Taser Technology PART 2

TASER® TECHNOLOGY PART 2:

POLICY, TRAINING, AND

USE-OF-FORCE/REVIEW

CONSIDERATIONS

By Steve Ijames

Part one of this series outlined the historical, operational, and field use perspectives of electronic incapacitation technology. It also detailed specific operational concerns, and the need to set processes in motion which will address such concerns.

Part two focuses on policy development, training, and use-of-force reporting. Each is of vital importance to a successful program and should be viewed as the legs on the Electro Muscular Disruption (EMD) stool. Each supports the agency which rests upon it, and the entire program risks collapse should any one of them fail.

TASER Policy

“Policy” means many things to many people. Some officers might suggest policy doesn’t mean anything, at least not until something goes wrong and the lowest ranking person at the scene is accused of violating it. The practical reality is that policy should apply equally to everyone and be the general principle and method of guidance by which the agency and its officers make important decisions.

Merriam-Webster defines policy as:

“A definite course or method of action, selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions, to guide and determine present and future decisions.”1

Policy Development: Developing sound policy isn’t rocket science, but, to be successful, those tasked with doing so must “begin with the end in mind.”2 That “end” involves creating a document for the officer, agency, and community served by both which sets the moral high ground and defines fundamental concepts of “why we do what we do.” It should establish specific operational guidelines geared towards safe, effective, and appropriate use, and leave little doubt concerning when the tool should be used and, perhaps, more importantly, when it should not.

Policy or Training: Which comes first? The question is problematic in certain circles and can set police philosophy Web sites into chicken/egg dissertations for weeks on end. From a more practical standpoint, TASER training precedes policy development in almost every case. The process generally occurs as follows:

1. The agency develops an interest in acquiring TASER technology.

2. The agency sends an officer(s) to instructor training, to establish foundational knowledge in the technical aspects of the device and prepare for qualifying those who will carry the device in the field.

3. The agency requests sample policies from other departments and professional law enforcement orgnaizations (PERF, IACP, CALEA, etc.). Most departments are understandibly cautious about “plowing new ground.” Looking at what others are doing creates balance and is a good way to avoid getting too far out in front of contemporary thinking.

4. The agency tasks someone (often the manufacturer trained TASER instructor) with creating a draft policy for management review. The draft is submitted to the policy making body, accompanied by relevent background material addressing:

• The device itself;

• An historical operational perspective;

• Anticipated use, concerns, and benefits; and

• A summary and overview of “contemporary thinking” as defined by the outside agency information solicited and outlined above.

5. The policy makers review the draft and document comments and concerns in writing.

6. The comments and concerns are copied and circulated among the group.

7. The group then meets with the department head and author to address concerns, revisions, and to reach consensus on the final product.

Policy appropriately varies from agency to agency. Likewise, the sample below is reflective of both operational need and concerns raised about the electronic incapacitation tools being used today. Special emphasis (bold italics) has been placed on areas with an increased potential for generating questions concerning use. The previous article (Part I) gave specific examples in which TASER use and related justification has come under scrutiny. This raised concern among some officers who believe that such acknowledgements “expose law enforcement to civil liability.” The practical reality is acknowledging such things is the only way to ultimately protect law enforcement from civil liability. We don’t do that by ignoring problems which loom on the horizon. We do that by:

• Identifying potential problem areas;

• Acknowledging that they exist; and

• Setting policy and process in motion which proactively and professionally deal with them.

Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to provide officers with guidance and direction on the use of electromuscular disruption devices.

Policy: It is the policy of this agency to use only that level of force reasonably necessary to control (or otherwise subdue) violent (or potentially violent) individuals. Electromuscular disruption systems have been proven effective in furtherance of this policy, and are authorized for use in the following circumstances by trained personnel.

Use and Deployment

The TASER is a handheld, battery powered, conducted energy weapon. It is designed to override the sensory and motor functions of the central nervous system, and incapacitate violent (or potentially violent) subjects via uncontrolled contractions of the muscle tissue.

• Justification for Use3: The decision to use the device follows the same basic criteria as OC spray. As such, it is prohibited from being used:

1. In a punitive or coercive manner;

2. On a handcuffed/secured prisoner, absent overtly assaultive behavior which cannot be reasonably addressed in any less intrusive fashion;

3. On any suspect who does not demonstrate (by action, word, or deed) his (or her) intention to use violence or force against the officer or other person, or flight (in cases where officers would pursue on foot) to resist/avoid detention or arrest; and

4. In any environment where potentially flammable, volatile, or explosive material (including, but not limited to, such things as OC spray with volatile carriers, gasoline, natural gas, propane, etc.) is present.

