Independent Auditor Finds Pasadena Police Uses of Force Complied With Policy

An independent review of the Pasadena Police Department’s most serious uses of force found that officers acted within department policy in all cases examined, while also identifying areas where procedures, training and oversight could be strengthened.

The findings were presented to the city’s Community Police Oversight Commission (CPOC) “categorical” use-of-force incidents.

The review, conducted by the OIR Group, evaluated how the Pasadena Police Department investigated and assessed its own use-of-force incidents and whether those incidents complied with departmental policy and training standards.

Auditor Teresa Magula examined 15 completed cases involving categorical uses of force that were reviewed and closed by the department between June 1, 2024, and June 30, 2025.

Categorical uses of force are considered the most serious types of police force and automatically require a formal internal review. They include incidents involving Tasers, police canine bites, chemical agents such as pepper spray, physical strikes and other actions that may result in injury or unconsciousness.

During the period studied, Pasadena police reported 23 categorical force incidents, though only the 15 that had completed the department’s internal review process were included in the auditor’s analysis.

According to the report, the police department determined that each of the 15 incidents complied with department policy, and the independent auditor’s review did not dispute those findings.

“All incidents were found to be ‘In Policy’ by the Department,” the report states, noting that several cases still resulted in training directives or recommendations intended to improve future responses.

Examples of the cases reviewed included officers deploying Tasers against combative suspects, a police canine used to apprehend a burglary suspect after warnings were issued, and pepper spray used when a suspect kicked officers during an encounter.

In one case summarized in the report, officers responded to a mental health call involving an agitated individual who refused commands and displayed erratic behavior. A Taser was deployed to allow officers to detain the person safely. The incident was ultimately deemed consistent with department policy.

Although the auditor concluded that the department’s determinations were appropriate, the report highlighted several strengths and potential improvements in the department’s oversight process.

Among the strengths cited was the department’s multi-layered review system, which involves supervisors, command staff and specialized review units evaluating incidents for compliance, tactical decision-making and potential policy issues.

The auditor also credited the department’s defensive tactics training programs and internal efforts to identify lessons learned from incidents.

At the same time, the report recommended several changes aimed at improving transparency and accountability.

One recommendation calls for more consistent documentation and tracking of training directives and corrective actions that arise from use-of-force reviews.

The auditor also recommended expanding the department’s review process to include lower-level uses of force that may not currently trigger categorical review but could reveal patterns or training needs.

The report also encourages improved compliance monitoring for body-worn camera policies and calls for clearer definitions of de-escalation techniques in department policy so that they align with modern policing standards.

In addition, auditors suggested that Pasadena police evaluate equipment use and training related to tools such as the WRAP restraint device and review tactical approaches during incidents involving people experiencing mental health crises.

By reviewing individual cases, the independent auditor said the goal is to provide an external perspective on how police incidents are investigated internally and to ensure the department’s policies and practices remain aligned with best practices.

The report described the audit as both a “substantive check on officer compliance with policy” and an evaluation of how department leadership scrutinizes and learns from use-of-force incidents.