “Everything could’ve went
so smooth, but you had to start recording…” The commander claimed he smelled marijuana, detained the
man and had another officer sign the arrest affidavit for marijuana residue after waiting for confirmation
from a police canine. The commander was the subject of more than one dozen citizen complaints relating
to his extra duty and/or off duty conduct during the study period. In his statement to internal affairs, he
denied taking a photograph of a passenger’s identification, “But I did take note that she works for the
University of Miami medical campus and I run police services at the University of Miami.”

In October 2018, a female security officer at American Airlines Arena was assigned to a restricted access
area. MPD officers were working extra duty hours at the arena for an event and entered the restricted area
without authorization. The officers were advised by security not to enter the area and one police officer
threatened to arrest the security officer as he continued past her. She later withdrew her complaint. Table
1 reflects the types and percentages of cases presented in the study period (2017-2018).

Recordkeeping 12 30%
Contempt 11 27.5%
Bias 5 12.5%
No Finding3 4 10%
Force 4 10%
Multiple Findings 4
3 7.5%
Administrative 1 2.5%
TOTAL: 40 100%
Complaint Withdrawn 6 15%
Alcohol-Licensed incidents 12 30%
CLUB E11even & Heart vicinity 6 15% (OR 50% of Alcohol-Licensed)

Investigation not completed or complainant withdrew the matter.
Matters where bias was demonstrated and recordkeeping poor.

Thirty percent (30%) of extra duty investigations reviewed involved incidents at or near liquor-licensed
establishments. MPD officers are prohibited from working at bars and nightclubs but may work at
premises which are primarily restaurants and serve alcohol. Establishments skirt the regulation by hiring
officers to work at adjacent parking lots. In 2000, the City of Miami permitted zoning for Entertainment
Specialty Districts in order to promote nightlife business development. The ordinance allowed some 24-
hour nightclubs. The clubs brought revenue and other benefits, and increased calls for police services and
quality of life complaints from local residents. To cope with the increase in police calls for services and
the need for increased police services, MPD and local business owners worked collaboratively to seek
solutions5. In 2010, the Miami Entertainment District Association (MEDA) was created. MEDA members
pool resources and hire extra duty officers for “zone policing” in the immediate and neighborhood areas
around their establishments.

In August 2016, the President of MEDA estimated MPD officers worked more than 4,300 six-hour shifts,
or more than 25,000 hours6. These hours were in addition to officers’ regular schedules and billed to
this non-profit entity, not taxpayers. Despite the increased high-visibility zone patrols and benefits of
non-taxpayer funded augmented policing, our analysis found there are direct and ancillary taxpayer-
funded police functions associated with private extra duty assignments and other potential financial
pitfalls. Increased civil liability to the City of Miami for officer conduct at their secondary and/or extra
duty employment is a significant concern for the Panel.

There were repeated instances where officers worked
extra duty assignments that reached or exceeded
authorized maximum hours which creates officer and
public safety hazards. Our research indicates no officers
were investigated for exceeding the departmental order
that limits officers to working no more than 16 hours
during a 24-hour period and/or 36 hours of weekly
extra duty. In the only incident involving excessive work
hours, the officer was investigated for leaving work
without permission after 22 consecutive hours, and not
staying an additional hour to complete his shift. The
officer had been “drafted” and held over at 6:00 a.m.
due to a personnel shortage in patrol for six additional
hours. He explained to the supervisor that was drafting
officers that s/he had already worked a combined 17
hours and later stated in his administrative interview he
was “exhausted”.

See: “Operation Safe Clubs: Enforcement and Situational Problem-Oriented Policing,” (undated).
See: MEDA letter to CIP dated 8/22/16.

