Analysis of Cambridge Police Department’s

Training, Policy, and Related Issues Concerning

Use of Force and Responding to People in Crisis

February 2024

Police Executive Research Forum

1120 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 930
Washington, DC 20036
Contents
I. Overview .................................................................................................................................. 3
II. Factual Summary ..................................................................................................................... 4
III. Policy Review ........................................................................................................................... 9
Policy 4-1: Use of Force ........................................................................................................ 11
Policy 4-2: Use of Force Reporting........................................................................................ 17
Policy 4-4: 40mm Less Lethal Impact System ....................................................................... 17
Policy 46-3: Crowd Management ......................................................................................... 19
IV. Training .................................................................................................................................. 24
Numbers based on all Use of Force Reports filed at CPD ..................................................... 25
In Person Training ................................................................................................................. 25
Dedicated Training Facility .................................................................................................... 26
Training Requests ................................................................................................................. 28
Training Unit ......................................................................................................................... 28
Training in ICAT: Integrating Communications, Tactics, and Assessment .............................. 29
21-Foot Rule ......................................................................................................................... 32
V. Equipment ............................................................................................................................. 34
Oleoresin capsicum (OC) Spray............................................................................................. 35
Shields .................................................................................................................................. 36
Electronic Control Weapons ................................................................................................. 36
Pepper Ball Launchers .......................................................................................................... 37
Body Worn Cameras ............................................................................................................. 39
VI. Potential for Co-Response Team ............................................................................................ 40
VII. After-Incident Assessments ................................................................................................... 42
Immediate Tactical Debrief ................................................................................................... 42
Critical Incident / Force / Performance Review Board .......................................................... 42
Sentinel Event Review .......................................................................................................... 43
Monday Morning Quarterbacking ........................................................................................ 44
VIII. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 47

2
 I. Overview
On January 4, 2023, Cambridge Police Department (CPD) Officer Liam McMahon shot Arif
Sayed Faisal, a 20-year-old college student experiencing an apparent mental-health crisis; Mr.
Faisal died at Massachusetts General Hospital shortly thereafter. The shooting took place after
Mr. Faisal — who had broken through a glass window and was cutting himself — refused to
drop a long machete-type weapon and advanced toward Officer McMahon.1 The incident was
the first officer-involved death in Cambridge in over twenty years, and generated concern in
the community.
The last officer-involved critical incident in Cambridge took place more than 20 years before
this one. For a city the size of Cambridge, the lack of critical incidents is unusual, commendable,
and evidence of its police department’s commitment to resolving incidents without force
whenever possible. CPD’s relative inexperience with officer-involved critical incidents (OICIs) led
the Cambridge City Manager to proactively engage the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)
to analyze CPD’s training and training-related issues regarding use of force, a move welcomed by
Commissioner Christine Elow.2
The scope of PERF’s work for the City of Cambridge was training-focused and included:
- Review of current CPD training related to Use of Force and De-escalation
as well as review of related policies, procedures, protocols, and training
logs.

- Evaluation of the training and policies surrounding ICAT (Integrating

Communications, Assessment, and Tactics), de-escalation, crisis
response, and mental health-related calls for service and any additional
items PERF deems relevant.

- Review of CPD’s current, available, less-lethal use of force tools and

analysis of whether additional tools such as shields, electronic control
weapons, or remote restraint devices would be beneficial.
This is PERF’s report assessing those issues.

1
Information cited in this report is based on many sources, including interviews and transcripts released after the
inquest: See John F. Coffey, Justice “The Report on the Inquest into the Death of Sayed Faisal in Cambridge,
Massachusetts on January 4, 2023,” September 15, 2023.
https://www.middlesexda.com/sites/g/files/vyhlif4691/f/uploads/report_on_the_inquest_into_the_death_of_say
ed_faisal.pdf
2
PERF previously issued a report on the topic of releasing an officer's name after an OICI, at the request of the City
Manager with the support of the Commissioner.
Overview - 3
 II. Factual Summary
The city of Cambridge is home to over 118,000 residents.3 As of 2023, its police force was
budgeted for 288 sworn members, including command staff and the Commissioner. However,
like all police agencies, recruitment and retention has affected its numbers and as of this
writing, there are 257 sworn CPD officers.
The shooting incident proceeded to an inquest, and until it concluded, PERF could not
review any records related to the shooting. On October 5, 2023, the Middlesex County District
Attorney issued a press release indicating that the inquest was complete; the press release
included links to the Inquest Report as well as several other items of evidence. CPD did not have
a body-worn camera (BWC) program at the time of the incident.4
After the inquest, PERF reviewed all evidence related to the incident. The brief facts noted
below are drawn from PERF’s review of that evidence, including inquest transcripts, police
reports, audio from 911 calls and radio runs, cell phone videos, photographs, maps, and
recorded interviews of involved officers.
The following facts are relevant to this review:
- Around 1:15 p.m. on January 4, 2023, a person called 911 advising that a man (Mr.
Faisal) was in an alley cutting himself using, what the caller later referred to as “a
machete.”

- The incident was dispatched as a psychiatric / potential suicide / medical call.

- Several officers, including Off. McMahon, responded to the area and followed Mr. Faisal
as he traveled on foot along the roughly drawn route shown below, intermittently
stopping to look at the officers, smile, and cut himself further.

3
Cambridge Community Development Department, Demographics and Statistics,
https://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/factsandmaps/demographicfaq
4
Alvin Buyinza, “Cambridge officials have always wanted body cameras for police, so why don’t police
have them?” MASS LIVE, Jan 13, 2023, https://www.masslive.com/news/2023/01/cambridge-officials-have-
always-wanted-body-cameras-for-police-so-why-dont-they-still-have-them.html.

Factual Summary - 4
 Figure 1 – Incident Map

- Throughout this time, officers attempted to communicate with Mr. Faisal, asking several
times if they could talk to him and offering to get him help, while also calling on him to
drop the knife. Other than looking at the officers and smiling, Mr. Faisal did not engage.

- Mr. Faisal ultimately arrived in the backyard of a home. Off. McMahon jumped a short
fence at the southwest portion of the yard and entered the backyard as well. Another
officer followed Off. McMahon but stayed closer to the short, southwest fence. Other
officers took up positions in the driveway on the east side of the house, taking cover
behind a red car.

- As shown in the photos that follow, the backyard was fully contained by:

- Fencing of various heights – on the southwestern, northern, and western

perimeters (the fence at the far rear of the yard was well over six feet tall);
- The residence to the south;
- A neighbor’s home to the northwest; and
- A driveway, where a red car was parked, to the southeast.

Factual Summary - 5
 Figure 2
View from the south portion of the backyard facing north, away from the residence.
The camera faces the fence Off. McMahon backed toward during the final moments of the incident, which was over six feet tall.
A neighbor’s house borders the northwest portion of the yard and is on the left in the photo.

Figure 3
View from the north portion of the backyard facing southwest. The residence is in the upper-left portion of the photo.
Off. McMahon entered the yard by jumping over the circled portion of short fencing visible at the southwest corner.
The neighbor’s house that borders the northwest portion of the yard is on the right in this photo.

Factual Summary - 6
 Figure 4
View from the north portion of the backyard facing southeast.
The driveway and car behind which officers took cover, are visible at the upper-right of the photograph.

- A sergeant had transported a 40-milimeter launcher5 to the scene, and as Mr. Faisal
moved toward the car in the driveway, an officer fired the launcher. Although the
projectile hit Mr. Faisal, he smiled and appeared unfazed.

- Mr. Faisal, near the driveway on the east side of the backyard, was initially 25-35 feet
away from Off. McMahon, but after being struck by the 40-mm projectile, he turned and
began walking north, in Off. McMahon’s direction.

- As Mr. Faisal proceeded toward him, Off. McMahon backed up and began saying, and then
yelling, “Drop the knife,” and “Don’t make me do it.”

- As Mr. Faisal continued forward, Off. McMahon fired his weapon, striking Mr. Faisal, who
later died from his injuries. Those on scene estimated Mr. Faisal was between 6-12 feet away
from Off. McMahon when he fired.

- The shooting took place at 1:28 p.m. – about thirteen minutes after the initial dispatch.

- There were no other 40-mm launchers at the scene, and the CPD does not provide electronic
control weapons (ECWs) to its officers. Off. McMahon had oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray on

5
40-mm launchers are designed to fire non-lethal, 40-mm projectiles, which are meant to cause pain or
incapacitation, but not death.

Factual Summary - 7
 his duty belt but said he did not consider using it as Mr. Faisal approached him with a
machete.
_______________________________________________

Mr. Faisal was clearly in some type of crisis, and the tragic outcome of this incident
generated questions in the community. The city manager, with the full support of the city
council, and CPD’s police commissioner, asked PERF to conduct an assessment, using the
incident as an opportunity to learn and, hopefully, prevent similar tragedies in the future.
Below, we detail our findings and recommendations starting with our requested evaluation
of CPD’s policies followed by its current training and available less lethal equipment options,
noting areas where we believe improvement is possible or where CPD could evaluate additional
options. Additionally, we encourage CPD to consider implementing a co-response system for
certain types of mental-health calls. And finally, we recommend ways that CPD can improve how
it assesses and evaluates critical incidents to ensure that moving forward, lives are saved
wherever possible.
NOTE: This is the second report PERF prepared for Cambridge and CPD in the wake of Mr.
Faisal’s death. The first report assessed whether CPD could release officers’ names in the wake
of critical incidents. That report is attached (See APPENDIX).

Factual Summary - 8
 III. Policy Review
Any consideration of training must begin with a review of policy, because the two are
inextricably linked. Policies that are not reinforced with robust training are words on paper, and
training must reflect an agency’s directives (i.e., its policies). PERF therefore began its review of
CPD’s training on use-of-force (UOF) related issues by reviewing its UOF-related policies.
The decision to use force is significant; it requires attention to and continuous assessment of
the situation, threats, options, and risks, with the overarching goal of resolving all encounters
peacefully. The PERF team reviewed CPD policies involving use of force for thoroughness and
compliance with nationally recognized progressive-policing practices. PERF also examined
whether CPD’s policies provide officers with a clear understanding of the rules, expectations,
and guidelines regarding UOF.
PERF’s Analysis of Use of Force-Related Policies and Issues

PERF’s review of CPD’s UOF policies, training, and practices takes place during a broader
national debate about police UOF that has been steadily increasing in its intensity. Over the last
fifteen years, PERF has conducted many national and regional conferences during which
hundreds of police executives and other experts have worked together to develop strategies for
reducing police use of force whenever possible. This work has culminated in the production of
several publications and principles that police agencies can use to revise their policies, practices,
and training on UOF.
Much of PERF’s work focuses on police interactions with people who are unarmed or are armed
with weapons other than firearms and are behaving erratically or dangerously because of a
mental health crisis, drug addiction, disability, or other condition. When police encounter a
suspect displaying a firearm, their options are limited. But when there is no firearm, (as was the
case with Mr. Faisal), officers generally have more opportunities to slow the situation down and
use communication skills and defensive tactics to buy time, build trust, and defuse the situation
without force.
PERF has issued the following reports detailing these principles:

• Suicide by Cop: Protocol and Training Guide (2019)6

• ICAT: Integrating Communications, Assessment, and Tactics (2016)7
• Guiding Principles on Use of Force (2016)8
• Re-Engineering Training on Police Use of Force (2015)9

6
https://www.policeforum.org/suicidebycop
7
http://www.policeforum.org/assets/icattrainingguide.pdf
8
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/guidingprinciples1.pdf
9
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/reengineeringtraining1.pdf

Policy Review - 9
 • Defining Moments for Police Chiefs (2015)10

PERF’s “Guiding Principles” report is the core document of this work, providing 30
recommendations, including:

• The sanctity of human life should be at the heart of everything an agency does.
• Agencies should continue to develop best policies, practices, and training on use-of-force
issues that go beyond the minimum requirements of Graham v. Connor.
• Police use of force must meet the test of proportionality.
• Adopt de-escalation as a formal agency policy.
• The Critical Decision-Making Model provides a new way to approach critical incidents.
• Duty to intervene: Officers need to prevent other officers from using excessive force.
• Respect the sanctity of life by promptly rendering first aid.
• Shooting at vehicles must be prohibited.
• Prohibit the use of deadly force against individuals who pose a danger only to
themselves.
• Use Distance, Cover, and Time to replace outdated concepts such as the “21-foot rule”
and “drawing a line in the sand.”
• Provide a prompt supervisory response to critical incidents to reduce the likelihood of
unnecessary force.
• Scenario-based training should be prevalent, challenging, and realistic.

PERF’s training program, ICAT: Integrating Communications, Assessment, and Tactics, provides
officers with the tools, skills, and options they need to implement the Guiding Principles and to
safely defuse a range of critical incidents. More than 200 departments across the country have
implemented ICAT and provided the training to their officers.11

ICAT training has been independently studied and associated with decreases in uses of force
and injuries to officers and citizens alike.12

The recommendations and language proposals offered below are based on PERF’s extensive
UOF-related work.