• Employees who carry the device for operational deployment must have satisfactorily completed the agency approved, initial and in-service training programs.

• The device will only be used with power sources recommended by the manufacturer.

• The device shall be carried fully armed with the safety on – in preparation for use in appropriate circumstances.

• The device shall be carried by general duty patrol officers in an approved holster on the support side of the body. Those authorized to use the device who are not assigned to general duty patrol may use other department approved holsters and carry the weapon consistent with department training.

• Approved officers shall be issued a minimum of one spare cartridge and have it accessible in case of cartridge failure or the need for reapplication.

• The device shall be pointed at the ground in a safe direction with the safety on during loading, unloading, or other necessary handling outside an operational deployment.

• In preparation of firing operationally, the device shall be pointed in a safe direction, taken off safe, then aimed and fired in a manner consistent with department approved training.

• Upon firing the device, the officer shall energize the subject no longer than necessary to accomplish the legitimate operational objective. Special consideration shall be given to securing the subject under TASER power as soon as practical, when submission/compliance cannot be achieved through a minimal number of deployment cycles and verbal commands.

• Upon gaining compliance, the deploying officer shall do one of the following:

1. Remove the darts from the suspect in the field in the manner prescribed in training.

2. Cause the subject to be transferred to a medical facility for dart removal based on agency policy/preference, the circumstances presented, in consideration of the agency approved training program, or upon request of the subject.

• Photographs of the affected area shall be taken after the darts are removed in every circumstance.

• The device may also be used in certain circumstances as a “drive stun-touch type” device. The cartridge is removed and the unit is pressed firmly onto an appropriate area, based on agency approved training. It is important to note that the device used in “drive stun” mode is:

1. Primarily a pain compliance tool (due to a lack of probe spread);

2. Less effective than conventional cartridge type deployments;

3. The focus of a disproportionate number of TASER complaint allegations, specifically focused on coercive and punitive use and handcuffed/grounded subjects; and

4. More prone to leaving marks on the subject’s skin than cartridge deployment.

• When the device is used operationally, the officer will collect the cartridge, wire leads, darts, and APHIDS as evidence.

• Officers who fire the device operationally shall notify their supervisors as soon as practical, complete a police report documenting the facts and circumstances which justified the deployment, and complete an agency Use-of-Force/Resistance Control Form.

TASER Training

Positive TASER performance begins with policy as outlined above and moves towards that end via training focused on technical proficiency and sound decision-making. Most agencies use TASER International for instructor certification, then look inside and out (see fear of “plowing new ground” noted previously) to shore up issues relating to use of force. Decisions such as this are formalized during policy development, then clarified and reinforced during training. TASER International’s “end user” lesson plan is followed by most departments who then insert their own policy/use-of-force/decision-making protocols at the appropriate time. This gives them the opportunity to specifically discuss important agency decisions relating to:

• Policy;

• Justification to use;

• Prohibitions on use;

• Energizing frequency duration;

• Drive stun considerations;

• “Special” use subjects/conditions (pregnant, elderly, infirm, etc.);

• Probe removal procedures;

• Documentation of TASER energizing to address potential discrepancies should a data port download reveal usage not reported via the use-of-force narrative process;

• Exposure training (five second, minimal exposure, any exposure?);

• In custody death awareness, prevention, and strategies for intervention; and

• Steps to be taken should the officer face a suspect armed with a TASER.

The initial “end user” training can be provided in four to six hours, assuming the student-instructor ratio is sufficient to expeditiously support interactive exercises. This should allow adequate time for classroom presentation, firing the weapon, opportunity for product exposure, and scenario-based decision-making exercises. The decision-making practicals are critical and place officers in a pseudo operational environment in which their skills relating to verbalization, officer/suspect proximity, and TASER deployment can be critically examined. The process is time-consuming and labor intensive, but the only viable way of determing what an officer is likley to do (and provides opportunity for correction/validation) prior to moving to the field. Annual recertification can be done in one to two hours and includes updates and refreshers on the relevent topics outlined above.

Training is the critical link between the product and management, and the primary mechanism by which organizational philosophy and expectations are communicated to operators in the field. The ultimate success of any program involving use of force hinges on the quality of training which precedes deployment, and the willingess of management to recognize and correct difficiencies in training and performance as the needs arise.