MPD officers are assigned take-home police vehicles that are often used during extra duty details.
Investigations conducted by the CIP include officers sleeping in police vehicles in public which poses
safety issues for the officers and diminishes the public’s trust and image of police. Moreover, officers
install window tinting on their assigned vehicles without agency authorization, creating night-time
visibility issues and potential liability. Vehicle collisions remain the leading cause of on-duty deaths of
police officers7. Rates of accidents increase with lack of sleep. After twelve hours on duty and, depending
on the time of day, the risk of accidents increases 110%8. It is widely known that fatigue may impair
judgment, cognitive skills and has health consequences9. Staying awake for 20-25 hours and trying to
perform tasks is similar to having a blood alcohol content (BAC) of approximately .10 percent, past the
legal driving while under the influence (DUI) limit10.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation of the New Orleans Police Department found its
secondary employment program problematic and corrupt. DOJ described the “generous cap” of 28 extra
duty weekly hours officers were authorized to work and suggested that the number of hours be reduced.
MPD policy allows for 36 hours weekly of extra duty work. The report also noted the lack of oversight to
ensure officers adhered to this cap. This DOJ report may be instructive to the Miami Police Department11.

Officers may not solicit extra duty work from private employers but
can bring such work to the department’s attention and thus become
the contact person or “job coordinator” for that site and enlist other
officers to work for the same employer. Job coordinators are prohibited
from organizing and assigning extra duty hours while on the clock
fulfilling their regular duties and cannot be paid for their supervision
and scheduling of extra duty work. All officers are paid directly by
employers and payment may be in the form of check or cash, mailed
or on-site. MPD officers are individually responsible for claiming the
additional income for federal tax purposes. Job coordinators operate
autonomously and may schedule whoever they choose in contrast to the department’s official rotational
roster for Special Events Unit jobs awarded through a “points” (hours) system. The program may lead
to divisiveness or discrimination claims from officers equally qualified and available but excluded from
economic opportunities. Additionally, the notion that an officer can be paid in cash at the time of the work
undermines the City’s ability to ensure appropriate oversight and collect its administrative surcharge.

The New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) overhauled its secondary employment program after DOJ’s
investigation and the assignments are now administered outside of the police department by the Office of
Police Secondary Employment13. In the case of NOPD, the findings stated the secondary employment system’s
corrupting effect was a contributing factor to the perception that the NOPD was a dysfunctional police
department and the fact that higher ranking officers were answerable to subordinate ranks, if they sought to
work specific jobs14. MPD policy prohibits supervisors from accepting work from subordinate ranks, except
when a replacement is needed for a scheduled officer15. This exception may create the same problem.

Vila, Bryan (2009) citing Folkard, S., and D.A. Lombardi, “Modeling the Impact of the Components of Long Work Hours on Injuries and
‘Accidents’” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 49 (11) (November 2006): 953-963.
Lamond, Nicole and Dawson, Drew, “Quantifying the performance impairment associated with fatigue” Journal of Sleep Research, 1999.
11 at p. 72
Departmental Order 12, Chapter 1
Department Order 12, Chapter 1;

Given the number of private hours, job sites, the inevitability of last-minute cancellations from officers that
volunteer for these assignments, mandatory monthly reporting and other logistics, it is more than likely that
job coordinators are conducting their private business on MPD time, regardless of the prohibition. The MPD
coordinator role may have the potential for discrimination and favoritism. MPD officers with the same or lower
rank than those working extra duty, essentially are the de facto supervisors for hundreds of temporary and
permanent extra duty jobs and thus, become powerful. Under some exceptional circumstances, supervisors
may depend upon subordinates for job opportunities doled out by subordinates. Having lower ranked officers
acting as coordinators puts supervisory officers who want to make extra income in a situation where they
answer to a lower ranked officer. This naturally affects the ability or willingness of the supervisor to question
the performance of, or to discipline, an officer who is responsible for the supervisor’s additional income. This
also leads to the appearance of, if not the reality of, favoritism.


Since employers pay officers directly and not through the City of Miami, it is conceivable officers can run
their own jobs and crews of officers at sites, completely out of view of MPD. Coordinators may accept cash
or gifts from fellow officers in exchange for favorable job sites and shifts. They may avoid the city’s surcharge
by not reporting the work or the income. MPD policies are geared towards department-coordinated jobs, not
ones circulated among officers through job coordinators and private employers. Furthermore, there are no
protocols requiring [peer] job coordinators to report officer tardiness and no-shows to jobs16. If an officer is
late or does not attend an event, it is the responsibility of the job coordinator to fill the gap and it is incumbent
upon suspended officers to notify SEU of their inability to attend extra duty assignments. Since the payroll
department is notified when an officer is suspended, there should also be notifications to SEU to bar the
officer from working extra duty while on suspension.