10
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/definingmoments.pdf
11
For a list of agencies implementing ICAT, see https://www.policeforum.org/icat-agencies
12
Engel, R.S., Corsaro, N., Isaza, G.T., & McManus, H.D. (2022). Assessing the impact of de-escalation training on
police behavior: Reducing police use of force in the Louisville, KY Metro Police Department. Criminology & Public
Policy, 21(2). https://doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12574.

Policy Review - 10
 PERF reviewed the following CPD policies, each of which dealt with force and/or subject
resistance:
- 4-1 Use of Force
- 4-2 Use of Force Reporting
- 4-4 40mm Less Lethal Impact System
- 46-3 Crowd Management
Overall, PERF found CPD’s policies to be strong, but found opportunities to strengthen them.
Once these policies are modified, CPD should present them to all officers and then incorporate
their principles into future training modules related to UOF.
Recommendation: After modifying any UOF-related policies in accordance with
these recommendations, CPD should present them to officers with an overview
training session. Moving forward, training on all aspects of force (such as
defensive tactics, firearms, canine, and domestic violence) should reflect the new
policies. Where possible, this training should include a scenario-based component
that allows officers to apply their training to real-life situations.

Policy 4-1: Use of Force

At the time of PERF’s review, the existing UOF policy had been in effect since 2011 and a
new policy [4-1 - Use of Force] was in draft form. PERF reviewed 4-1 as if it were already in effect
since CPD plans to release it to members soon. The policy embraces many progressive policing
principles, but PERF has additional recommendations to make it stronger.
Policy 4-1 Overall: Add the Critical Decision-Making Model (CDM) to the Use of Force Policy
The Critical Decision-Making Model (CDM) is a five-step critical thinking process and the
cornerstone of the ICAT curriculum. The five steps of the CDM (Depicted in Figure 5 below)
revolve around the department’s core values, which provide grounding and guidance for the
entire process. The core should reflect the agency’s “moral compass” and its key principles and
priorities. Every step of the CDM process is connected to and through the CDM core. All CPD
officers have been trained to use the CDM through their ICAT training and the CDM is displayed
prominently in CPD’s in-house training room, as reflected below.

Policy Review - 11
 Figure 5: This CDM depiction hangs in CPD’s small training room

While CPD makes use of the CDM for the department’s operations, the CDM is not
integrated into its UOF policy. CPD would benefit by expressly incorporating the CDM into its
UOF policy, which would reinforce the expectation that officers should apply it to all aspects of
policework, including decisions about the use of force. Baltimore (MD) Police Department
devotes a portion of its Use of Force Policy to “Critical Thinking” in which it recites the CDM
principles; CPD can use Baltimore’s policy as a model.13
Recommendation: CPD should include the Critical Decision-Making Model (CDM)
in its UOF policy. Currently, CPD employs the CDM but should add it to the UOF
policy. Adding the CDM to the UOF policy will highlight the department’s
expectation that officers will apply the CDM to decisions about the use of force.
Developing critical thinking skills, through reinforced and repeated use of the CDM,
will help officers identify the best strategies and tactics to resolve situations more
safely, including incidents that could potentially involve force but may potentially
be resolved without force.
Policy 4-1: Section I - General Considerations and Guidelines
Section I of the CPD’s UOF policy - General Considerations and Guidelines - details the
department’s overall philosophy and approach to UOF; however, it does not contain any
language regarding the sanctity of life. PERF recommends that CPD’s mission statements,
policies, and training curricula all emphasize the sanctity of human life and the importance of
treating all people with dignity and respect.

13
See https://www.baltimorepolice.org/transparency/bpd-policies/1115-use-force

Policy Review - 12
 Recommendation: CPD should add a strong policy statement emphasizing the
sanctity of human life at the beginning of its UOF policy. That statement should
set the tone for the entirety of the policy that follows. For example, the Baltimore
Police Department’s UOF policy begins with the following statement: “The policy
of the Baltimore Police Department is to value and preserve human life in all
situations.”14
Policy 4-1: Section II - Policy
CPD should add language to Section II highlighting its philosophy of de-escalating incidents
where practical. Although Section III of CPD’s policy - Definitions – contains a definition of de-
escalation, it should be referenced in Section II to reinforce CPD’s commitment to de-escalation
as part of its overall UOF philosophy.
Recommendation: CPD should add language about de-escalation to Section II of
its UOF policy to reinforce its commitment to de-escalation as part of its overall
approach to UOF. The language should make clear that de-escalation is the
preferred, tactically sound approach in many critical incidents.

CPD should also include a reference to the importance of communication in Section II. An
important part of diffusing (de-escalating) situations is good communication skills. PERF has
observed CPD officers display strong communications skills, most notably in PERF’s
departmentwide ICAT training to CPD in 2019 and in training PERF most recently observed on
October 19, 2023. CPD’s policy should reinforce this principle by referencing its importance.
Recommendation: CPD should reference the importance of communication
skills in Section II - Policy. PERF has observed CPD officers and they exhibit
excellent communication skills, which are essential to diffusing and de-escalating
critical incidents. This should be reinforced in its UOF policy.
Policy 4-1: Section III - Definitions
The Definitions section of CPD Policy 4-1 contains key definitions but does not include a
definition of proportionality.
CPD should add a definition of Proportionality to its policy. While the terms “proportionate”
and “proportionality” are used throughout the UOF Policy, the term is currently undefined.
Proportionality encourages officers to consider the nature and severity of the underlying events
and what might be appropriate to a situation as they approach it; proportionality also reminds
officers to keep this in mind as they assess – and reassess - the incident and their response.
Proportionality does not mean that officers should stop and consider how their actions will be

14
Baltimore Police Department (2016). “Policy 1115 (‘Use of Force’)”.
https://www.baltimorepolice.org/sites/default/files/Policies/1115_Use_Of_Force.pdf

Policy Review - 13
viewed by others at the moment they have determined that a particular use of force is
necessary and appropriate to mitigate a threat.
Recommendation: CPD should add a definition of “proportionality” to the
Definitions section of Policy 4-1. As explained in PERF’s report on Guiding
Principles on Use of Force, the definition should state that proportionality involves
officers: (1) using only the level of force necessary to mitigate the threat and safely
achieve lawful objectives; (2) considering, if appropriate, alternate force options
that are less likely to result in injury but will allow officers to achieve lawful
objectives; and (3) considering the appropriateness of officers’ actions.
CPD currently defines de-escalation in Section III. However, some verbiage in the definition
could be more concise and contemporary.
Recommendation: Craft a new definition of de-escalation based on best-practice
models and include in the definition better illustrations of using de-escalation.
Examples include active listening, calm and respectful communication, maintaining
space and distance, non-threatening body language, patience, offering options
and choices, lowering the intensity of the law enforcement presence (lights, sirens,
personnel), calling for additional resources, and establishing trust and rapport.
CPD could consider the following, taken from the Buffalo Police Department's UOF Policy,15
as a definition of de-escalation that better captures its meaning in the context of UOF:
Actions taken by officers that are designed to eliminate the need to use force to
resolve a situation, often using time, distance, and cover. Examples include talking
to a person using language and a tone of voice that is not aggressive or
confrontational, creating space or placing barriers between the officer and the
person, waiting the person out when circumstances permit, permitting the person
to move about when safe, giving the person an opportunity to make statements or
ask questions, slowing down the pace of an incident, tactically re-positioning, and
requesting additional resources. The guiding principles for de-escalation are
patience, flexibility, and the desire to resolve each situation peacefully.
Regardless of the definition of de-escalation CPD uses, PERF recommends that it remove the
last sentence from its current definition, which reads, “De-escalation shall include, but is not
limited to, issuing a summons instead of executing an arrest where feasible.” Although this
language tracks the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (555 CMR 6.03) Issuing a summons in
lieu of a physical arrest is qualitatively different than the type of de-escalation contemplated by
PERF’s definition.

15
https://www.bpdny.org/DocumentCenter/View/149/BPD-GENERAL-ORDER---USE-OF-FORCE

Policy Review - 14
 Recommendation: Remove the last sentence in CPD’s definition of de-escalation.
Issuing a summons in lieu of an arrest is not a meaningful method of de-escalation
as that term is meant to be defined.
Policy 4-1: Section IV: Procedures
B. 4.1.2 (M) Use of Deadly Force - CPD policy regarding deadly force is drawn from the Code
of Massachusetts Regulations (550 CMR 6.00) and specifies that, deadly force may not be used
against a person, “unless de-escalation tactics have been attempted and failed or are not
feasible…” This policy section advocates de-escalation tactics that focus on physical tactics but
can be strengthened by reinforcing the use of verbal communication skills to de-escalate UOF
situations.
Recommendation: Section 4.1.2 should include additional language that requires
officers to attempt verbal communications-based de-escalation tactics when
possible.
CPD’s policy on shooting at moving vehicles, (IV. Procedures § B4.1.2(M)(3)(k) et seq.) is
unnecessarily long and would benefit from streamlining. In 1972, NYPD radically changed its
policy on shooting at vehicles. After implementation of that policy change and others, total
police shootings decreased by half in one year, with no increase in injuries to officers.16 NYPD’s
new policy (still in effect today) said:
Members of service SHALL NOT: Discharge their firearms at or from a moving
vehicle unless deadly physical force is being used against the member of service or
another person present, by means other than [the] moving vehicle.
CPD should likewise simplify and streamline its policy. The current policy contains
unnecessary, vague verbiage and lacks clarity. We recommend that CPD replace it with clear
language like that found in NYPD’s policy.
Recommendation: CPD should update its policy section about shooting at
moving vehicles (IV. Procedures § B4.1.2(M)(3)(k) et seq.) to make the policy less
wordy and more restrictive. CPD should look to NYPD’s policy for guidance, which
states:17
Members of service SHALL NOT: Discharge their firearms at or from a
moving vehicle unless deadly physical force is being used against the
member of service or another person present, by means other than [the]
moving vehicle.
E. 4.1.5 (M) Rendering Medical Aid Following Police Actions
The supervisor responsibilities currently contained in the Rendering Medical Aid section are:

16
See, http://www.policeforum.org/assets/reengineeringtraining1.pdf (at page 20 - John Timoney).
17
See, www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/public-pguide3.pdf

Policy Review - 15
 5. The Sector Sergeant shall immediately respond to the scene of any use of
force incident; this may include but is not limited to the application of physical
force, when an officer is injured, a prisoner has a visible injury or complains of injury
or discomfort, or requests medical attention. The on-scene supervisor is
responsible for making sure the following steps are taken, as appropriate.
a. Provide officers with assistance when necessary, including medical attention;
make notifications through the chain of command; ensure that medical
treatment for subjects and prisoners is properly evaluated and provided; and
determine if the Criminal Investigations Section should respond to the scene to
take photos and to sketch diagrams. A photograph showing no injuries may be
as important as one that shows an injury.
b. If photographs are taken, officers are advised to protect the privacy and
confidentiality of all subjects.
c. Document the use of force in Blue Team.
The sergeant responsibilities contained in this section apply to the entire UOF policy – not
just rendering medical aid. As such, CPD should make a new section entitled “Supervisory
responsibilities” as a standalone section within its UOF policy.
Recommendation: CPD should create a new section in its policy dedicated to
supervisors’ responsibilities surrounding UOF. Applicable information currently
contained in Section E. 4.4.5 (M) (Rendering Medical Aid Following Police Actions)
should be moved to this new section.
CPD should require that sector sergeants complete a holistic review of each UOF incident to
identify avoidable factors that may have led to the force (missed opportunities for de-
escalation, poor tactics, lack of communication, etc.) as well as successes; CPD should include
this supervisory requirement in its policy. Supervisors should be taught to review each incident
from its inception - not just the moment at which force was used.
Use of the CDM (discussed above) will help supervisors in this type of review and provide a
consistent framework from which to analyze whether the actions taken were the most
appropriate to the circumstances. Having supervisors use the CDM to analyze uses of force will
also help reinforce the CDM with officers who will be able to see it applied in practical
circumstances. It will also set the expectation that officers are to use the CDM in their daily
work.
CPD should train and/or refresh these skills during its annual in-service supervisor training.
Recommendation: CPD supervisors should be taught to review UOF incidents
holistically using the CDM and include this requirement in its UOF policy. CPD
should require supervisors to review not only the moment when force was used but

Policy Review - 16
 also the circumstances that led to it. The CDM is a valuable tool that can assist
supervisors in this review. CPD should also hold a refresher class on how to review
force incidents holistically during annual in-service supervisor training.
Whenever possible, supervisors should acknowledge and respond in a timely manner to in-
progress incidents with an elevated likelihood of force being used, such as calls involving a
person with a mental illness, a developmental disability, or drug addiction. These types of
incidents can rapidly devolve, and supervisors should consider responding to them before they
are requested to do so.
Recommendation: CPD supervisors should acknowledge and respond to in-
progress incidents where there is an elevated likelihood that force will be used.
CPD’s directives concerning UOF are separated into several different policies, such as Policy
4-4 involving CPD’s 40-mm Less Lethal Impact System. CPD should consider merging the several
policies that involve UOF into one, to ensure clarity and avoid diluting the department’s UOF
philosophy. Further, when issues relating to UOF are split among several policies, revisions may
not be applied uniformly. CPD would be better served if all issues related to UOF were
combined into a single policy. This would also make updating the policy easier since all critical
components would be in the same document.
As a model for how to accomplish this, CPD should examine Virginia Beach (VA) Police
Department’s new Response to Resistance / Use of Force General Order (5.01).18 In GO 5.01,
VBPD combines all of its directives on use of force into one comprehensive policy.
Recommendation: CPD should combine all UOF-related directives into a single
policy. This will make it easier for officers to find pertinent information on UOF and
will create a more holistic approach system. This comprehensive policy should
include the agency’s philosophy on UOF, clear guidelines around lethal and less-
lethal force options, accountability, and guidelines on UOF reporting measures.
CPD can use Virginia Beach Police Department’s newly released Response to
Resistance General Order (5.01) as a model for how to accomplish this.

