When two Palo Alto police officers attempted to arrest a drunk woman at a restaurant, they noted in their report that they heard a loud \u201cpop\u201d sound after pushing the woman against the wall.<\/p>\n
One of the officers told the woman: \u201cI know it hurts because you are moving so much.\u201d<\/p>\n
Only after they handcuffed her and took her to the hospital did they realize the woman had broken a bone in her upper arm.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn this case, the officers were immediately aware that the woman had been injured as the officers continued to complete the handcuff process,\u201d the city\u2019s independent police auditor wrote in a\u00a0semiannual report<\/a>\u00a0released earlier this month. \u201cYet the officers completed the handcuffing even though the woman had been injured, and then blamed her for the pain that she subsequently suffered.\u201d<\/p>\n The OIR Group<\/a> is a third-party contractor that completes independent reviews of allegations of officer misconduct and police use-of-force<\/a>, including cases where officers point a firearm at an individual. The most recent report covered administrative investigations that were complete as of Nov. 30, 2025. Four of the five use-of-force cases occurred prior to June 1, 2025, according to a\u00a0separate memo<\/a>\u00a0from Police Chief James Reifschneider.<\/p>\n The audit concluded that in all five reviewed cases, the use of force by officers was consistent with internal policy. But in several instances where officers used force or pointed a firearm, the officer-worn body cameras were improperly deployed or not turned on at all.<\/p>\n In one instance where police responded to an in-progress car burglary, an officer pointed his gun at one of the suspects while giving commands. The suspect was handcuffed and arrested without incident, according to the audit report, but one of the officers failed to turn on their body camera and was \u201ccounseled appropriately.\u201d<\/p>\n During another burglary in which the suspects fled in a car, the officer pointing the gun at the driver did not activate the body camera. A supervising officer was standing on the passenger side of the vehicle, which the audit found presented a crossfire danger.<\/p>\n The audit found the body camera issues to be a \u201crecurring problem,\u201d but noted that they did not appear intentional, \u201cnor were they especially costly in these incidents as \u2018lost evidence\u2019 (given the presence of other officers and car cameras that captured relevant events).\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cStill the prevalence \u2014 and persistence \u2014 of this particular shortcoming clearly merits ongoing attention from the Department,\u201d the report states.<\/p>\n In\u00a0its response to the audit<\/a>, the Palo Alto Police Department agreed that proper recording protocol was \u201can ongoing point of emphasis\u201d for officers in 2026.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Department will continue to hold personnel accountable as appropriate for policy noncompliance in this area,\u201d Reifschneider wrote.<\/p>\n One use-of-force case involved not an officer but a police K-9 unit. Police were attempting to arrest a suspect in a homophobic hate crime, who was standing in the outdoor stairwell of an apartment building with officers blocking the exit below.<\/p>\n At first, the officers brought out the K-9 in the hope that the threat of a dog bite would encourage him to surrender to arrest. When this did not work, an officer sent the dog up the stairwell and the dog bit the suspect\u2019s leg for more than 30 seconds, resulting in several puncture wounds and lacerations. Only after the officers had successfully handcuffed the suspect did they call off the dog.<\/p>\n The audit found the use of K-9 force appropriate in this instance, but recommended the department evaluate different approaches in the future.<\/p>\n \u201cMinimizing the \u2018bite time\u2019 should be a priority that we hope PAPD will continue to emphasize in training and future deployments,\u201d the report states.<\/p>\n The audit report also covered other misconduct allegations against officers, including one instance based on previous reporting from Palo Alto Weekly.<\/p>\n During the verdict reading of the retrial of Bulos Zumot, the Palo Alto man previously convicted of killing his girlfriend and setting their shared cottage on fire in 2009, several members of the public and police department were present on a video broadcast from inside the courtroom.<\/p>\n Virtual attendees were instructed to keep their cameras and microphones off during the proceedings, but Lt. Kara Apple\u2019s microphone was not muted. When the guilty verdict was read, she shouted, \u201cScrew that guy!\u201d and prompted the courtroom to cut the broadcast. A member of the public later contacted the independent police auditor to issue a complaint following a report of the incident<\/a>.<\/p>\n While the audit does not name Apple, or any other officers throughout the report, it noted the courtroom disruption \u201creflected poorly on PAPD.\u201d According to the audit, the officer apologized to an executive manager within hours of the event and shared the article about it.<\/p>\n \u201cThough the complaint from the public was an overlapping impetus, it seemed clear that PAPD leadership had already recognized the ways in which the incident merited formal review and accountability,\u201d the audit states.<\/p>\n