The CIP reviewed a sample of accounts from the SEU and found that a private employer hired MPD officers
on a 24-hour basis. Twelve officers split a month’s worth of extra duty time (720 hours) amongst themselves,
averaging 58.50 hours per officer and 49 hours for the job coordinator. The same time keeping record
indicated two officers violated department policy for working more than 16 hours extra duty consecutively
within a 24-hour period. One violated policy on three occasions by working 17 or more hours per day.

For employers that routinely hire MPD officers, the benefits are added police services, quick access to police
services, while on or off duty, and having the security that officers are present. Critics argue the program
privatizes police services in favor of those who can pay. Decisions concerning the proper deployment of public
safety services should be made by the police chief and the city administration who are in the best position
to make equitable decisions to promote safety, accountability and trust in the city and its police department.

Internal Affairs (IA) personnel are tasked with investigating peer conduct for policy violations or crimes within
all divisions of the Miami Police Department. The unit reports exclusively to the police chief. Currently, IA
investigators can work side-by-side with officers assigned to other divisions at extra duty details. Given their
investigative roles, this practice has potential for conflicts of interest, and we recommend this practice cease.

Departmental Order 12, Chapter 1.

Officers should be allowed to supplement their income in a responsible, safe and accountable manner.
However, they should be prohibited from subjecting themselves to working long hours that impact their
health and the safety of the community. Extra duty officers who observe criminal conduct should enforce
the law and effectuate arrests themselves, personally filing arrest affidavits, instead of relying upon and
removing other officers from patrolling the city. Fatigue remains a major concern for us throughout the
extra duty discussion as does the reliance of regular patrol officers to assist private policing efforts.

Where a resident is dissatisfied with the conduct of an officer at an extra duty assignment, MPD should
have the ability to easily identify the officer using a centralized scheduling and tracking system. Currently
the on duty, extra duty and overtime accounting of employee time is not unified. Officers routinely exceed
authorized daily hours, make their secondary employment their first priority and are answerable to peers
that assign them extra hours while at MPD. There has been little effort or evidence that this departmental
order has been enforced.

We noted fifteen percent (15%) of extra duty investigations were closed without an investigation when
complainants declined further cooperation. The withdrawal of the complaint or the lack of cooperation
does not mean the underlying conduct did not occur or should go unchecked. All internal investigations
should include review of officer scheduling prior to and subsequent to the incident in question to consider
fatigue and identify patterns of attendance, including sick time, behaviors, motor vehicle crashes, and

For officer safety considerations, the Police Department must be able to locate officers in uniform in real-
time, irrespective of whether the employee is on regular duty or working extra duty. Some investigations
were thwarted because of the inability to demonstrate where, or for whom the officer was working.
Centralized staff scheduling and tracking of personnel would eliminate cross referencing several payroll
sources and contribute to overall safety because of the ability to identify where an officer is working. A
unified system also would help to identify officers reporting to be at different venues simultaneously and
prevent officers from working more than the thresholds currently set at 16 hours per day and 76 hours per
week. We suggest an audit to identify and verify scheduling overlaps where officers received payments
from more than one employer for the same day/time. Similarly, the audit may help to assess a more
appropriate number of weekly hours officers may work without compromising their health and safety.

There are two ways the city may improve administration of off-duty employment. The city can purchase
a software system that tracks off duty employment and establish an office that administers this function.
There are also many third-party administrators for extra duty hiring that ensure officers are paid timely,
assume the risk themselves and forward annual 1099 income statements for tax filings on a single
statement. The city would receive its surcharge fees timely as well. If the city prefers to keep this function
within its own structure, they should establish an office outside of the police department, as was done in
New Orleans. This will minimize influence and favoritism when it comes to the assignment of jobs. There
are programs that will integrate with the police department’s current attendance programs to minimize
operation disruption.

MPD should consult with stakeholders, including private businesses using extra duty officers to determine
staffing needs, rate satisfaction and identify problematic issues such as officer attendance or conduct. A
comprehensive audit of calls for service at extra duty locations will assist MPD in identifying geographic
areas for enhanced police deployment, problem solving and nuisance abatement. It is important to
examine the use of MEDA and Special Districts assignments. Our research revealed nearly 800 calls
for police service at a single MEDA venue during the study period. Calls also required additional police
resources and potentially compromised police officer objectivity as violations occurred in their presence.
The nightclub safety plan that sparked interest and justification for extra duty assignments at these
districts is more than a decade old and needs to be revised. The needs and demands for police services
have evolved since the private zone patrolling began and land use has subsequently changed to include
residential towers in once blighted areas.