Policy 4-2: Use of Force Reporting

PERF did not find any areas for improvement in this policy.

Policy 4-4: 40mm Less Lethal Impact System

Policy 4-4 40mm Less Lethal Impact System provides guidance for the use of CPD’s Specialty
Impact Weapon and Munition System (SIWAMS) 40mm less lethal weapon. PERF found this
policy to be largely sound, with only minor recommendations for improvement.

18
05.01-Response-to-Resistance.pdf (s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com)

Policy Review - 17
 Use of the Critical Decision-Making Model (CDM)
If CPD elects to maintain separate policies for UOF-related policies notwithstanding our
recommendation that all UOF policies be combined into one comprehensive policy, CPD can
strengthen language in Section I - General Considerations and Guidelines - by including a brief
discussion of the CDM (discussed in our Use of Force review above). The language should make
clear the department’s expectation that officers will use the CDM as a thinking tool to guide
their decision about using (or choosing not to use) the 40mm less lethal impact system.
Recommendation: CPD should include a discussion of the CDM under Section I.
General Considerations and Guidelines to require that officers use critical
thinking to guide their actions when deploying the 40mm less lethal impact
system.
Maintenance of the 40-mm Less Lethal Impact System
Section IV Procedures (C) contains information for storage of the 40mm launcher. CPD
should rename this subsection “Storage and Maintenance” and add two additional sections.
Recommendation: CPD should rename the portion of Section IV Procedures, that
pertains to maintenance requirements and add storage provisions. Subsection C
should be called “Storage and Maintenance” and include the following new
language:
All normal maintenance and cleaning shall remain the responsibility of personnel
assigned to the SIWAMS. Any damaged, inoperative, outdated, or expended
control devices or munitions, along with documentation explaining the cause of
the damage, shall be returned to the armorer for disposition.
The armorer shall ensure that all damaged, inoperative, outdated, or expended
SIWAMS or SIM are properly disposed of, repaired, or replaced.

Warnings Prior to Deployment

Section IV. Procedures subsection D2 contains guidance on providing a warning prior to the
deployment of the 40mm system. Specifically, it states that:
“Where feasible and based on the totality of the circumstances, officers should
provide a loud and clear verbal announcement immediately prior to discharging
the 40mm launcher to safeguard against sympathetic firearms discharge from
cover officers. A verbal announcement is not required if doing so would
compromise the safety of officers or others. Any such circumstance shall be
documented within the officer’s report.”

Policy Review - 18
 CPD can improve upon this requirement by making it clear that the verbal announcement
will include a warning that the officer intends to use the device to give the subject a reasonable
opportunity to voluntarily comply.
Recommendation: CPD should add language to Section IV Procedures,
Subsection D2 to require a verbal warning prior to deployment to give the subject
a reasonable opportunity to comply. This warning should be given unless doing so
would otherwise endanger officer safety or when it is not practical due to the
circumstances of the situation.
Deployment Strategies
Section IV. Procedures subsection D3 states that deployment strategies, including target
zones, distances, risks, and cover tactics will be taught and discussed during 40mm less lethal
impact system training. Since these are training considerations, CPD should move this section of
the policy to the Training section (currently Section H). The new language should state that
“During training sessions, officers should be taught (or provided refresher training on)
deployment strategies that include target zones, distances, risks, and cover tactics.”
Recommendation: CPD should move Section IV Procedures, Subsection D3 to the
Training Section of the Policy. The new language should state “During training
sessions, officers should be taught (or provided refresher training) on deployment
strategies that include target zones, distances, risks, and cover tactics.”

Policy 46-3: Crowd Management

Policy 46-3 Crowd Management contains guidelines for managing demonstrations, marches,
protests, and similar activities. The policy is generally sound, but PERF has recommendations to
strengthen it further.
General Considerations and Guidelines
Section 1. - General Considerations and Guidelines - contains the department’s philosophy
and approach to crowd management, which balances First Amendment considerations with
public safety. PERF recommends that the policy language includes a discussion of tiered
responses to crowd management. CPD’s first response should involve officers in “soft” gear
(typically the department’s uniform of the day), to avoid having a chilling effect on the crowd. If
the department anticipates the possible need for a heightened response, officers in riot gear
can be deployed but should generally be kept out of sight when not needed, to avoid escalating
tensions.
Recommendation: The CPD should include a discussion of tiered responses as
part of Section I, General Considerations and Guidelines. The language should
state that the first response to crowd management should involve officers in “soft
gear,” typically CPD’s uniform of the day to avoid having a chilling effect on the

Policy Review - 19
 crowd. Should CPD anticipate the possible need for a heightened response, officers
in riot gear can be deployed, but they should generally be kept out of sight when
not needed, to avoid escalating tensions.
This section should also include a discussion of proportionality, in which CPD’s response to
crowd management is proportional to the mood of the crowd. As the crowd’s actions escalate
or de-escalate, CPD should mirror its response accordingly.
Recommendation: The CPD should highlight the importance of proportionality
as part of Section I, General Considerations and Guidelines. The language should
state that as the crowd’s actions escalate or de-escalate, CPD’s response should
mirror those actions accordingly.
Lastly, this section should contain a brief discussion on the difference between criminal
behavior and acts of civil disobedience; the language should advise that officers should
prioritize enforcement of violent crimes, property damage crimes, and other major incidents
over minor acts of civil disobedience such as traffic violations and walking on roadways. Many
police departments have found it better to tolerate low-level acts of civil disobedience to avoid
escalating tensions.
For example, in PERF’s 2011 report, Managing Major Events: Best Practices from the
Field, Charles Ramsey, then Commissioner of Police in Philadelphia, said, “Maybe [protesters
will] block an intersection, but so what? Just direct traffic around them and let them sit there.
You really need to think about these situations in advance to determine whether or not you
should make an arrest in different scenarios. If they’re blocking an Interstate highway, of course
you have to do something. But a city street where you can just redirect traffic is a different
ballgame.”19
Recommendation: The CPD should discuss priority enforcement as part of Sec. I -
General Considerations and Guidelines. Crimes of violence, property destruction
crimes, or other serious crimes, should receive priority enforcement as opposed to
minor acts of civil disobedience such as traffic violations and walking on roadways.
Definitions
Section III Definitions contains definitions for key terms and concepts in policy. PERF
recommends that CPD add a definition of Crowd Intervention to the policy. Crowd intervention
is an intermediate response, in which police respond to pre-planned or spontaneous activities
to isolate unlawful behavior that impacts public safety, while allowing for the activity to
continue. While CPD has definitions of Crowd Management (the lowest level of response) and
Crowd Control (the highest level of response), there is no definition that reflects an
intermediate response level, in which officers address unlawful behavior by some members of

19
www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/managing%20major%20events%20-
%20best%20practices%20from%20the%20field%202011.pdf

Policy Review - 20
the crowd, but allow the overall demonstration, march, or protest to continue. A suggested
definition is contained in the recommendation below.
Recommendation: CPD should add a definition of Crowd Intervention to its
current policy. A suggested definition is, “A response that isolates unlawful
behavior that impacts public safety, while allowing for the overall demonstration,
march, or protest activity to continue.”
CPD should also add a definition of Proportionality to policy. Proportionality involves
officers: (1) using only the level of force necessary to mitigate the threat and safely achieve
lawful objectives; (2) considering, if appropriate, alternate force options that are less likely to
result in injury but will allow officers to achieve lawful objectives; and (3) considering the
appropriateness of officers’ actions. A sample definition is contained in the recommendation
below.

Recommendation: CPD should add a definition of Proportionality to its Crowd

Management policy. A sample definition is “Proportionality considers whether a
particular police use of force is commensurate to the threat faced by the officer
and is appropriate given the information available to the officer. Proportionality
requires officers to consider if they are using only the level of force necessary to
mitigate the threat, and whether there is another, less injurious option available
that will safely and effectively achieve the same objective.

Media
Section IV Procedures Subsection 6 – Media - governs media access to mass demonstrations
and other events. PERF has recommendations to strengthen the policy.20
Language should be added to this section to discuss the importance of news media relations
and communication with reporters regarding mass demonstrations and assemblies; the
department can make use of social media to disseminate information effectively.
Social media accounts are an extremely efficient way for police to share information before
a demonstration begins, and then share information on a minute-by-minute basis as the event
proceeds. A key advantage of social media is that it can be targeted directly to demonstrators
and other people who want and need to receive information from the police. For example, road
closures and detours can be pushed through CPD’s social media accounts.
Recommendation: CPD should add language to its policy to address media
relations. This section should include information about the overall importance of
the news media regarding mass demonstrations and assemblies. Policy should also
require that the PIO provide updates to the public through various news media and

20
On October 2, 2023, PERF convened a meeting of police executives and reporters on the subject of police-media
interactions during protests, and will publish its findings in an upcoming report. See
https://www.policeforum.org/trending7oct23

Policy Review - 21
 social media platforms. Social media is especially effective for informing the public
about the department’s plans for facilitating demonstrations at certain time and
locations, road closures that may be undertaken, any restrictions on protest
activities that the department may want to impose, any curfews, and other types
of information that are important for demonstrators to know and understand in
real time.
Finally, once the policy is updated, CPD should rename this section “Media and Social
Media” to reflect the use of CPD’s social media account relative to crowd management.
Recommendation: CPD should rename Section IV Procedures subsection 6
“Media” to “Media and Social Media” to reflect the use of CPD’s social media
relative to crowd management.
Dispersal
Section IV Procedures subsection 7 – Dispersal - provides guidance on crowd dispersal.
Language in subsection 7b states that “when the incident commander has decided that crowd
dispersal is required, he or she shall direct unit commanders, where time and circumstances
permit, to issue warnings prior to taking action to disperse the crowd.”
Language should be added to this section requiring that the crowd be provided with a
deadline or time limit within which to comply, as well as instructions about an orderly process.
The policy language should include requirements to:
- As necessary, announce the impending use of a tool as a warning;
- Provide enough time for demonstrators to leave the scene;
- Make the Announcements in a manner that all demonstrators can hear, including a
deadline within which to leave and information about repercussions for failing to leave;
- Provide specific instructions to demonstrators about which streets they should use to
leave so that it will be clear whether the demonstrators are attempting to comply and
which are not.21
Recommendation: CPD should update Section IV Procedures subsection 7b to
include requiring notice to the crowd of a deadline/time limit to comply, as well
as instructions about orderly process. This should include directions about which
streets demonstrators should use to leave the area and information about the
repercussions for failing to leave.
Mass Arrests
Section IV Procedures subsection 8 Mass Arrests describes the department’s procedures for
mass arrest situations. Policy should state that CPD intends to avoid mass arrests whenever

21
CPD can use the guidance previously provided to the Fredericksburg (VA) Police Department about its Response
to Demonstrations in order to craft this language. See,
https://www.fredericksburgva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/18750/PERF-Final-Report-February-3-2021-PDF?bidId

Policy Review - 22
possible, but the department is prepared to make mass-arrests if necessary, based on crowd
activity. PERF’s 2022 publication, Rethinking the Police Response to Mass Demonstrations,22
recommends that whenever possible, law enforcement agencies should avoid mass arrests,
since they can give the impression that police are stifling First Amendment expression rather
than facilitating it. However, there may be incidents, such as rioting or violence, where many
arrests are required.
Recommendation: CPD should add language to Section IV Procedures subsection
8 - Mass Arrests - stating that mass arrests should be avoided whenever possible,
unless circumstances (such as rioting or violence) dictate that no other
alternative is available.
Use of Force
CPD should add language to policy (similar to our recommendation for deployment of the
40mm Less Lethal Impact System above) to require that a verbal warning of the intended use of
any less lethal device prior to deployment (unless doing so would otherwise endanger officer
safety or when it is not practical due to the circumstances) to give the subject(s) a reasonable
opportunity to voluntarily comply.
Recommendation: CPD should require verbal notice prior to the deployment of
less lethal weapons (unless doing so would otherwise endanger officer safety or
otherwise impractical due to the circumstances) to gain voluntary compliance
from subjects.

