PRP efforts continue to improve compliance in multiple areas. A review of documents in the Phase I Analysis shows some noteworthy improvement in SARP internal investigations procedures and methodology. 2 It is important to mention that the most promising cases reviewed were among the most recently concluded SARP investigations. Older cases in the sample were mostly lacking these improvements. Overall, the Monitor's Office performed in-depth analysis of each case from receipt of the complaint to its final internal disposition at the Office of the Police Superintendent.
While PRP's partial and non-compliant cases effectively illustrate some of the latest advancements, the Monitor's Office believes that these recently improved cases are a result of SARP policy and pending rule changes, which have been discussed multiple times at length with the Civilian Complaints, Internal Investigations, and Discipline Working Group.
None of these proposed rule changes were forwarded to the Monitor's Office for review during this reporting period or the previous one. While a few updates have been shared with the Monitor's Office informally during meetings and working group discussions, the Monitor's Office has been unable to review the proposed changes in their entirety. Thus, the Monitor's Office lacks the empirical evidence necessary to assess for improved compliance. To continue making progress in an efficient manner, PRP policies and rules changes must be reviewed by the Monitor's Office prior to adoption, publication, or presentation of any training to PRP members based upon these new rules or policies.
The Monitor's Office reviewed 44 SARP investigations for a full-spectrum review and analysis of the entire case, beginning from actual receipt of the complaint to its ultimate internal investigative and internally adjudicated resolution. 3 This qualitative review and analysis looked at the overall internal investigative quality, the investigative methodology and tactics used in the investigation, the thoroughness of the investigation, whether the investigator's/fact-finder's conclusion relied upon evidence, and whether the investigator or fact-finder's ultimate conclusion was supported by the “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof, which is mandated by the Agreement. 4
This most recent sample of cases indicated some level of improvement in overall SARP investigative practices among certain, though not all, SARP members. Of the 44 cases analyzed by the Monitor's Office, 48% were found in substantial compliance, 43% were found in partial compliance, and 9% were found in non-compliance.
With the level of partial and non-compliance as it is presently – in many cases owing to insufficient and/or untimely performance of its key human resource – its SARP investigators, the Monitor's Office continues to call into question the sufficiency of and the division of labor within SARP. Multiple members have described being severely overtasked with administrative caseloads, in some cases juggling 20 or more active cases at a time. Overtasked personnel in any profession are more prone to oversights or errors than those who have a manageable workload.
PRP continues to concede that it does not conduct simultaneous administrative investigations of alleged criminal behavior by officers - despite the fact that the Agreement clearly requires simultaneous investigations to be performed. 5 While SARP leadership continues to promise that they will begin conducting concurrent investigations upon the issuance of a modified GO, the Monitor's Office has yet to see a copy of this proposed GO. 6
As is the case in all CMRs, the Monitor's Office has interviewed various SARP members who actually assign, conduct, supervise, oversee, direct, and adjudge internal police investigations. Presently, the Monitor's Office has interviewed every identified SARP investigator at least once, and in most cases two or three times over the course of the past five years. The Monitor's Office has a similar record of comprehensive interviews of SEAQA and the Office of the Legal Advisor (OAL) – both responsible for adjudication/verification of complaints in addition to quality assurance.
One of the most concerning areas involves the workload of SARP investigators, especially administrative investigators, many of whom have reported active caseloads in the double digits. This is quite worrisome considering the 90/90-day rule for completion of a SARP administrative investigation. The Monitor's Office sees PRP struggling to keep the administrative timeframe mandated by the Agreement for both investigations and subsequent adjudications. The Monitor's Office continues to see evidence of multiple SARP internal administrative investigations that have exceeded the 180 (90+90) day rule for completion. 7 PRP SEAQA and OAL seem incapable of achieving substantial compliance given current staffing, as a significant number of investigations still lack adjudication and notification of all parties within the 30-day limit post-investigation period.
SARP administrative case workload continues to be spread across the island with some investigators juggling over 20 active and open cases (each with its own 90 + 90-day timeline). The Monitor's Office has seen countless administrative investigations originating in the San Juan Metropolitan area assigned across the island, including to its most remote western points located a considerable drive from San Juan. The evidence shows that the majority of SARP cases originate in large population centers, including San Juan, Bayamon, and Carolina, with fewer cases originating in Ponce, Mayaguez, and Aguadilla. Meanwhile, in the parts of the island that generate the most internal complaints, local SARP investigators are understaffed. The Monitor's Office recommends that SARP begin recruiting additional administrative investigators to handle the volume of cases in Bayamon, Carolina, and San Juan. Those who apply for this convocatoria must be told that they will be assigned to one of those three SARP delegations for the foreseeable future and that a transfer to another SARP area will not be considered for at least three years. This will help ensure that investigators are assigned to work in areas based on where they are desperately needed - not based upon where the investigator prefers to work. 8
The Monitor's Office is mindful that some administrative investigations should be assigned outside the area of occurrence to avoid a potential conflict of interest. Six years of review reveals that SARP “ethical dilemma” assignments are the exception, and not the rule. PRP efforts to balance case distributions and SARP workloads across the island have effectively exposed the core problem – a number of administrative investigators are assigned to areas remote from San Juan where far fewer complaints are received. When these underused investigators are assigned to investigate cases located on the other side of the island, they must commute for hours in traffic in a fleet that is just now beginning to show some level of sufficiency and roadworthiness. Investigators from the west often report being assigned cases located far from their assignment, usually in the Metropolitan area. These investigations frequently involve in-person interviews of civilians in other parts of the island, securing transportation to these locations, and then driving back and forth from these sites during the day, often in heavy traffic conditions. 9 Some of these investigators may be reassigned to areas of the highest SARP reporting, such as Carolina, Bayamon, San Juan, or Caguas. If a reassigned investigator refuses the assignment, then SARP must find suitable replacements to assign to the highest-traffic areas.