Any extra duty location that hires between one and three officers is not required to hire a supervisor,
as per MPD regulation today. Officers work autonomously, even at problematic locations or businesses
with high service calls. Dispatchers are notified by radio of extra duty attendance at sites and officers go
unsupervised for their entire shift. Known as a “Signal 46” over the radio, dispatchers enter the officer
at whatever extra duty assignment they claim to be present and this remains the sole record MPD relies
upon for attendance. Records in investigative files uncovered that officers did not always radio “Signal
46” and at least one officer was disciplined for this violation. He forgot to call after too much radio chatter
prevented him from doing so promptly.

The Civilian Investigative Panel will continue to monitor police conduct and study MPD policies and
practices. We present the following recommendations to the police chief and City Commissioners in view
of our analysis of extra duty complaint trends.


1 3
MPD should audit MPD should eliminate the role of
calls for service at 2 job coordinators and administer
extra duty venues to all off duty employment or
determine actual costs MPD and the City of Miami outsource the entire extra duty
of services to the city should handle all aspects hiring operation to a third-party
and residents. of extra duty billing and vendor. A fair and equitable
payments to officers. distribution of extra duty
Vendor communications hours should be created for
and transactions should permanent extra duty sites to
be handled through the prevent the same officers from
city, not individual police repeatedly working for an entity.
4 officers.

MPD should create a policy

for periodic supervision 5
by field operations for 6
“single” officer extra duty
shifts defined has having MPD should establish a combined MPD should incorporate
three or less officers robust computer-based personnel officer work sheets and
present. Currently there management system to ensure Extra Duty Trak records in
are no provisions in place officers do not exceed authorized its supervisor review and
to supervise these officers extra duty hours, work excessive Accident Review Board
which comprise the bulk of overtime, regular duty hours and (ARB) crash policy to
extra duty hires. court time. The management determine if fatigue was a
system should factor secondary potential impairment factor
employment time such as owning to reduce officer injuries
a business or part-time work, into and liability.
a fatigue awareness program.

7 9
MPD should audit 8 MPD should reduce the
its fleet to ensure
officers are adhering number of extra duty hours an
to departmental MPD should monitor officer may work to 30 hours
orders relating to officers’ regular work
schedules for patterns per week. An analysis should
safe window tinting.
where officers take days off be undertaken to determine
to work extra duty details the safe consecutive number
and burden the department
with overtime costs to of days without a day off an
cover regular shifts. officer may work.

A fair and equitable 11
distribution system for Officers under internal 12
extra duty assignments
investigation for extra
should be instituted to Internal mechanisms
rotate opportunities duty conduct should be
should be established
and prevent favoritism prohibited from working at to prohibit suspended
and compromise of the location that generated police officers from
a complaint until the volunteering for extra
investigation is complete. duty assignments.
In cases where a complainant
withdrew an allegation, internal 14 15
affairs should continue its
investigations without the MPD should institute
complainant’s participation, MPD should update its incident-specific case
where possible. There were “Operation Safe Clubs” tracking for extra duty
numerous instances where needs assessment to locations, especially those
investigations were prematurely determine the effectiveness serving alcoholic beverages
closed and subject officers of current policing and flag establishments
escaped accountability for their strategies and the relations for police and other city
actions. MPD also misses the between MPD officers enforcement agencies
opportunity to identify policy and Miami Entertainment to monitor. MPD should
deficiencies such as those we Specialty Districts. require extra duty officers to
captured using the same records. properly document all citizen
encounters that occur during
their assignment reported
through the centralized
16 reporting system.

Any assistance to
regular or extra
duty officers as
backup units or
All trespass warnings 18
and arrests should be
“go-by” should be
entered into a centralized Internal Affairs personnel
documented by all
should not work extra duty
officers present at an computer system to aid assignments where there
incident or traffic stop.
officers in the field. is a working relationship
or reliance upon officers
in other units whom the
personnel may have to





civilian investigative panel