22
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/ResponseMassDemonstrations.pdf

Policy Review - 23
 IV. Training23
The January 4, 2023, shooting generated the request for this report. But during the inquest,
while PERF was unable to examine the fatal incident itself to determine whether it revealed any
training deficiencies (due to the inquest sequestration order), we examined whether any
general training-related issues existed. PERF reviewed CPD’s training records (including
protocols, orders, and schedules) observed in-person instruction, and interviewed many
members of CPD across the rank structure. Once the inquest was complete, PERF examined the
fatal incident itself by reviewing all information surrounding the incident, as noted in the
FACTUAL SUMMARY. In other words, PERF examined CPD’s training broadly as well as how its
training specifically applied to this incident.
CPD training far surpasses MA state standards, and we found that resolving incidents
without using any force at all runs throughout CPD’s culture (although as noted above, this can
be reinforced further by adding “sanctity of life” verbiage to the use of force policy).
In reviewing CPD’s schedules and training protocols for the last three years, we found that
de-escalation was woven into several of its CPD’s courses- some tangentially and some explicitly.
There were also several courses for instance:
2021
- Defensive Tactics – Included a well-developed de-escalation component.
- Implicit Bias – Included how implicit biases and stereotyping can affect law enforcement
decision making when interacting with others.
2022
- Cultural Competency – Included identifying how culture may impact community
interactions with police.
- De-escalation and Use of Force – Covering general principles and law.
- Mass Gatherings – Included de-escalation and the police response to mass
demonstrations.
- The Police Response to Emergencies Involving People with Mental Illness

2023
- Duty to Intervene – Scenario-based instruction helping officers learn how and when to
intervene when other officers use potentially excessive force
- Hate Crimes
- Officer Response to Interpersonal Violence
- Policing Through a Trauma Involved Prism
- Trauma Informed Policing

23
Every section contained in this report has a training component. Therefore, if CPD modifies its policies (Section
III), introduces new equipment (Section V), or implements a co-response team (Section VI), it must train its
members accordingly. This section of the report deals with current potential training issues.

Training - 24
 - ICAT: Integrating Communications, Assessment, and Tactics24

CPD’s emphasis on de-escalation is evidenced by the low percentage of its calls that result in
any force whatsoever.25 At its highest level over a six-year period (2017), CPD officers used force
(including lowest level “light force”) during only 0.086% of its calls for service, and that number
has trended down since that time. CPD experienced its first fatal shooting in more than 20
years against this backdrop.

% of Calls for Service Resulting in Use-of-Force

1.0%

0.9%

0.8%

0.7%

0.6%

0.5%

0.4%

0.3%

0.2%
0.08… 0.086% 0.066%
0.1% 0.057% 0.064% 0.049% 0.062%

0.0%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Figure 6. Numbers based on all Use of Force Reports filed at CPD

Despite its low force numbers overall, CPD’s request for this review demonstrates its
commitment to constant improvement. PERF identified the following areas as ones where the
department should consider adjustments moving forward.

In Person Training

Like much of the nation, during the Covid-19 pandemic, CPD stopped its in-person training
for about 18 months. In December 2021, as things appeared to be returning to relative-
normalcy, CPD, acting pursuant to state and local directives, again stopped all non-mandatory
training; this included de-escalation training, which the state of MA does not require but CPD

24
ICAT was introduced at CPD in 2019. Later that year, the program was enhanced to include a module on suicide-
by-cop. CPD’s plan to train the entire department on the new module was halted when in-person training was
stopped due to Covid-19. This is explained more fully below at 28-31.
25
Pursuant to its current policy, CPD requires that members report any “light physical force,” regardless of whether
it results in injury or complaint.

Training - 25
trains on often. As we confirmed in our review, CPD trained members on de-escalation relation
topics throughout the pandemic, and up to and including its ICAT training.

Many members of CPD we interviewed liked the fact that training moved online during the
pandemic, because they had four days working from home within which to complete it.26 Other
members felt strongly that all training should be in-person.

CPD has now resumed in-person training for some, but not all, of its classes. It appears,
based on our review of records and interviews, that CPD is moving toward a hybrid model, with
some classes taught online and some taught in person.

PERF recommends that CPD carefully consider which training courses it allows officers to
complete virtually. Some courses, such as legal updates, are well-suited to virtual learning. But
some of the most important training when it comes to use of force, such as ICAT: Integrating
Communications, Assessment, and Tactics,27 must be completed in-person. Scenario-based
learning is best when cultivating the skills needed to defuse crisis situations, and virtual learning
is not an acceptable substitute.

Recommendation: CPD should carefully consider which of its training courses it

allows members to complete virtually. Although some classes, such as legal
updates, are easily adapted to online learning, scenario-based courses meant to
develop and reinforce de-escalation and crisis intervention skills must be in
person.

Dedicated Training Facility

CPD has a small, in-house training room that houses the department’s armorer and a video
simulator, but there is no dedicated training facility. Therefore, the department is forced to train
under extreme make-shift conditions. Often, CPD uses abandoned buildings in Cambridge to
train its officers. In fact, prior to this writing, CPD had been using an abandoned building in
which to hold training sessions, but that building was recently condemned.

Successful implementation of ICAT [Integrating Communications, Assessment, and Tactics –

more fully described in pages 9-10 and 28-30], depends on scenario-based instruction and
refreshers. And scenario-based instruction depends on a proper space within which to plan
for and execute a variety of settings and situations. Using ad hoc available buildings, some no
longer habitable, is not conducive to training of any sort – classroom or scenario-based.

CPD is a professional, progressive police agency and its members deserve a professional
space within which members can, among other things, learn how to defuse situations without

26
The training is designed to be interactive, so members must remain engaged to finish.
27
http://www.policeforum.org/assets/icattrainingguide.pdf

Training - 26
resorting to force. A suitable facility would enable scenario-based training to take place on a
regular and consistent basis, which would benefit the officers and community members.

CPD could also investigate pairing with various regional partners in Middlesex County to
form some type of first-responder training facility that could co-locate training for fire, EMS,
Police, Mental Health, and others involved in public safety. The Public Safety Training Facility
(PSTF) in Rochester, New York, is an example of this model.28 All recruit and local in-service
training, as well as various NY Division of Criminal Justice Servies trainings are provided at the
PSTF. This includes scenario-based training and simulations in a location conducive to role
playing and engaged learning. Partner agencies who also use the PSTF include the state and
county Departments of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Office of Pre-Hospital
Care.

Similarly, CPD does not have its own firearms range. Although CPD can use a range located
on the Fort Devens military base 36 miles away, military training needs obviously take priority
over the needs of the CPD; additionally, the drive to Fort Devens is about one hour each way.

Recommendation: CPD should work with the city of Cambridge to secure a

dedicated and reliable training space. Obtaining such a space would enable CPD
to train its members in the best way possible; it would also demonstrate the city’s
dedication to its police department’s excellence. CPD would also benefit from
finding and using firearms space at a range closer than Ft. Devens.

28
https://www.monroecc.edu/depts/pstc/

Training - 27
Training Requests

Appropriate vetting of training requests is important in any agency. Vetting ensures, among
other things, that training events a member would like to attend are consistent with agency
culture and expectations. But while the act of vetting is important, at CPD, the process is
cumbersome and inefficient. Members of CPD throughout the rank structure expressed
frustration with the way training requests are processed. Members who wish to attend a training
must submit a paper-request that travels through nearly the entire chain of command as well as
the personnel department before making its way back down to the requesting-member with the
answer of whether the training is approved.

It is not uncommon for a member to request and be granted the opportunity to attend
training, only to learn about the approval after the training has taken place. And, even if approval
is received before the training, the current method often leaves members and their unit
supervisors with very little time to prepare for and cover the absence. At a minimum, this
process should be automated.

Recommendation: CPD needs to better streamline its mechanism for processing training
requests. The current method is unnecessarily drawn-out and often leads to frustration for
everyone involved.

Training Unit

The Training Unit is overseen by the Director of Professional Standards, and is currently
comprised of a full-time lieutenant, a full-time sergeant (and another full-time equivalent
sergeant position that is vacant as of this writing), and two other full-time officers, primarily
dedicated to recruit academy training. For all other training, CPD staffs its Training Unit on a
collateral basis. In other words, officers have full-time assignments elsewhere in the
organization, but are utilized in the training unit on an as-needed basis.

When we interviewed members of CPD, many expressed frustrations about staffing the
training unit in this manner and felt the unit was not sufficiently resourced. Others, noting the
staffing shortage and other needs in the department, felt this manner of staffing the Training
Unit was efficient and best under the circumstances.

Staffing the Training Unit with collateral staff can create issues. First, we heard in our
interviews that officers often have a hard time accomplishing their full-time-assignment duties
as well as their training duties and are sometimes forced to prioritize one over the other. We
also heard of friction and communications-related issues that arise when the Training Unit
requests an officer, but the officer’s supervisor needs that person in their original assignment
and delays or avoids approving the request. This obviously leaves officers in the untenable
position of not wanting to create friction with their unit supervisor or members of the Training
Unit.

Training - 28
 The current staffing shortage has affected all police agencies – including CPD. But
regardless, the current practice of supervisors refusing to allow members of their unit to be
released to the training unit without executive level intervention harms morale and reflects
poorly on unit-level organizational management.

Most training requirements are known months in advance and training orders can be
quickly disseminated. If the Commissioner issues a training directive, it should be understood
throughout the department that the directive will be followed and immediate plans must be
made to cover those absences.

Recommendation: CPD should issue its training orders as soon as possible and
unit supervisors should understand that those directions must be followed.

Training in ICAT: Integrating Communications, Tactics, and Assessment

As noted previously, PERF developed the ICAT program to give officers the tools, skills, and
options they could use to safely defuse a range of critical incidents involving a person who is not
armed with a firearm. ICAT training has been independently studied and found to be associated
with decreases in uses of force and injuries to officers and citizens alike.29 In 2017, two
members of CPD attended an ICAT Train-the-Trainer course and became certified ICAT
instructors. CPD then demonstrated its commitment to minimizing its use of force by being the
first agency in Massachusetts to implement ICAT.30

Significantly, in 2019, after the certified CPD instructors presented an introductory ICAT
overview to the department at in-service training, PERF instructors conducted the full, 12-hour
ICAT training for all CPD officers.31 But most relevant to this incident, PERF created a “Suicide by
Cop” (SBC) ICAT module in 2019, after the in-person ICAT training provided to the entire CPD.
That module gave more focused attention to circumstances like those involved in this incident.

Based on information gleaned from interviews with members of CPD as well as department
orders and directives, CPD planned to reinforce the ICAT curriculum, including the new SBC

29
Engel, R.S., Corsaro, N., Isaza, G.T., & McManus, H.D. (2022). Assessing the impact of de-escalation training on
police behavior: Reducing police use of force in the Louisville, KY Metro Police Department. Criminology & Public
Policy, 21(2). https://doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12574.
30
In 2021, the Office of Middlesex County District Attorney (MCDA) hired PERF to provide four ICAT train-the-
trainer courses and encouraged every police agency in the county to send officers. CPD sent two officers to the
training session to become instructors, giving CPD a total of four ICAT instructors. The MCDA advised all agencies
that use ICAT to help determine whether officers who use force acted within MA’s new statutory requirements for
de-escalation. See 550 CMR 550 6.00 - 6.10, specifying that, “A law enforcement officer shall not use force upon
another person, unless de-escalation tactics have been attempted and failed or are not feasible based on the
totality of the circumstances and such force is necessary and proportionate…”
31
Also in 2019, CPD formed the Cambridge Northeastern Police Academy (CNPA). ICAT played a significant role in
the academy's overall training philosophy; CNPA has provided all recruit officer classes with the entire ICAT
program, which is continually reinforced throughout the duration of the academy (20-plus weeks).

Training - 29
module, every year during its in-service training, but the pandemic, and cancellation of all in-
person training destroyed those plans. Most CPD members, including Off. McMahon,
therefore, never received the SBC training module prior to the January 4, 2023, incident. This
is significant because, in his interview with investigators, which PERF reviewed, Off. McMahon
acknowledged that the incident appeared to him to be a “suicide by cop,” that Mr. Faisal
seemed to want to die, and that Mr. Faisal wanted Off. McMahon “to do it for him.”32

We cannot speculate about whether the fatal outcome might have been different if CPD
had received the SBC training before this incident. But Off. McMahon was correct in his
reference to SBC – this incident had many characteristics of what PERF deems a potential SBC
event. Some of those include:

- The initial dispatch was for a suicidal male cutting himself / slitting his own wrist;
- Mr. Faisal consistently held a knife/machete to his own throat;
- There was no evidence of Mr. Faisal committing a crime or harming anyone other than
himself; and
- Mr. Faisal displayed clear signs of mental illness (cutting himself and running from
police, partially unclothed on a frigid day in January).

