HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-29-2020 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA (2)City Council Study Session
J une 29, 2020 - 5:30 P M
Virtual
A GE NDA
Watch the meeting v ideo
Meeting videos are not available until 72
hours after the meeting has concluded.
I .C A L L TO O R D E R
I I .Virtual Participation L ink
A .Virtual Participation L ink
The A uburn C ity Council Study S ession Meeting scheduled for Monday, J une 29,
2020 at 5:30 p.m. will be held virtually and telephonically. To attend the meeting virtually
please click the link or enter the meeting I D into the Z oom app or call into the meeting
at the phone number listed below.
P er the Governor's E mergency P roclamation 20-28 and C ity of A uburn Resolution No.
5533, the City of A uburn is prohibited from holding an in-person meeting at this time. All
meetings will be held virtually and telephonically.
The link to the Virtual Meeting or phone number to listen to the Council Meeting is:
J oin from a P C, Mac, iPad, iP hone or A ndroid device:
P lease click this UR L to join. https://zoom.us/j/97691972972
Or join by phone:
253 215 8782
888 475 4499 (Toll Free)
Webinar I D: 976 9197 2972
B .Roll Call
I I I .P R E S E NTAT I O NS
A .P olice Presentation (O'Neil)(90 Minutes)
I V.NE W B US I NE S S
V.A D J O UR NME NT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website
(http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail. Complete agenda packets are available for review
at the City Clerk's Office.
Page 1 of 57
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Police Presentation (O'Neil)(90 Minutes)
Date:
June 22, 2020
Department:
Police
Attachments:
APD VNR 2020
Counciul 8 Cant Wait
Force Continuum
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:O'Neil
Meeting Date:June 29, 2020 Item Number:
Page 2 of 57
Auburn Police Department
Courage Honor Integrity Professionalism
Page 3 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Control the fight without the might! -No Blood, No bruises, No
broken bones,….just compliance!
Page 4 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
•VNR is designed to maximize control of violators and minimize injury of both
officer and violator.
•VNR restricts the flow of blood to and from the brain.
•When agencies adopt the VNR they typically show a reduction in UoF
complaints and reduction in officer injuries.
•VNR is NOT a choke.
•Chokeholds restrict the airway.
•Due to the position of a true choke the potential for airway damage and
serious injury is greatly increased
Page 5 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
ACUTE ARREST OF CEREBRAL
CIRCULATION IN MAN
Rossen, Kabat, & Anderson
Page 6 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Physiological Processes: Rossen et.al
Rossen, Arch Neurol Psych (1943)
•137 subjects -126 apparently normal male volunteers, age from 17 to 31 years.
-11 schizophrenic
•Repeated tests were carried out on 85 of these subjects.
•Similar tests were also performed on the investigators and their associates.
Page 7 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Physiological Processes: Rossen et.al
•The Kabat-Rossen-Anderson apparatus: pressure in the cuff rises to 600 mm. of mercury within one-eighth second.
•The sudden inflation of the cuff to a high pressure occludes vessels to the brain prior to next heart beat, so that engorgement of the cerebral vessels is prevented .
•The subject, or physician, deflations cuff, within a fraction of a second.
•EEG and ECG recording.
Page 8 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Physiological Processes: Rossen et.al
The procedure has been applied repeatedly to the same subjects,
with no injurious effects. Periods of acute arrest of cerebral
circulation for as long as one hundred seconds appear to be well
tolerated and are followed by rapid and uneventful recovery.
Page 9 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Are vascular neck restraints deadly force ?
In order to answer this correctly we must first differentiate
between a
•STRANGLE HOLD
•VASCULAR NECK RESTRAINT
Page 10 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Are vascular neck restraints deadly force ?
STRANGLE HOLD
•Uses direct mechanical compression over the anterior (front) structures of
the neck. (bar choke)
•Compressing of the trachea can restrict the person's ability to breathe and
may result in asphyxiation.
•Deadly force
Page 11 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Are vascular neck restraints deadly force ?
