A report from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) which makes recommendations regarding the release of an officer’s name after a critical incident

Overview At the direction 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 shooting of Arif Sayed Faisal on January 4, 2023. PERF was also asked to make policy recommendations to CPD for releasing involved officers’ names moving forward. CPD welcomed and was fully engaged in the process.

After 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 after the shooting. Its decision not to do so was based on CPD’s past practices, the statewide practices of law enforcement agencies in Massachusetts, 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 matter ordered that no information could be shared publicly until the inquest is complete; from that point on, CPD could no longer provide the officer’s name (or any other information) to the public.

Below, PERF presents the relevant procedural history of this incident, analyzes various rationales law enforcement agencies sometimes 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 shooting has not yet concluded; PERF will not receive police reports about the incident until the inquest is complete. Therefore, the basic facts mentioned 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 shooting took place after Mr.

Faisal — who had reportedly jumped through a glass window and was cutting 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., https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/man-armed-machete-shot-killed-cambridge-police-officer/; https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/man-with-machete-prompts-police-response-in-cambridge/2936142/ 2 See e.g., https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/2/3/sayed-faisal-cover/

3

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 implementing 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 proactive step of sending a member of its executive staff to a national meeting focused on BWC best practices.5 The other factor complicating CPD’s response to the incident – and leading to public frustration - 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 shooting officer’s name. Not having a policy on name release distinguishes CPD from other national law enforcement agencies that have implemented such a policy,6 but the same cannot be said of law enforcement in Massachusetts.

While it’s possible that other police agencies in the state proactively release involved officers’ names within days of fatal critical incidents, PERF was not able to identify any. This likely presents an opportunity for CPD to be a leader in the state.

CPD Actions Concerning Release of Shooting Officer’s Name

At the time of the fatal shooting, CPD’s policy governing officer-involved shootings 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 time frame - or prohibiting it - CPD was free from the inception to make its own choice about whether to release the shooting officer’s name.

When CPD decided not to release the name in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the public was left wondering why CPD did not disclose information that other agencies routinely release expeditiously. 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 https://www.masslive.com/news/2023/01/cambridge-officials-have-always-wanted-body-cameras-for-police-so- why-dont-they-still-have-them.html 4 https://myemail.constantcontact.com/It-s-Happening-in-Cambridge.html?soid=1114093348634&aid=k_LMjHl6CVE 5 https://www.policeforum.org/index.php?option=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, Section (V)(B)(9). The Order’s apparent focus on landline telephone harassment and its silence about potential abuse via social media are further evidence that it was outdated.

4

of an involved officer’s name after a critical incident. These included: Anne Arundel County (MD) Police Department – within 24 hours; Baltimore (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 practice within the department (concerning non-fatal incidents and other acts of potential misconduct), as well as the current practice of other Massachusetts law enforcement agencies. Those factors, as well as a belief that it was not permitted to release the name without the express consent of the local prosecutor, rather than a desire to keep information hidden from the public, steered CPD’s response in the weeks after the shooting.