Four points directly relevant to this incident are addressed in the new SBC curriculum:

1. Pointing a Gun at a Suicidal Subject

One of the most salient takeaways of the SBC modules is quoted below:

It is important to remember that pointing your gun at a suicidal subject may

create more fear and anxiety and cause the person to choose an option that
forces your hand (e.g., charging at you). [ICAT Module #5: Suicide-by-Cop]

32
All quotes and statements are taken from the interview with Off. McMahon, released by the Middlesex County
District Attorney. See Findings of Inquest and Public Records Regarding Fatal Officer-Involved Shooting of Sayed
Faisal in Cambridge | Middlesex County District Attorney's Office (middlesexda.com)

Training - 30
 2. Yelling Commands at a Suicidal Subject
The SBC module also reminds officers that these subjects are in a poor frame of mind
already, so yelling commands is likely to exacerbate, not help, the situation. According
to Off. McMahon,33 after the 40 mm struck Mr. Faisal, he appeared unscathed and
turned toward Off. McMahon, laughing. At that point Off. McMahon said he pointed his
gun at Mr. Faisal and repeatedly told him, and then yelled, “Drop the knife” and “Don’t
make me do it” as Mr. Faisal drew closer. When Mr. Faisal was between 8-12 feet away
Off. McMahon fired his weapon.

3. The Need for a Layered-Less-Lethal Response

The SBC module also highlights the need for a layered-less-lethal response. This means
that if one option fails, an agency should be prepared with another – in other words,
there should always be a backup plan. We comment further about layered responses
below on pages 33-34.

4. Active On-scene Supervision

Finally, an active leader (supervisor) at the scene who can coordinate and assign roles is
critical to successfully resolving an SBC circumstance. We will more fully address this
issue in the Monday-Morning Quarterbacking section, below at 44-46.

In sum, CPD’s lack of body-worn cameras leaves an unfortunate void in terms of the
shooting and what happened in the seconds that immediately preceded it, although to be clear,
the inquest established that Off. McMahon’s actions were reasonable. And we recognize and
commend that officers, including Off. McMahon, spent considerable time and covered much
geographic distance trying to engage with Mr. Faisal before the fatal shooting. Having the
training provided in the ICAT SBC module could have provided the officer with skills that may
have helped him defuse the situation.

Recommendation: All members of CPD should go through the updated ICAT

training, which has added two new modules since the last CPD rollout – most
notably and relevant to this incident – Suicide by Cop, which was added in 2019.
It is imperative that the skills imparted during ICAT training be refreshed every
year.

NOTE – CPD recently began training all its sworn personnel in the most updated
ICAT curriculum, and on October 19, 2023, PERF’s lead ICAT instructor observed
CPD’s certified instructors teach ICAT’s newest curriculum to the first cohort of
members.

The instruction included the new Suicide by Cop and Step UP and Step In modules
noted above. Significantly, PERF’s ICAT instructor noted that the manner in which

33
Any statements attributed to Officer McMahon were taken from his interview, which was released after the
inquest was complete.

Training - 31
 CPD’s provided this training was fully consistent with PERF’s standards and
guidance.34 His biggest concern was that the space needed to effectively run
scenarios was not available.
CPD should prioritize having the entire agency complete the new ICAT training
as soon as possible.

21-Foot Rule

Off. McMahon was interviewed by a member of the Massachusetts State Police and the CPD
two days after the incident; that interview was publicly released after the inquest. During the
interview, as he explained why he had used fatal force against Mr. Faisal, Off. McMahon said
he’d been trained in the “21-foot Rule” and invoked it three times:

- So, when we were being trained, it’s the 21-foot rule … when it comes to edged
weapons, he could close that distance to me faster than I could react and properly
stop the threat.

- And like I said, with a 21-foot rule that he can … close the distance very quickly …
that’s obviously the big danger in any situation when … someone has a blade or
any kind of edged weapon. And obviously, I have to react and defend myself … in
that regard.

- … the 21-foot rule where he can close the distance at a speed and attack me faster
than I could respond and properly defend myself.

Off. McMahon did not shoot until Mr. Faisal was closer to him than 21-feet, but his reference
to the 21-foot rule and that it was a part of his training is concerning. As we noted in Guiding
Principles on Use of Force (2016)35

Agencies should eliminate from their policies and training, all references to the so-
called “21-foot rule” regarding officers who are confronted with a subject armed
with an edged weapon. Instead, officers should be trained to use distance and
cover to create a “reaction gap,” or “safe zone,” between themselves and the
individual, and to consider all options for responding.

ICAT training expressly disavows adherence to the 21-foot rule, warns of its misuse, and
explains that it should not be a part of any training. Instead, ICAT promotes the use of a

34
In addition to being fully compliant with PERF’s ICAT curriculum (also known as displaying model fidelity), we
note that nearly every officer we interviewed at CPD remarked that its lead ICAT instructors not only present the
material well, but, as important, do it in a way that makes the officers want to resolve these incidents without any
force themselves. This all promotes a culture that values the sanctity of life.
35
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/guidingprinciples1.pdf

Training - 32
reactionary-gap, the appropriateness of which should be determined by factors including the
subject’s “means, intent, and opportunity.”

PERF reviewed CPDs training material, spoke to its instructors, and observed its most recent
training on October 19, 2023. We were not able to find any reference to the 21-foot rule in
CPD’s training materials; CPD instructors confirmed that it does not and has not taught this to
its officers. And since rejection of the 21-foot rule has been part of ICAT curriculum since its
inception, Off. McMahon would have heard this in 2019 when he had his ICAT training. And yet,
he referenced the 21-foot rule three times during his interview and related it back to his
training.

To the extent that Off. McMahon’s reference to the 21-foot rule came from his training,
CPD should ensure that no member of its department is using this outdated concept and is
instead focusing on the reactionary-gap verbiage in its current training.

Recommendation: CPD should ensure that its instructors understand that the 21-
Foot Rule is an outdated training principle that should not be taught to officers.
Instead, CPD instructors should frame issues of distance in terms of a Reactionary Gap.

Training - 33
 V. Equipment
CPD’s ability to effectively manage this incident was likely hindered by its lack of available
options. And even where a viable less-lethal option existed (i.e., the 40 millimeter) its use was
not part of a layered response. As discussed in ICAT’s suicide by cop module, a layered response
contemplates that officers will assess whether they are in the safest position possible as they
attempt to engage in conversation with a potentially suicidal subject. At that point it is
important that officers have a variety of back-up equipment options ready to use.

Below, we examine potential additions to CPD’s less lethal equipment options. We stress at
the outset, however, that decisions about whether to implement certain equipment at CPD
should not take place until a working group, comprised of CPD members and community
stakeholders, thoroughly assesses whether they are appropriate for CPD and the Cambridge
community. This applies most specifically to equipment with histories that might lead some to
view them with justified skepticism.

Therefore, as requested, we are presenting less lethal equipment options that agencies
throughout the country are using but are not endorsing or recommending them for CPD; that
determination should take place locally.

40-millimeter launcher

The 40-millimeter (40-mm) launcher is designed to fire non-lethal, 40-mm projectiles that
cause pain or incapacitation, but not death. It can therefore provide a means of ending an
incident without ending a life. The key to success with a 40-mm is the ability to inflict extreme,
but non-lethal pain that will stop a person’s actions and give officers time to disarm and/or
restrain. But in this case, Mr. Faisal had gone through a glass window and then used a machete-
type instrument to repeatedly cut himself, all the while registering no sign of pain or discomfort
as he walked partially unclothed through several city blocks on a cold day in January. Under the
circumstances, it is not altogether surprising that the 40-mm did not work as intended – it
struck Mr. Faisal but there was no sign that it hurt him.

It is unclear whether the assembled CPD members had a back-up plan other than reloading
the 40-mm (which takes time) and trying again; similarly, the interviews with the CPD members
released after the inquest did not reveal whether they had a genuine back-up plan. As noted in
the suicide by cop module, a backup plan is critical in these situations.

If another CPD member had been able to access a separate 40-mm launcher, CPD may have
been able to attempt a layered less-lethal response with the 40-mms. And although it may not
have worked here, because of Mr. Faisal’s apparent pain tolerance, our obligation is to provide
ways CPD can use all means possible to avoid fatal uses of force moving forward. The layered
Equipment - 34
response recognizes that a variety of options must be available to resolve these types of
incidents, and if one fails, another should be immediately available.

But we learned that a layered 40-mm response was not readily possible, because there were
only five 40-mm launchers at CPD, and all were in supervisor cruisers. Therefore, the 40-mm
launchers had to be transported to any scene where they might be helpful, including this one, by
a supervisor. The reason for this lack of 40-mm accessibility in patrol cars is because those cars
cannot accommodate 40-mm storage without modification. Especially in an agency without the
option of electronic control weapons (“ECWs”), the 40 mm less-lethal option should be available
to all members without having to wait for a supervisor’s car to arrive.

NOTE – We have been in contact with members of CPD throughout our review process
and are advised that as of this writing, CPD has retrofitted its all of its cruisers to
accommodate 40 mm launchers – not just supervisor cruisers. We commend this
decision.

Oleoresin capsicum (OC) Spray

All patrol officers at CPD carry 1.5-ounce containers of OC aerosol spray on their duty belts,
which can cover distances of up to ten feet. Members of the Special Response Team (SRT) also
carry 13.4-ounce canisters of MK-9 OC spray, which can cover distances of up 20 feet.36 The
MK-9 style OC spray is generally intended for use in crowd dispersal but can also be useful when
officers need a less- lethal response when dealing with a distant subject who is moving closer.
The fact that MK-9 spray is only available to SRT members is problematic. It takes time to
assemble and deploy the SRT, meaning that regular patrol officers are without this option if a
crowd assembles quickly or if other situations present themselves in which this option might be
useful.
OC spray is an irritant, the effects of which generally abate within thirty minutes.37 In cases
where a person seems somewhat pain intolerant, such as Mr. Faisal, OC spray causes other,
involuntary biological reactions that are independent of pain, such as coughing, eye watering,
and inflammation-related irritation. Importantly, OC spray temporarily interferes with a person’s
ability to see.
CPD should consider equipping every cruiser with a canister of MK-9 OC spray. Having that
tool available in every car will allow more officers to have a broader range of less lethal options,
instead of just those officers on the SRT. Significantly, the CPD officers we interviewed, on
regular patrol and the SRT, felt that having as many in-car options as possible would be welcome
and beneficial.

36
See e.g., https://www.defense-technology.com/product/first-defense-1-3-mk-9-stream-oc-aerosol
37
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/238262
Equipment - 35
 Regarding the spray officers carry on they duty belts, CPD should consider moving toward a
gel-based pepper spray instead of its current aerosol/stream – or at least giving officers the
option of choosing between the two.38 A growing number of agencies are finding that gel-based
sprays better meet their officers’ needs by reducing cross and self-contamination; this same
quality makes gel far better suited for use indoors than aerosols.
Gel is also less likely to cause sustained harm and pain to those against whom it is used,
since its effects do not last as long as aerosol spray. As noted by Montpelier Police Department
Chief Brian Peete when his department adopted a new gel-spray, the change is “in an effort to
be more empathetic … [gel] should do the job by being less harmful.”39

Shields

In Guiding Principles on Use of Force, PERF urged all agencies to consider shields as part of
their less-lethal arsenal.
Agencies should acquire personal protection shields for use by patrol and
others in managing some critical incidents. Officers with access to personal
protection shields should be adequately trained on how to use the shields
both individually and as part of a team operation.40
Shields provide officers with protection and security as they try to slow down and de-escalate
situations – a central tenant of ICAT training.
Based on our interviews, at the time of this incident, CPD had some shields available, but
they were not in every patrol car and not readily available to those on scene during this
incident. These valuable and potentially life-saving instruments should be available to all
members of CPD. We recommend that CPD add a lightweight poly-acrylic shield to each patrol
cruiser, which can better equip patrol officers to better handle the variety of circumstances they
may encounter.

Electronic Control Weapons

We cannot ignore the fact that nearly every officer we interviewed, regardless of rank,
expressed concern that Cambridge does not allow its officers to carry Electronic Control
Weapons (“ECW”s). Most believe this gap in non-lethal force options essentially leaves officers
with limited choices when confronting a threat from a person armed with a sharp-edged
weapon, like Mr. Faisal.

38
See https://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf (Principle 26 – Agencies should
consider new options for chemical spray)
39
https://www.wcax.com/2022/03/11/montpelier-police-work-towards-more-empathetic-policing-strategies/
40
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/guidingprinciples1.pdf (emphasis added).
Equipment - 36
 As noted at the outset of this report, CPD members value and prioritize de-escalation, which
is reflected in its exceptionally low use of force numbers. It became clear to us during our
interviews that the entire agency is proud of the way its members use communication skills to
keep uses of force to a minimum. At least part of the reason CPD members have such finely
honed verbal de-escalation skills likely reflects that they do not have the option of using an
ECW to fall back on. It is also true that in this specific case, an ECW may have provided a way to
end the incident without ending Mr. Faisal’s life.