Most SARP investigators interviewed noted the improved allocation of needed resources, with the glaring exception of human resources. The majority of SARP investigators now report that an adequate fleet of safer, roadworthy vehicles have been assigned to meet their needs.
Due to the adverse impact of assigning metropolitan administrative cases to investigators located on the west of the island, the Monitor's Office strongly recommends that SARP commanders consider the assigned investigators' travel time to the location, the sufficiency and safety of that person's transportation, the estimated amount of time to be spent away from their assigned area, as well as the number and type of cases presently assigned to that officer before case assignment.
In the absence of an ethical conflict or appearance thereof, assigning a case located hours away from an investigator who is presently carrying a full caseload of 12 or more SARP cases is highly imprudent and counterproductive to increased compliance.
Lastly, it is understood by all that Internal Affairs is the SARP unit responsible for conducting sensitive, clandestine criminal investigations into allegations of criminal misconduct against a PRP member. Presently, as has been reported in every CMR since the beginning of the monitoring phase six years ago, Internal Affairs delegations continue to operate from police areas where everyone knows who their investigators are and what official and private vehicles they operate. PRP will fail to advance in compliance for this area until Internal Affairs Units are relocated into adequate facilities not located within or in proximity to active police installations.
Overall, the Commonwealth's compliance with the 46 paragraphs assessed during this reporting period within Civilian Complaints, Internal Investigations, and Discipline reflects some progressive levels of compliance with what was noted in previous CMRs. In CMR-12, 54% of paragraphs (25 paragraphs) were assessed as partially compliant and 11% (5 paragraphs) were assessed as substantially compliant, in comparison to the current reporting period, where 48% of paragraphs (22 paragraphs) were found to be partially compliant and 15% (7 paragraphs) were found to be substantially compliant.
2 The most conspicuous improvement has been the mention of the accused officer's historial by some SARP investigators, as well as the latest case analyses performed by SEAQA. While this is nowhere near a universal practice, multiple cases containing some basic analyses were found in the most recent sample of case files. Most of these analyses of prior conduct were merely quantitative, and only a few looked beyond the mere number of incidents and outcomes. A few SARP investigators appear to be paying more attention to prior allegations against an officer that could offer some evidentiary value or insight into the case being actively investigated. The Monitor's Office expects to see more investigators using this data in the future."
3 Puerto Rico Organic Law places the authority upon administrative appeals for relief. There are multiple avenues of appeal for internal discipline, including CIPA and CASP, among others. However, none of these entities fall under the purview of the Agreement. Thus, for the purpose of compliance assessment, the Monitor's Office's analysis and review effectively conclude once the Superintendent has signed the case final resolution."
4 For the record, none of the 44 cases received in the sample involved simultaneous criminal and administrative investigations of PRP members, which are obligatory under the Agreement. PRP members, including the Civilian Complaints, Internal Investigations, and Discipline Working Group as well as SARP's top commanders have all informed the Monitor's Office that this is not the current practice. The Monitor's Office therefore concludes investigation as mandated by the Agreement."
5 See Paragraph 173 of the Agreement."
6 Since September 2024 the Monitor's Office has been informed on multiple occasions by the Civilian Complaints, Internal Investigations, and Discipline Working Group and SARP Command that PRP is working on rules/procedural changes that affect a number of critical areas in SARP that fall under the Agreement, including simultaneous administrative investigations, digital recording of SARP interviews, the creation of accurate interview transcripts, and creating internal guidance to prevent additional misuses of Garrity. The Monitor's Office requested a copy of all pending rule changes associated with this section of the Agreement to prevent a non-compliant proposed policy from being enacted, which would require further modification. As of this writing, the Monitor's Office has yet to see any of these "e;draft"e; policies."
7 Please refer to 2023-1680, 2024-1490, 2024-1471, 2024-1304, 2024-1370, and 2024-0677 for examples of SARP administrative investigations that took longer than 180 days to complete."
8 This raises the issue of SARP member recruitment and retention, which according to most SARP interviewees has been challenging. It should come as no surprise that, in most police agencies on the mainland, officers who perform these investigations are considered among the best and brightest - and are treated accordingly by the agency. In 2013 in Boston for example, a noteworthy portion of the command staff possessed working experience in conducting internal investigations involving Boston Police employees. Experience in conducting internal investigations often lends itself to making better field decisions as a supervisor or command decisions as a higher-ranking officer. To enhance recruitment efforts in places where SARP investigators are desperately needed, PRP should consider offering non-financial incentives in exchange for periods of service in SAR. Some examples from other agencies include flexible work schedules, consideration or extra points in promotional exams, travel stipends, and the ability to select one's next assignment upon conclusion of their honorable service to SARP. Most of these incentives are revenue neutral – without monetary cost to the agency."
9 From multiple SARP investigator interviews, the Monitor's Office learned that the predominant methodology is for the SARP investigator to travel to interview civilian complainants and witnesses. Conversely, sworn members are required to travel to where the SARP investigator is located for their individual interviews, which also wastes significant amounts of time and resources as these sworn officers crisscross the island unnecessarily.
Source
This executive summary provides an overview of the Monitor’s Office’s compliance assessment for this section of the Agreement and is an excerpt from Executive Summary for the Thirteenth Report of the Federal Monitor, December 2025, covering the period from April 2025 through September 2025 (CMR 13). For more information on the compliance assessment, please see the full report.