Panel: Bill McAuliffe – Lexipol rep. Repeated often about the “customer’s creative control.” Claims Lexipol policies prioritize “life and civil liberties” and that their process is collaborative and customized for different localities. Says Lexipol monitors law and recommends changes to draft policies that localities can adopt, modify or reject. Admits Lexipol has no community input and the service is “not the off the shelf solution” as performance needs to match policies.

Annie Hudson Price – NYU policing project. Lexipol critic. Says in relation to Lexipol updating policies due to court decisions that “back end accountability is not working” because its “backwards to provide guidance” only after something has happened. Community engagement is not needed for all policies but essential for some policies like use of force. Officers want MORE guidance in the field. With more guidance, use of force incidents decrease. Suggests better approach is engaging with community and looking at community complaints and community forums and then outside groups like the ACLU. Evan Zelig asked for the NYU model policies.

Joanna Schwartz – UCLA law professor, wrote law review article examining Lexipol. Lexipol critic. Technologically, Lexipol easy to use and updates come automatically. Problem is that Lexipol’s policies are about reducing legal liability by maintaining maximum officer discretion. As to use of force, research has shown that the more restrictive police policies are, the more use of force goes down. Lexipol is against restrictive policies. For example, uses SCt case, Graham, to support the term “necessary” force broadly. Lexipol does not provide diversity of opinion or the sides of debate. Without hearing alternatives, small law enforcement agencies (LEAs) don’t know about their choices. NYU policing project provides model policies but no other agency like Lexipol. Advises if using Lexipol, LEAs should encourage community engagement about terms, ask hard questions, get hard data (that Joanna says is missing), and recognize that Lexipol is only ONE source of information.

Sgt Dwight Gunn – SF Sheriff. About to shift to Lexipol. Initially opposed to Lexipol and admitted he doesn’t know why Sheriff office is switching. Says it’s hard to “keep up“ with changes in law and updating policies and it’s cheaper to pay a subscription service and have one or two people review to “personalize” the policies. No community input.

Brandon Cutting – SoCo Sheriff’s Office. Started using Lexipol in 2007. Six hundred policies are “a lot to manage.” After receiving updates, Sheriff’s Office first discusses with unions to see whether there’s a change in working conditions, then makes sure updates are factually correct, and then trains based on the policies. Says all policies are locally based and every policy is personalized. Says knowledge not diversity is key for deciding on policies (Dora Estrado pushed back saying personal experience should count) Lexipol is paid from Sheriff Office budget and have been effective but no stats to back that up. In response to Karlene’s question about the reduction of complaints by using the NYU policing project says it “would be ignorant to not listen” yet says SoCo has few complaints and lawsuits.

George Perezvelez – NACOLE (National Assoc for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement), Berkeley police commission. Lexipol critic. Has reviewed thousands of policies. Lexipol easy to use but not indicative of needs of community and how community wants to be policed. Berkeley uses Lexipol but reviews carefully including a full vetting by subcommittees.