According to a November 2023 report from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public
Safety and Security,41 as of December 31, 2021, there were 296 law enforcement agencies in the
state with ECWs - 83% of MA agencies. However, implementation varies. For instance, the
Boston Police Department has ECWs, but restricts their use to members of its SWAT Team, while
at the Massachusetts State Police, ECWs are available to all troopers. The state collects data and
publicly reports all “ECW incidents” - defined as warnings and/or deployments. According to the
2023 report, in 2021, the number of MA agencies adding ECWs rose 2.4%, but the number of
ECW incidents decreased 13.1%.

We cannot overlook the well-established historical ECW failure rate, including our own 2020
review of the issue, which found that ECWs are effective less than two-thirds of the time they
are deployed.42 Additionally, as previously noted, we believe that at least part of CPD’s
exceptionally low UOF numbers may reflect that its members’ cannot simply default to ECW use
to end an encounter. However, it is also true that in this case, an ECW might have avoided a fatal
outcome.

As previously noted, CPD should create a team to examine whether ECWs could be an
appropriate less-lethal option for CPD officers and, if so, develop a pilot program. Any such team
must include not only members of the CPD, but also members of the community, including
medical experts. Since CPD already carefully tracks its uses of force, if the team opts to pilot
an ECW program, CPD should analyze whether ECW use in any way impacts its overall use of
force numbers. In this way, CPD can ensure that ECWs do not become a substitute for the
outstanding communications-based de-escalation its members now employ.

Pepper Ball Launchers

After a 2004 incident that resulted in the tragic death of a young woman after the
inappropriate use of an FN303 Pepper Ball Launcher (PBL) by a neighboring agency,43 CPD
discontinued its use of PBLs. Based on our interviews, CPD had not experienced any issues with

41
https://www.mass.gov/doc/electronic-control-weapons-in-massachusetts-2021/download
42
See e.g., https://www.policeforum.org/assets/LessLethal.pdf.
43
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/10/24/boston-police-suspend-use-of-pepper-ball-
guns/dd773f5d-1651-4c2a-8a82-b967d77958b5/
Equipment - 37
its own use of PBLs; and based on our review of less lethal options, deaths caused by PBLs are
extremely rare.
These devices and their ammunition have changed dramatically in the years since that time.
Modern PBLs now shoot small, irritant-filled round-balls up to 60 feet; the FN303 device used in
the 2004 incident had much more energy and fired a larger projectile up to 150 feet.44 Under
the circumstances, CPD should consider whether completely discontinuing its use of this less-
lethal option when the technology itself has greatly changed, remains prudent.
Phoenix (AZ) Police Department (PPD) ran a pilot test for PBLs in 2021 and then, seeing
success, rolled them out agency wide.45 PPD has been very pleased with its results. Significantly,
PPD officers have the choice of using either 40mms or PBLs, because the agency makes both
less-lethal options available to its officers; overwhelmingly, members choose PBLs.46 Yet there
have been no serious physical injuries caused by PPD’s use of the PBLs; its members told PERF
that the use of PBLs has averted what could otherwise have been fatal critical incidents.
Significantly, PPD carefully collects and analyzes data related to PBLs and other less-lethal
options, as every agency should. According to PPD, “deploying” the PBL means an officer exits a
vehicle with a PBL at scenes, such as domestic disturbances, fights, and subjects armed with
instruments other than firearms; “discharging” the PBL means releasing the Pepper Ball.
According to its data, PPD only discharges PBLs about 10% of the time they are deployed. While
not definitive proof, this strongly suggests that warning of the imminent use of a PBL is a strong
incentive to end incidents with no force at all.
Finally, members of the PPD are required to undergo a rigorous, 30-hour training program
before being certified to launch PBLs. If CPD examines bringing back this less-lethal option, it
should first spend time analyzing the pros and cons of doing so with an agency like PPD, that
rolled out a pilot program, keeps extensive data, and has rigorous training.

Equipment Conclusion

Recommendation: CPD alone should consider adding equipment such as shields and
gel-based Oleoresin capsicum (OC) Spray to its available options. However, deciding
whether to add less-lethal options such as Electronic Control Weapons and modern
Pepper Ball Launchers requires a broader and deeper community assessment.
Cambridge should form a working group that includes community members, members

44
https://www.police1.com/police-products/less-lethal/projectiles-launchers/articles/the-use-of-less-lethal-weapons-
in-corrections-part-5-impact-weapons-
7iqkwD7h0FbT63Ur/#:~:text=Both%20of%20these%20weapons%20used,12%20foot%20pounds%20of%20energy.
45
See https://kjzz.org/content/1846577/phoenix-police-using-pepper-spray-balls-and-foam-batons-less-lethal-
force-program
46
For instance, between January 1, 2023, and November 20, 2023, PPD officers deployed PBLs 2.5 times more than
40 mms.
Equipment - 38
 of the CPD, and other relevant stakeholders (including medical personnel), to carefully
examine whether that type of equipment is appropriate for the city of Cambridge.

To be clear, PERF is not recommending here that CPD adopt either Electronic Control
Weapons or Pepper Ball Launchers. However, it does appear that forming a team to
assess whether they could be effective in Cambridge is reasonable considering the
circumstances of Mr. Faisal’s death and our interviews with CPD members. CPD should
have as many options as possible at its disposal to preserve life – including de-
escalation training, or, should the need arise, a variety of appropriate less lethal tools.
If a working group determines that CPD should pilot an ECW or PBL program, CPD
should consider making them available to only certain members of the organization
only, especially at the start.47

Body Worn Cameras

The fact that CPD did not outfit its members with body-worn cameras (BWCs) at the time of
this incident means that the public will never be able to see certain things that may have helped
them to understand and resolve factual issues, such as exactly what Mr. Faisal was doing and
saying in the seconds right before the shooting. We would have recommended that, like most
major police agencies, including federal law enforcement agencies, CPD develop a policy and
work as swiftly as possible to outfit its members with cameras. However, we learned early on in
our review that those plans are already being implemented. We commend this.

As noted previously, the Boston Police Department has ECWs but only makes them available to its SWAT
47

members.
Equipment - 39
 VI. Potential for Co-Response Team
Like many communities, Cambridge is searching for ways to divert appropriate calls away
from a police response.48 However, there are calls where it is beneficial to have both a mental
health crisis professional and a police officer respond together, especially those calls that have
a greater potential of escalating.

CPD should consider implementing a co-response program that would enable some type of
mental health professional to respond to certain incidents involving a person in a mental-health
crisis along with an officer or officers. Regardless of whether it could have impacted the
outcome here, this incident underscores that Cambridge lacks such a program; this is significant
in such a forward thinking, progressive city.

CPD maintains a Clinical Support Unit (CSU), staffed with a case manager, two social
workers, and a psychologist. These unsworn, indispensable members of CPD provide crucial
support to the agency, which includes advocating for and working with victims of crimes,
training CPD members in trauma-informed practices, working with juveniles, and relevant to
this assessment, assisting those with substance-abuse and mental-health-related issues.
Members of CSU review reports and provide critical follow-up that links people in need with
available resources in an attempt to address the causes of the issues and, ultimately, prevent
further law enforcement interactions. In other words, CSU reviews matters after the fact and
tries to prevent future incidents; this is commendable. But while CSU members can provide
follow-up services, they do not accompany officers on active calls; therefore, there is no
opportunity to defuse potentially volatile situations as they are taking place.

As PERF recently noted in RETHINKING THE POLICE RESPONSE TO MENTAL HEALTH-RELATED

CALLS – Promising Models (2023):49

The co-response model recognizes that police officers alone may not be the best
responders for all types of calls but need to be present when there is a risk to the
safety of other responders or to the person in crisis. The presence of both a mental
health clinician and a police officer can be very effective in de-escalating
potentially dangerous situations.

Co-response models take various forms, but regardless of the model, the goal is to stabilize the
person in crisis and address their immediate needs using a team that blends law enforcement
and mental health professionals.

48
See Y. Mian “Cambridge Councilors Propose Funding for Local Police Alternative” (March 9, 2023) Harvard
Crimson. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/3/9/councilors-police-alternative-proposal/; S, Girma and B.
Kingdollar “Cambridge Advances $3M Community Safety Department Proposal Seeking to Provide Non-Police
Public Safety Alternatives.” (May 11, 2022) Harvard Crimson.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/5/11/cambridge-community-safety-proposal/
49
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/MBHResponse.pdf
Potential For Co-Response Team - 40
 CPD has an infrastructure that would complement a co-response model in which mental-
health professionals (from either within or outside CPD) co-respond to calls with CPD officers.
This model is used by, for instance, Los Angeles (CA) Police Department’s Mental Evaluation
Unit,50 which was established to provide clinical support on high-severity calls. While LAPD is
obviously much larger than CPD, agencies such as Columbia Heights (MN) Police Department,
which is much smaller than CPD, also use this model.51

CPD can also request free support through Law Enforcement-Mental Health Learning
Sites.52 This program, run through the Council of State Governments’ Justice Center, pairs
agencies seeking to improve their responses to mental health-related calls with similar agencies
already implementing successful programs.

When we interviewed members of the CPD, some noted that they were not in favor of co-
responses because, essentially, the mental-health professional would be another person on-
scene whose safety officers would need to monitor. We do not minimize this concern.
However, our assessment of this issue compels the conclusion that when thoughtfully crafted
and deliberately implemented, these types of programs can positively impact people in crisis,
police officers, and their communities.53

CPD has well-trained officers that act on information from well-trained dispatchers and call-
takers in its Emergency Communications Department (ECD) – all of which are critical to
successful co-response models. In fact, during pendency of the inquest, ECD hired a social
worker to assist with how best to direct certain calls. Under the circumstances, CPD should, at a
minimum, engage in a process to determine whether a co-response model can work in its
jurisdiction. PERF’s Rethinking the Police Response contains eight steps designed to help any
agency create a crisis-response strategy, including a co-response team.

Recommendation: CPD should engage in a process to determine the viability of a co-

response model for its jurisdiction. Although Cambridge is investigating ways to fully
divert certain calls away from police officers, it should also consider how CPD officers
can co-respond with mental health professionals to certain calls.
NOTE – We have been in contact with members of CPD throughout our review. In
January 2024 we were advised that CPD is piloting a co-response system. We
commend this.

50
https://www.lapdonline.org/office-of-the-chief-of-police/office-of-special-operations/detective-
bureau/detective-services-group/mental-evaluation-unit/
51
See https://www.policeforum.org/assets/MBHResponse.pdf (page 34)
52
See Law Enforcement-Mental Health Learning Sites - CSG Justice Center
53
See https://www.policeforum.org/assets/MBHResponse.pdf (p 31)
Potential For Co-Response Team - 41
 VII. After-Incident Assessments
Although this was the first fatal critical incident at CPD in many years, it was not the first
time an officer fired a weapon or used force that caused significant physical injury. We learned
that the review process at CPD is focused, first, on whether the officer’s conduct was criminal,
and then, whether the committed policy violations.
We recommend that after any critical incident (not just fatal shootings but any shootings as
well as any incident where an officer causes serious physical injury or death to another person)
CPD examine at the incident wholistically to determine whether anything should be done
differently in the future. This involves a rapid assessment (Tactical Debriefing) to determine
whether immediate fixes are needed, as well as broad overviews aimed at changing agency
responses and potentially – agency culture.

Immediate Tactical Debrief

Regardless of how CPD moves forward with its longer-term assessments, it should ensure
that a tactical debrief takes place no more than 72 hours after any office-involved critical
incident. The purpose of such a debrief is to quickly identify potential issues in training, policy,
and/or equipment that should be addressed immediately, without having to wait until
completion of any criminal investigation or other review.54

Recommendation: CPD should conduct a Tactical Debriefing in the wake of any

officer-involved critical incident. The purpose of this debrief would be to identify
training, policy, and/or equipment issues that require immediate attention, without
the need to wait until the results of any other assessments that might take place.

Critical Incident / Force / Performance Review Board

CPD can greatly strengthen the quality and thoroughness of its administrative reviews by
creating a special investigative body responsible for the administrative investigation of any
serious incident involving a CPD member or members. These are called variously Critical
Incident Review Boards, Force Review Boards, or Performance Review Boards (hereinafter
“Board”). At CPD, the Board could review lethal uses of force, less-lethal uses of force involving

54
Fairfax County (VA) Police Department already engages in this process and is in the process of updating it Critical
Incident Policy to reflect this practice. See, http://m.alexandriagazette.com/news/2023/oct/04/police-challenge-
some-professional-recommendations/ CPD may wish to confer with FCPD relative to implementing a practice and
updating its policy.

