A Palo Alto police officer and a police sergeant were disciplined last year after an incident in which the officer arrested two people for obstruction of justice in a laundromat parking lot, according to the latest report from the city's independent police auditor, OIR Group.

The episode is among five incidents covered in the biannual report, which was prepared by police auditors Michael Gennaco and Stephen Connolly and covers the first half of 2017. These include one Taser deployment, which the auditors deemed to be justified, and four investigations into allegations of officer misconduct.

In the case of the laundromat arrests, the investigation was triggered not by complaints by the arrested parties, but by a police lieutenant who reviewed the video of the incident the morning after it happened and found problems with both the arrest and the sergeant's delay in notifying superiors about it, according to the report.

The incident reportedly began after one person in a larger group was detained and arrested for public drunkenness, prompting other people to question the two officers at the scene. According to the report, this created a certain amount of "low-level contention," prompting the backup officer to shine a spotlight from his patrol car in the face of one of the suspect's friends in an effort to move him away, the report states.

The encounter reportedly got tenser when one of the friends asked the officer for his badge number and the officer said no, the report states. Observers then began taking photos and videos of the patrol vehicle with their cellphones, according to the report.

The situation further escalated after the first officer left the scene, with the suspect, and the officer tried to do the same. According to the report, he "quickly moved toward his own car, cautioning the observers to get out of his path as they sought to use their phones to record or photograph the license plate."

"Soon after he (the officer) began to pull forward, he stopped abruptly, left his vehicle, and shoved one of the men who was closest to his car," the report states. "He then called for 'code three' (emergency) backup and ended up arresting two of the subjects for obstructing him in the performance of his duties."

The criminal charges against the two people were ultimately dropped after the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office reviewed them and concluded that their interference with the officer was "minimal at best." The auditors concurred with this conclusion, even as they noted that the group of people was "unhappy about the drunkenness arrest" and that their presence "undoubtedly created an undercurrent of tension that complicated the situation for the officers."

The audit acknowledged that some of the friends of the arrested man did indeed get in the path of the car. This, however, was "brief and far from menacing," the report states, particularly given that it was predicated partially on the officer's refusal to provide identification, as required by policy.

After the incident, the department reportedly hired an outside investigator to look into the officer's behavior. The investigation determined that he had violated several department policies, according to the report.

"Per the investigation, the officer's choice not to comply with the request for his badge number, his disrespectful commentary and demeanor, and the overreaction to the mild provocation and 'threat' posed by the friends of the drunken arrestee all constituted violations warranting discipline," the report states.

The review of the case also faulted the sergeant who reviewed and approved the officer's report (after initially requesting and obtaining more details). According to the audit, the sergeant looked at the in-car video of the incident as one of his last activities at the end of his shift. Though he allegedly had some concerns about the behavior, he decided to wait until the following morning before re-examining the video, the audit states.

By the following morning, however, the supervising lieutenant arrived at work, noted the arrest and, seeking to learn more, watched the video himself. The audit states that the lieutenant had concerns about the officer's conduct, the legitimacy of the arrest and the sergeant's failure to notify him promptly about the arrest, despite instructions to do so in these types of situation.

The lieutenant contacted his own supervisor, who launched the probe by the outside investigator. Ultimately, the Police Department determined that the sergeant violated a policy about prompt notification.

The report from the auditors notes that while the sergeant clearly had qualms about the incident, he was "arguably slow in recognizing the significance of the video evidence." The auditors supported the department's decision to hold the sergeant accountable for failing to promptly notify the lieutenant. Sustaining the investigation's finding that the sergeant violated policy was a "reasonable and proportionate response," the audit states.

Related content:

• Audit: Officer used excessive force against juvenile