Use-of-Force Reporting

and Administrative Review

Use-of-force reporting is nothing new. Progressive departments have always required officers to document their use of physical force and only recently has the process become formalized and independent of the police report narrative. The critical aspect of the issue is not the process by which force documentation occurs – though stand-alone programs clearly make the job easier – but the manner in which the documentation itself is reviewed and acted upon.

Police managers have traditionally (and some would say appropriately) viewed force from a “letter of the policy” perspective. If the four corners of the page contained any language which “covered” the use, it was “justified.” The problem is “justified” doesn’t always make it right – right makes it right. As such, use-of-force approval should reflect more than the letter of the law. It should reflect the spirit as well. Some will argue that officers can’t be held to a higher standard than the four corners of a page. Those who suggest this sell their officers short and do a disservice to their communities, as well. Use-of-force approval should be more than a verbatim checklist of “dotting the i’s, crossing the t’s.” It should be the roadmap to the moral high ground. As a result, it is incumbent upon police managers to single out for close review any use of force which “raises their eyebrows” from an overall necessity perspective. The case should be compared to policy and training and a determination made as to what role (if any) they played in the decision to use force. If either process “justified” or encouraged an application which simply wasn’t “right,” direct action must be taken to correct it. This can occur through changes in policy and/or training or, when necessary and appropriate, dealing directly with the officer in a retraining or disciplinary environment.

The bottom line is that police managers must create a use-of-force culture focused on “necessity” as opposed to “authorized” and communicate that message clearly through policy, training, and use-of-force review/approval/disapproval. This will not set well with some officers who view use-of-force review as little more than “warriors arriving after the battle to bayonet the wounded.” The practical reality is that we need to use force in police work and, if we don’t police ourselves in this area, some government or legislative body will do it for us. The end result of that will be an erosion of public trust and limits being placed on law enforcement which will likely preclude or deter us from doing things we really need to do.

Summary

TASER technology is having a dramatic and positive impact on law enforcement today and has proven remarkably effective in dealing with some of our more complicated challenges. Likewise, concerns (real and perceived) over use are being raised and police agencies must do everything they can to address them. If we don’t, the community or legislative level ultimately will and law enforcement and the citizens we serve will suffer as a result. The TASER is not an end unto itself. Likewise, its effectiveness, near instantaneous recovery rate, and varying degrees of account-ability/oversight has contributed to some using it in cases where they shouldn’t. It is beyond dispute that police encounter uncooperative subjects. As a result, it is necessary and appropriate for police managers to offer guidance and direction as it relates to the tools used in dealing with such problems. The best method of facilitating this communication involves:

• Policy;

• Training; and

• Use-of-force reporting/review.

This management driven triad is the key to safe, appropriate, and effective use of TASER technology and, when properly established, it will go a long way towards assisting officers in the professional performance of their duties.n

About the Author: Steve Ijames has been a police officer for the past 23 years and is presently a major in charge of all Springfield (MO) Police criminal investigations. Steve has a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice administration; is pursuing a master’s degree in public administration; and is a graduate of the FBI National Academy.

Steve is internationally recognized as an expert in SWAT tactics and less-lethal force options and is the course developer of the IACP’s and the NTOA’s chemical agent programs. He is also the author of the training key on chemical agent use and commander of a SWAT team which uses chemical agents in barricade resolutions numerous times each year.

1 http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=policy&x=14&y=7

2 Covey, Dr. Stephen R. The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People. New York: Fireside Books, Simon and Schuster Inc. 1989

3 The vast majority of agencies (according to a TASER International survey, about 86%) authorize TASER use in the same circumstances as OC spray. That is simple enough. Everyone is familiar with OC spray and the basic logic behind using it. Unfortunately, a few in law enforcement have proven that policy stating “OC justification” in no way guarantees that the device will be used in accordance with common sense and constitutional principles. As articulated by Charlotte-Mecklenburg City Attorney Mark Newbold (Municipal Lawyers Association 2004 Seminar – Constitutional Dimensions of Less Lethal Weapons), “In a detention or arrest situation, the placement of the device on the continuum must conform to the three factors mentioned in Graham v. Conner (109 S. Ct. 1865, 1870 (1989):

1. You must look at the severity of the crime;

2. Whether the person is ACTIVELY resisting; and

3. Whether the officer or another is confronted with imminent threat.”

This landmark case is the law of the land as it relates to “force less than deadly” and challenges to such use will ultimately be weighed in the balance of this decision.