After-Incident Assessments - 42
an instrument, uses of force causing injury, all in-custody deaths, and any other critical police
incident the chief of police directs it to investigate.
Formally reviewing these types of incidents as a matter of course can provide valuable
insights and opportunities to identify lessons that can be incorporated into officer training, gaps
in tactics, the need for additional equipment, and policies that should be changed or updated.
Boards can also identify and recognize exemplary or model conduct. Looking broadly in this
manner identifies issues that a narrowly focused examination of whether a member violated
current policy does not recognize.
Minimally, the Board should be comprised of the Patrol Division captain, the Training Unit
lieutenant, a patrol officer representative, and a representative from professional standards, as
well as other CPD members who would be useful in this capacity; some CIRBs also include a
community member. The CIRB should convene quarterly to review each incident.
Baltimore (MD) Police Department implements a Performance Review Board.55 At the end
of its analyses, the Board must provide action items to the BPD Commissioner including
“recommended improvements to BPD policies, training, supervision, tactics, and equipment
identified during the review.” Fredericksburg (MD) Police Department implements a Critical
Incident Review Board,56 the outcomes of which include recommendations for tactical
improvement, new equipment or technology, and structural or organizational changes.
Recommendation: CPD should create a special investigative body responsible for the
administrative investigation of any serious incident involving a CPD member or
members. The focus of this body (called a Critical Incident Review Board, Force Review
Board, or Performance Review Board at various agencies) would be to identify lessons
that can be incorporated into officer training, gaps in tactics, the need for additional
equipment, and policies that should be changed or updated.

Sentinel Event Review

For critical incidents that potentially involved multiple-system failures (including dispatch,
emergency medical services, education-related, behavioral health, as well as police issues) CPD
would likely benefit from sentinel event review with various community stakeholders. This
would be especially beneficial in a community as engaged, proactive, and progressive as
Cambridge.

A sentinel event review,

55
https://www.baltimorepolice.org/transparency/bpd-policies/724-performance-review-board-0
56
https://public.powerdms.com/FSBV/documents/2570025

After-Incident Assessments - 43
 … takes the broadest view of an event to ask … how it came to be and what might
be done to prevent its recurrence. It brings together the widest range of
stakeholders to examine all the biases, incentives, relationships, and norms
employed by all the actors whose conduct made the outcome incrementally more
likely. It undertakes this examination candidly and openly, without blame or
recrimination, driven solely by a shared desire to see that nothing like this ever
happens again.57

Should any future critical incidents in Cambridge warrant a sentinel event review, it could
involve not only members of the police department, but key decision-makers from such systems
as behavioral health (e.g., health department, public health authority, social workers, clinicians,
community-based treatment providers, and peer and consumer advocates), criminal justice
(e.g., prosecutors, public defenders, courts, jails, parole and probation, and juvenile services),
schools, and housing. Only by applying this comprehensive lens of analysis from a wide range of
stakeholders can jurisdictions effectively diagnose and begin to remedy an incident’s complex
root causes.

CPD can look to Seattle, WA for guidance in establishing a sentinel event review. Seattle
describes its program as “a community inclusive accountability program” that examines Seattle
Police Department’s critical incidents to determine how they can avoid future harmful
outcomes and better serve the community.58 And for an example of the type of assessment that
follows a sentinel event review, CPD can see Tucson (AZ)’s sentinel event review board report
concerning two restraint-related in custody deaths.59

Recommendation: For future critical incidents in Cambridge that involve muti-

system failures, CPD should consider conducting a sentinel event review. These
reviews should bring all potential stakeholders together to thoroughly review
incidents from all standpoints and to discuss system failures and how things can be
done better in the future. The exclusive goal of the review should be to ensure that
no similar incident happens again.

Monday Morning Quarterbacking

PERF’s final recommendation for post-incident assessment involves agency-wide

participation. As we have noted before, most recently in a February 2023 Trending article, police
agencies must begin having necessary conversations about fatal incidents, conversations that

57
Joseph Margulies, February 16, 2023, “For Any Good to Come of It, We Must Judge the Murder of Tyre
Nichols in a Forgiving Spirit,” Retrieved from Justia: https://verdict.justia.com/2023/02/16/for-any-good-to-come-
of-it-we-must-judge-the-murder-of-tyre-nichols-in-a-forgiving-spirit (emphasis added).
58
Sentinel Event Review - OIG | seattle.gov
59
https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/tucson.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/a1/ba1a6be6-
a50b-5384-9e42-5f7d27d3fcb0/5f656840a85d2.pdf.pdf

After-Incident Assessments - 44
are “not about blaming individual police officers [but are focused on] understand[ing] what
happened in past incidents [in order to] prevent the next one.”60 We recommend that CPD
engage in a process to debrief this incident in a meaningful way with members of the
department.
Some of the areas that any agency should discuss after an incident like this, are included
below. We stress again, in considering these questions,61 the process should be exclusively
forward focused - using a past event to affect future behavior.
- Was the subject sufficiently contained without placing an officer between the subject
and a high fence?

- Was the need for tactical repositioning needed, considered, and possible?

- Was a position with cover possible?

- Was there too much compression of space?

- Was a layered-less-lethal response possible or even discussed?

- Other than the 40-mm, what tools did officers have and were they reasonable under the
circumstances (e.g., was oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray accessible, and even it was,
would it have been appropriate in the circumstance)?

- What was the back-up plan?

- Was a supervisor on-scene and sufficiently engaged with the answers to the questions
above?

- What happened after an officer(s) pointed a weapon(s) at the subject? Did he change?

- How can we learn from the answers to all these questions?

Engaging in this type of thoughtful process can transform the way that agencies deal with
these incidents. It is not about blame and looking back; it’s about change and looking forward.
Recommendation: CPD should undertake a process that brings, minimally,
supervisors together to consider the answers to questions such as those listed above.

60
https://www.policeforum.org/trending4Feb23
61
These questions are all taken from ICAT principles.

After-Incident Assessments - 45
The process must be forward-focused and should use the tragic incident to see if
lessons can be learned to guide the future.

After-Incident Assessments - 46
 VIII. Conclusion
Mr. Faisal’s death was tragic. The fact that fatal, officer-involved incidents happen so rarely -
once in more than twenty years - in a city the size of Cambridge, is a testament to the training
and protocols already in place at the Cambridge Police Department. This is the second report
PERF prepared for Cambridge and CPD in the wake of Mr. Faisal’s death (see first report in
APPENDIX). That the city and its police department would use a tragedy to improve an already
strong department is laudable.

CPD does many things very well, including its prioritization of de-escalation. Throughout this
report, we have noted places where CPD can enhance its response to people experiencing some
form of mental crisis by enhancing it training (which by necessity involves updating its policies),
considering additional less-lethal equipment options (and whether they are appropriate for the
Cambridge community), investigating a co-response model, and implementing after-incident
assessment practices.

PERF could not examine the January 4, 2023, incident immediately, because of the inquest-
related sequestration order; once the inquest was complete, PERF completely reviewed the
facts and circumstances of the tragic incident. But we were engaged with CPD from the
beginning and are therefore aware the CPD has begun to implement some of the
recommendations in this report, such as agency-wide training on the new Suicide by Cop ICAT
module and retrofitting vehicles to carry 40 mm launchers. Many more recommendations are
presented in this report, which CPD should seriously consider.

CPD has a long history as a forward-thinking, trauma-informed, state of the art police
department; its members are already trained far more than those of other police departments
around the state of Massachusetts and the country. As a result of the recommendations in our
first report, CPD is poised to become the first department in the Commonwealth to release
officers’ names in the wake of critical incidents. Implementing the recommendations contained
in this report will only enhance CPD’s reputation as an agency that seeks best practices to
remain a model of excellence in policing.

47 - Conclusion
APPENDIX
 Analysis of Law and Policy Affecting the
Cambridge Police Department’s
Release of Involved Officers’ Names
After Critical Incidents

July 2023

Police Executive Research Forum

1120 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 930
Washington, DC 20036
Overview
At the direc�on of the Cambridge Police Commissioner, consistent with a Policy Order of
the Cambridge City Council, PERF examined the Cambridge Police Department’s (CPD) decision
to withhold the involved officer’s name from the public in the wake of the fatal shoo�ng of Arif
Sayed Faisal on January 4, 2023. PERF was also asked to make policy recommenda�ons to CPD
for releasing involved officers’ names moving forward. CPD welcomed and was fully engaged in
the process.
A�er examining the applicable law, professional rules, and CPD policy, PERF concludes:
- CPD could have — legally and ethically — released the officer’s name during the
weeks a�er the shoo�ng.
- Its decision not to do so was based on CPD’s past prac�ces, the statewide prac�ces
of law enforcement agencies in Massachusets, and the absence of a relevant CPD
policy.
- CPD’s ability to release the officer’s name changed when the judge overseeing the
inquest into the mater ordered that no informa�on could be shared publicly un�l
the inquest is complete; from that point on, CPD could no longer provide the
officer’s name (or any other informa�on) to the public.
Below, PERF presents the relevant procedural history of this incident, analyzes various
ra�onales law enforcement agencies some�mes cite for withholding an involved officer’s name
from the public and offers policy guidance moving forward.

Background
As of the date of this report, an inquest into the circumstances of the fatal shoo�ng has
not yet concluded; PERF will not receive police reports about the incident un�l the inquest is
complete. Therefore, the basic facts men�oned in this report are based on consistent news
accounts.
On January 4, 2023, a CPD officer shot and killed Arif Sayed Faisal, a 20-year-old college
student experiencing an apparent mental-health-related issue. The shoo�ng took place a�er
Mr. Faisal — who had reportedly jumped through a glass window and was cu�ng himself —
refused to drop a long knife and advanced toward officers. 1 That incident sparked unrest and
demands for transparency by community members. 2
Two factors unique to the city of Cambridge (“the city”) and its police department
significantly affected the public response to the incident. First, CPD does not have a body-worn

1
See e.g., htps://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/man-armed-machete-shot-killed-cambridge-police-officer/;
htps://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/man-with-machete-prompts-police-response-in-cambridge/2936142/
2
See e.g., htps://www.thecrimson.com/ar�cle/2023/2/3/sayed-faisal-cover/
2
camera (BWC) program, so there was no video of the incident to release to the public.3 It
appears that the current and previous CPD Commissioners, as well as the CPD union and some
Cambridge city councilors, have supported implemen�ng a BWC program for years, but there
was resistance from others in city government as well as some city residents. 4 This tragic
incident has reinvigorated the push for BWCs, and CPD recently took the proac�ve step of
sending a member of its execu�ve staff to a na�onal mee�ng focused on BWC best prac�ces.5
The other factor complica�ng CPD’s response to the incident – and leading to public
frustra�on - reflects that this was the first officer-involved CPD fatality in more than two
decades. Therefore, the general order governing CPD’s response had not been updated to
reflect some modern transparency trends. Specifically, CPD had no policy language about
whether and when to release the shoo�ng officer’s name.
Not having a policy on name release dis�nguishes CPD from other na�onal law
enforcement agencies that have implemented such a policy, 6 but the same cannot be said of
law enforcement in Massachusets. While it’s possible that other police agencies in the state
proac�vely release involved officers’ names within days of fatal cri�cal incidents, PERF was not
able to iden�fy any. This likely presents an opportunity for CPD to be a leader in the state.

CPD Ac�ons Concerning Release of Shoo�ng Officer’s Name

At the �me of the fatal shoo�ng, CPD’s policy governing officer-involved shoo�ngs had
not been updated since 2008, and its only reference to the release of an officer’s name occurred
in the context of how officers could guard against telephone harassment if their names were
somehow released to the public:
“In order to protect against crank or abusive calls, officers should be advised to
have phone calls answered by another person for several days if their names
are released to the public.” 7
Because CPD had no policy requiring the release of the officer’s name within a specified
�me frame - or prohibi�ng it - CPD was free from the incep�on to make its own choice about
whether to release the shoo�ng officer’s name. When CPD decided not to release the name in
the immediate a�ermath of the shoo�ng, the public was le� wondering why CPD did not
disclose informa�on that other agencies rou�nely release expedi�ously.
For instance, a 2016 PERF review of agencies in the Washington, DC area found that
even then, many departments had updated their policies to provide for the expedited release

3
htps://www.masslive.com/news/2023/01/cambridge-officials-have-always-wanted-body-cameras-for-police-so-
why-dont-they-s�ll-have-them.html
4
htps://myemail.constantcontact.com/It-s-Happening-in-Cambridge.html?soid=1114093348634&aid=k_LMjHl6CVE
5
htps://www.policeforum.org/index.php?op�on=com_jevents&task=icalevent.detail&evid=75
6
To be sure, CPD is a progressive agency, leading the .
7
No. 402, Post-Shooting Incident Guidelines, Sec�on (V)(B)(9). The Order’s apparent focus on landline telephone
harassment and its silence about poten�al abuse via social media are further evidence that it was outdated.
3
of an involved officer’s name a�er a cri�cal incident. These included: Anne Arundel County
(MD) Police Department – within 24 hours; Bal�more (MD) Police Department – within 48
hours; Howard County (MD) Police Department – “As quickly as possible”; Montgomery County
(MD) Police Department – within 24 hours; Prince George’s County (MD) Police Department –
within 24 hours; and Prince William County (VA) Police Department – within three to five days.
PERF determined that CPD withheld the officer’s name based on past prac�ce within the
department (concerning non-fatal incidents and other acts of poten�al misconduct), as well as
the current prac�ce of other Massachusets law enforcement agencies. Those factors, as well as
a belief that it was not permited to release the name without the express consent of the local
prosecutor, rather than a desire to keep informa�on hidden from the public, steered CPD’s
response in the weeks a�er the shoo�ng.
A�er the local prosecutor announced an inquest 8 (a prac�ce authorized in
Massachusets in which a judge inves�gates the circumstances of a death to determine
whether a crime took place), 9 CPD informed PERF that it was not releasing the officer’s name
because, according to the local prosecutor, the judge presiding over the inquest had issued an
order direc�ng that no en�ty could release informa�on about the incident un�l the inquest was
complete. 10
To be sure, the judge’s order precludes CPD from releasing the name un�l the inquest is
complete. But as noted above, nothing in law or policy automa�cally prevented CPD from
releasing the name before the judge issued that order.
On May 15, 2023, the Cambridge City Manager, consistent with a City Council Policy
Order, requested that CPD work with PERF to establish a policy on the release of the names of
officers involved in any use of force incident resul�ng in injury or death, “including
retroac�vely.” 11

Ra�onales for Withholding Names

To prevent confusion about these issues as CPD develops its new policy, this sec�on
addresses some ra�onales law enforcement agencies cite when withholding officers’ names
from the public. Going forward, CPD should begin with the presump�on that it will release the
officer’s name within a specific period of �me, and then though�ully consider whether reasons
exist that would legi�mately and in good faith jus�fy withholding it from the public.

