Laserfiche WebLink
28 <br /> <br /> <br />NOVEMBER CASE REVIEW: ALLEGATION OF EXCESSIVE FORCE RELATED TO USE <br />OF OC SPRAY <br /> <br />Summary of Facts: <br />• Officer A responded to a report of a suspect who had allegedly broken into a vehicle and stolen <br />a phone. The victim was following the suspect and had called it in. <br />• Officer A found the involved subjects – the suspect, followed by the victim and a witness – and <br />exited his patrol vehicle. Officer A stated that he ordered the suspect to stop walking and sit on <br />the ground. The suspect did not immediately do so, and Officer A pulled his OC spray from its <br />holder and sprayed the suspect. <br />• The incident was captured on body-worn video, but given how quickly the incident evolved, the <br />camera only captured video (no audio). <br />• Officer A’s sergeant and lieutenant reviewed the incident (per the use of force reporting policy) <br />and determined that it was within policy. The captain believed the use of force was possibly <br />outside of policy, and this investigation was opened into the incident. <br /> <br />Allegations: <br />1) 803 Oleoresin Capsicum Aerosol: that Officer A’s use of OC spray against the suspect was <br />outside of policy. <br /> <br />Recommended Adjudications: <br />1) OC Spray: <br />• EPD chain of command recommendation: Within Policy <br />• Auditor’s Office recommendation: Within Policy <br />• Chief of Police: Within Policy <br /> <br />Issues for CRB: <br />1) Intake and Classification <br />a. Internally reported <br />b. Classification: Allegation of Misconduct <br />• All board members thought the classification seemed appropriate. <br />• A member said the case was timely, in regard to the discussion at Police Commission. In the <br />case at hand, Officer A announced the intent to use pepper spray and the subject didn’t appear <br />responsive. He didn’t have trouble with the classification, but it raised the question of when <br />use of force began. <br />2) Investigation and Monitoring <br />• The use of body-worn cameras and how they simplified the oversight process was mentioned, <br />though members wished there was also audio. The angles of the camera, however, allowed <br />members to see everything the officer was doing, which seemed to line up with the officer’s <br />testimony. <br />• The IA Lt. added Officer A was late in activating the video; he should have hit the button as <br />he was pulling up. <br />June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2