Agenda Packet 6-19-19 Work Session

Home Browse Search

29 • The IA Lt. also said EPD was transitioning from an old in-car video system to a new system which would activate all other cameras in the area (i.e. for other officers, in cars etc.). Currently, about 70% of EPD’s fleet was upgraded. • A board member asked for the rule regarding when activation was to be done. The IA Lt. replied at any investigative contact. 3) Relevant Department Policies and Procedures • A board member saw some confusion in the wording of the policy. For her, the most important part of the policy was that protesters weren’t being pepper sprayed when choosing to exercise their first amendment right. She thought that was the intent behind the policy, and that the case at hand was not in the same context. She suggested it would be good to harmonize wording (“passive” versus “static” resistance), but the overall intent was clear. • Another member didn’t have other issues with the policy, but he hoped policies around protesting remained on Police Commission’s radar. Another board member thought the policy provided a lot of protection to protestors. • A member said that within the case interview, a sergeant stated he conside red the situation “ominous” and wondered if the language was out of another policy. Ms. Pitcher said EPD used to train on the use of force continuum. “Ominous” was one way of looking at a force situation and officers were not trained on the same continuum anymore. 4) Policy and/or Training Considerations • Several members mentioned de-escalation as a training consideration since the officer was only on scene for 10 seconds before using the OC spray. • Some members thought the use of OC spray was safer since the subject could have crossed traffic. Others pointed out that without knowing the verbal exchange, it was hard to determine since the subject appeared to be complying with orders. • While hindsight is always 20/20, a member thought the officer’s overall performance was okay. 5) Adjudication Recommendations • All members agreed the adjudication was within policy and appreciated Ms. Pitcher’s thorough memo and the Chief’s comments. • Ms. Pitcher said de-escalation was discussed a lot during the case, specifically around the tools available to the officer. Tackling and use of a Taser were actually much less safe than the use of pepper spray. Although the video was jarring, out of everything available to the officer, he chose the safest option. A board member noted there were bystanders very close by who could have been affected by whatever option chosen. • A board member commented that all the subject’s behaviors fell into a different context when he saw the officer search the subject and meth was found; it created challenges for the officer and for bystanders. • Another member added that the case exemplified the value of the CRB and the Police Auditor. At first, she thought the officer’s actions were totally unreasonable, but after review and going through the process, they did appear within policy. June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2