8
htps://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/02/23/metro/middlesex-da-announces-inquest-into-fatal-cambridge-police-
shoo�ng-college-student/
9
htps://www.mass.gov/doc/frequently-asked-ques�ons-about-inquests/download
10
PERF also reviewed a press release issued by the Middlesex District Atorney on February 23, 2023, indica�ng
that by order of the Court, no further details would be provided about the incident un�l the inquest process had
been completed.
11
City of Cambridge Calendar Item #2, May 22, 2023.
4
 Public Records Law Exemp�ons
Every state including Massachusets, 12 as well as the federal government, has a public-
records-access law (i.e., freedom of informa�on or sunshine law). Public access laws stand for
the principle that records of public en��es, including police agencies, are assumed to be
available to the public unless a specific exemp�on exists that allows the record to be wholly or
par�ally withheld.13 Absent such an exemption, the records, and information contained in them
(such as an officer’s name) are public.
In terms of police agencies and officer-involved shoo�ngs, proac�vely releasing
informa�on that the public would be en�tled to know by virtue of the state’s public access
law is an act of good faith that reinforces public trust. But as noted above, there are
exemp�ons to public access and agencies generally invoke one of the following to avoid
releasing an officer’s name a�er an officer-involved shoo�ng.
i. Pending Inves�ga�on
Public records laws generally contain some type of “pending inves�ga�on” exemp�on.
However, the fact that a mater is pending inves�ga�on, by itself, does not jus�fy the blanket
denial of all informa�on about the incident un�l the underlying inves�ga�on is complete.
Instead, most agencies can legi�mately withhold informa�on about a pending inves�ga�on only
if its release would interfere with the pending inves�ga�on itself or law enforcement’s ability to
func�on in general.
The Massachusets Public Record Law is no different. Inves�gatory materials are defined
as materials:
“… compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other inves�gatory
officials the disclosure of which … would probably so prejudice the possibility of
effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public
interest.” 14
According to the Massachusets Supreme Court, police officers occupy posi�ons of “special
public trust” that favor transparency of public records about them. 15 It would therefore be a
heavy burden to show that releasing an officer’s name, standing alone, would run so counter to
public interest that withholding it would be jus�fied by the Public Records Law.

12
Massachusets Public Records Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 4 § 7(26) et. seq.
13
Glavin, W.F., Secretary of the Commonwealth, Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law (2020) SB101-
Public-Records-Law-Guide.pdf (frcog.org)
14
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 4 § 7(26)(f) (emphasis added)
15
See Bos. Globe Media Partners, LLC v. Department of Criminal Justice Info. Servs., 484 Mass. 279 (2020).
5
 Absent a good-faith reason why releasing an officer’s name would prejudice CPD’s ability
to conduct its work effec�vely, CPD should release involved officers’ names proac�vely moving
forward. (See the “Policy Recommenda�ons” sec�on below for specifics.)
ii. Safety of the Officer
The Massachusets Public Records Law, like other public access laws, also contains an
exemp�on allowing agencies to withhold records (and informa�on within them) if release
would endanger or threaten a person or persons’ safety. 16 A�er cri�cal incidents, police
agencies have occasionally withheld officers’ names on this basis as well.
PERF does not minimize the importance of officer safety, especially in the highly charged
environment that can follow cri�cal incidents. But blanket denials based on safety, with no
corresponding threat assessment, are hollow. As detailed below in the Policy
Recommenda�ons, PERF believes that moving forward, CPD should engage in safety
assessments a�er cri�cal incidents and, in the absence of specific threats that would jus�fy
withholding the names, release them within a pre-determined �me frame, a�er informing the
officer and implemen�ng safety provisions.
In reviewing these Public Records Law exemp�ons, PERF does not suggest that in any
given case, these or other exemp�ons could not be validly invoked to withhold an officer’s
name or other informa�on. The point, rather, is that invoking an exemp�on as a blanket
ra�onale to avoid public release, without corresponding facts that support that ac�on, runs
counter to principles of transparency and can erode public trust.
Rules of Professional Conduct
At some point prior to the judge’s order, CPD advised PERF of its belief that it could not
release the officer’s name according to the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct. Those
rules govern atorney conduct but can affect law enforcement indirectly. Specifically, Rule
3.8(f)(2) requires that prosecutors “take reasonable steps to prevent … law enforcement
personnel” from making statements that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making. But
again, in this case, the release of the officer’s name would not have violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
According to Rule 3.8, prosecutors (and members of law enforcement working with
them) shall refrain from making statements “that have a substan�al likelihood of heightening
public condemna�on of the accused” or “materially prejudicing” a proceeding. 17 In other
words, it is incumbent on the prosecutor and law enforcement to refrain from making
statements that would be expected to prejudice public opinion against a person accused of a
crime or, presumably, a person against whom a criminal charge is possible.

16
Massachusets Public Records Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 4 § 7(26)(n).
17
See also Mass.R.Prof.C. 3.6(a)
6
 These rules are no different from those promulgated by President Obama’s Task Force on
21st-Century Policing, which called for increased transparency when law enforcement agencies
communicate with the public a�er cri�cal incidents. 18 The Task Force recommended that
informa�on be released early and updated regularly if it could be done “without compromising
the integrity of the inves�ga�on or anyone’s rights.”
Unless CPD can, in good faith, a�er consulta�on with the prosecutor, ar�culate why
releasing the name of the officer in a cri�cal incident would prejudice public opinion such that
the officer’s rights are affected, or show that release of the name would credibly compromise
the inves�ga�on, PERF recommends that the agency proac�vely release it going forward.
In this case, the public knew early on that an officer fired a weapon and killed a man. It is
difficult to imagine how replacing “an officer” with the officer’s name might have prejudiced the
outcome of the inves�ga�on.
The Commonwealth’s Right of Privacy Statute
Massachusets law provides, “A person shall have a right against unreasonable,
substan�al or serious interference with [that person’s] privacy.” 19 Viola�on of the statute occurs
when “facts of a highly personal or in�mate nature” are disclosed about a person, “with no
legi�mate reason for doing so.” 20
Here, the informa�on that the CPD is considering releasing about officers, following
cri�cal incidents, is their names – not their addresses, private medical informa�on, or any
personal or in�mate details about their lives. As noted above, the Massachusets Supreme
Court has held that police officers occupy posi�ons of trust that lean in favor of transparency
regarding their records. 21 And, far from having no legi�mate interest in releasing the name, CPD
and the city have a very compelling reason to do so – being transparent with the public they
serve.
Accordingly, it does not appear that Massachusets’s Privacy Statute provides a
jus�fica�on to automa�cally withhold an officer’s name from the public a�er a cri�cal incident.
Summary
The statutes and rules highlighted above allow agencies to delay the release of
informa�on, or withhold it altogether, under certain circumstances; they should not be used as
blanket jus�fica�ons to keep informa�on from the public. As detailed below, PERF recommends
that CPD make determina�ons about whether to release informa�on - such as the officer’s

18
Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (May 2015),
htps://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf.
19
Mass. Gen. Laws c. 214 § 1B.
20
Alexander v. Clarke, 0905456H (Mass. Super. Mass. Super May3, 2011).
21
Bos. Globe v. Department of Criminal Justice, supra.
7
name in a cri�cal incident – on a case-by-case basis, and a�er though�ul delibera�on, with a
presump�on that the informa�on will be made public.

Policy Recommenda�ons
The new cri�cal incident policy that CPD is dra�ing will greatly assist the agency, the
public, and officers, by establishing consistent �melines and clear expecta�ons. The policy
should specify that the release of informa�on such as an officer’s name, will take place within
prescribed �meframes — subject to relevant legal and professional standards, including the
Massachusets Public Records Law and Massachusets Rules of Professional Conduct.
PERF recommends that the Cambridge Police Commissioner, in consulta�on with
appropriate staff and the prosecu�ng authority, should assume that certain informa�on will be
released to the public unless a legi�mate, good-faith reason exists to withhold it. PERF
recommends that CPD’s new policy include language capturing the principles below:
1. Unless a specific, ar�culable, good-faith reason exists not to do so, within 24-36
hours of an officer-involved cri�cal incident CPD should publicly disclose:
- Preliminary facts about the incident, including, at a minimum, where and when
it took place and the number of people injured or deceased.
- Preliminary informa�on about the officer(s) involved, such as length of �me as
an officer and length of �me with CPD (if the officer transferred from another
agency), rank, assignment, prior uses of force, and status (e.g., modified
assignment or leave pending the inves�ga�ve outcome.)
- An es�mated �me frame for how and when further informa�on will be
released, including the officer’s name.
• CPD policy should specify that the agency will begin its threat assessment
to determine whether a credible risk to officer safety exists during this
�me.
• CPD must consider and begin to address officer wellness during this �me
(see #2 below).

The above principles balance the public’s desire for informa�on with the CPD’s need
to consult with staff and the prosecu�ng authority to iden�fy whether any genuine
issues exist that conflict with the presump�on of informa�on release. They also
present a �meframe within which CPD must begin its threat assessment and provide
the public and the involved officer with its good-faith expecta�on about when the
name will be (presump�vely) released.

2. CPD should, within two to five days of an officer-involved cri�cal incident, publicly
disclose the name of the involved officer(s) unless circumstances exist that jus�fy
not releasing that informa�on.

8
 - This two-to-five-day period allows CPD to conduct a meaningful threat
assessment.
- If the assessment reveals no credible threat to safety, CPD should release the
name within two days. If there are genuine threat indicators, the assessment
should con�nue. And if, a�er five days, a credible risk persists, the officer’s name
may be legi�mately withheld for as long as the risk remains. CPD should,
however, communicate why it is withholding the name from the public. And if
the threat abates, the name should be released.
- If circumstances other than officer safety jus�fy withholding the officer’s name
(and this will generally be rare) CPD should broadly communicate that to the
public (e.g., “Release would impede CPD’s ability to conduct this [or other]
inves�ga�on(s).”). CPD should also be prepared to defend that jus�fica�on a�er
the inves�ga�on is complete.
- Before an officer’s name is released publicly, CPD must ensure that the involved
officer has been no�fied and given access to departmental services. These
include mental health assistance, peer support, and a full explana�on of the
officer’s rights.

Conclusion
The issue of whether and when CPD should have released the involved officer’s name in
this fatal incident ul�mately stemmed from the lack of a clear protocol and will be mi�gated
once CPD updates its policy.
Notwithstanding the lack of policy, if, a�er examining the issues outlined above, CPD had
chosen to release the officer’s name, it could have legi�mately done so — un�l the judge issued
the order direc�ng that no informa�on could be shared un�l the inquest was complete. As of
this wri�ng, the inquest is con�nuing.
CPD is an agency that has, over �me, demonstrated leadership in several key areas of
reform, including juvenile diversion programs, 22 and trauma-informed police prac�ces.23 CPD
now appears poised to lead the state of Massachusets in developing a policy to release officers’
names a�er cri�cal incidents.

22
htps://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/policedepartment/Safety%20Net%20Manual%20FINAL.pdf
23
htps://www.cambridgema.gov/-
/media/Files/policedepartment/SpecialReports/guideforatraumainformedlawenforcemen�ni�a�ve.pdf
9