Item B: EPD Taser Policy - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a no-match federal grant. In August 2008, at the six-month mark of the Taser Pilot Project, the department presented the Police Commission with a six-month update that covered data from January- June 2008. In May 2009, the Police Department presented the Police Commission with a more detailed analysis of the Taser Pilot Project. This report was a compilation of data and conclusions following 15 months of the pilot project. One significant result from the pilot project was that more than three-quarters of the potentially violent encounters that could have resulted in injuries to officers or suspects ended safely by a display or warning that a Taser would be used. In addition, six incidents where deadly force by the officer could have been authorized were resolved with minimal injury when the Taser was activated. Data from the pilot project compared injury rates from OC spray to the rates for individuals where the Taser was activated or a warning was given that the Taser would be used. The large portion of Taser incidents resolved simply with a non-contact display and preliminary data from the department showing a decrease in injuries to subjects and officers was both encouraging and consistent with academic studies on the use of Tasers in the United States. The department’s Taser report outlined specific next steps in moving forward with the use of Tasers by EPD, including an emphasis in training in non-violent techniques to de-escalate potentially violent situations. Existing training opportunities such as Crisis Intervention training and “Verbal Judo” offer good examples of de-escalation techniques. Another element of the report’s conclusions included the need for the Police Commission’s review of the Taser policy. The Use of Force Committee took on this task in June 2009, with a specific focus on assessing the data from the pilot project phase. The committee created an aggressive work plan to review the Taser policy, meeting twice each month. Community Involvement Since June of this year the committee has met 11 times to review the Taser policy. Significant community involvement is a part of the review process as each meeting includes a public comment and public dialogue portion of the agenda (the public dialogue part of the meeting is a unique aspect when the committee invites all members of the audience to engage in an open conversation at the table). Defensive tactics instructors from the department assist the committee with their review and understanding of how policy drives police actions in real life situations. Other commission members not on the committee have also attended these meetings, as well as the Police Auditor and Deputy Police Auditor and City Councilors. In addition to meetings sponsored by the commission, committee members also attended third-party forums to further discuss use of Tasers. These included a City Club panel and two community discussion groups. Policy Discussion Highlights Certain sections of the policy have garnered special attention and thus require more time to vet. The “Authorized Use of the Taser” section has received a high degree of scrutiny and has been reviewed over several meetings. Preliminary discussions indicate that the committee may recommend the threshold of an authorized application of the Taser to be at a higher level than the original policy draft. The language in the draft states the Taser may be discharged in the following circumstances: when the officer reasonably believes a person creates an immediate, credible threat of personal injury; or a person who has been placed under arrest or is so advised but engages in active physical resistance that would risk greater injury; or a person who flees from arrest from a crime, in lieu of using another force option more likely to result in injury to the subject or officer, such as tackling or striking. Coinciding with authorized use of the Taser is the section titled: “Restrictions on Taser Use.” This section has also been carefully reviewed and as a result a restriction of use against a person at a Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M091216\S091216B.doc