Laserfiche WebLink
25  <br />  <br /> <br />• Officer A arrived and asked Officer B if she was comfortable standing by with the <br />person; she stated that she was not. Officer A believed the person to be under the <br />influence of a stimulant and was concerned by his behavior. <br />• Officer A directed the person to sit down, and the person refused. Officer A stated <br />that he would be pepper sprayed if he did not sit down. The person responded by <br />saying, “If you pepper spray me, I will kick your ass.” <br />• Officer A put his pepper spray away and transitioned to a Taser. He pointed the <br />Taser at the person and warned that if he did not sit down, he would be tased. <br />The person still did not sit down, and Officer A deployed the Taser, with the probes <br />striking the person in the lower abdomen. 38 seconds passed between Officer A <br />verbally contacting the subject and Taser deployment. <br /> <br />Allegations: <br />809.4.1 Use of the Taser: That Officer A’s use of the Taser against this person was not <br />reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances. <br /> <br />Recommended Adjudications: <br />Use of Taser <br />• EPD chain of command: Within Policy <br />• Auditor’s Office: Within Policy <br />• Chief: Within Policy <br /> <br />Issues for the CRB: <br /> <br />CRB members were concerned at some of the inconsistences of the Taser Policy that <br />enabled the adjudication of the incident to be Within Policy. Members felt that more <br />communication between the officers would have been helpful in letting the second <br />officer understand the situation before he escalated from pepper spray to using a taser <br />in less than 38 seconds. Members struggled with whether the officer’s action was <br />reasonable. <br /> <br />I. November Case Review <br /> <br />Our office received an anonymous complaint in March 2016 alleging that inappropriate <br />conduct had occurred between Supervisor A and Lower-level Supervisor B, and that the <br />investigation and treatment of the conduct by the City and EPD had been inadequate. <br /> <br />• Our office conducted an intake interview with Lower-level Supervisor B, who <br />stated that Supervisor A (who is of a higher rank) had taken a picture of her chest <br />without her consent and despite her objection. <br />• Lower-level Supervisor B had mentioned the incident to her immediate supervisor, <br />who reported it to Human Resources. HR met with Lower-level Supervisor B and <br />September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2