Vascular Neck Restraint
•Bilateral compression of the carotid arteries and jugular veins at the sides of the
neck.
•Results in diminished cerebral circulation.
•This abrupt reduction of blood flow reduces the violator’s ability to resist and can
lead to unconsciousness.
Page 12 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Are vascular neck restraints deadly force ?
It is very important for officers, administrators, and the
media to understand that:
NO significant frontal pressure or compression is applied to
the structures of the front of the neck.
Page 13 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Do Vascular Neck Restraints incur more liability than other
force options?
VNR offers an alternative to :
•Lethal force
•Repeated us of ECWs.
•Impact weapons
•OC spray
•Strikes & Kicks
•Excessive body compression during officer swarms
Page 14 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Do Vascular Neck Restraints incur more liability than other force options?
Applied to individuals who:
•Demonstrate a high tolerance for pain
•Are under the influence of drugs
•Are in an excited, agitated, and/or psychotic state and control can be
established.
Page 15 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Do Vascular Neck Restraints incur more liability than other
force options?
By providing an additional force option that does not rely upon electrical load,
pain compliance, or blunt force trauma to gain control, VNR can:
•Reduce officer injuries
•Reduce serious injuries to suspects and
•Reduce potential for in-custody deaths.
Page 16 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Do Vascular Neck Restraints incur more liability than
other force options?
As with any police use-of-force incident, the type of force, quantum
of force, and the manner in which the force is applied is always
subject to legal guidelines and public scrutiny.
The VNR must be used in a reasonable manner as set forth in
federal law, state law, current case law, and department policy.
Page 17 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Are there legal opinions regarding the VNR?
Vascular neck restraints came under intense scrutiny in the early
1980s due to a few high profile cases.
These cases though relatively few in number in relation to the
number of applications of vascular neck restraints, had a
disproportionate impact on police departments authorizing the use of
vascular neck restraints to control individuals.
Page 18 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Are there legal opinions regarding the VNR?
The U.S. Supreme Court has not offered an opinion that vascular
neck restraints are deadly force and still points to the landmark
decision in Graham vs. Connor and the standard of objective
reasonableness as the measure for any force applied under the 4th
Amendment.
Page 19 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Are there legal opinions regarding the VNR ?
It must be remembered that the number of cases that have been litigated in
reference to neck restraints (inclusive of “choke holds”) is relatively small in
comparison to the number of times a neck restraint has been used. This number
shrinks dramatically when the hold applied is a vascular neck restraint and not a
bar arm strangle hold.
Many of the above cases were as much about the use of any force rather than
the neck restraint
Page 20 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Are there medical opinions regarding the VNR ?
While most physicians acknowledge a degree of risk with vascular
neck restraints, it is clear from the research that the vast majority of
vascular neck restraints do not result in death.
Page 21 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Are there medical opinions regarding the VNR ?
Dr R.D. Hoskins writes “although there is a possibility of a fatal
outcome from vascular neck restraints, the number of investigations
is testament to the relative infrequency of fatal outcomes.”
Even Dr. Reay, one of the most outspoken critics of the hold, admits
that “in view of the alleged frequency of their use, there have been
remarkably few reported deaths.”
Page 22 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Are there medical opinions regarding the VNR?
Research conducted on behalf of the Judo community
attributes no deaths to the hold in over 133 years of use in
the sport, and the majority of studies reviewed showed no
deleterious effects from the hold.
Page 23 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Are there medical opinions regarding the VNR?
Forensic pathologists Vincent and Dominick DiMaio wrote “carotid
sleeper holds are safe if properly used.” In 2005, Dr. Gary Vilke
wrote the carotid sleeper hold “is an appropriate form of restraint
and use-of-force method in law enforcement’s continuum.”
Page 24 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Are there medical opinions regarding the VNR?
Most recently, in 2007, the Canadian Police Research Centre issued
a Technical Report that concluded:
“while no restraint methodology is completely risk free, there is no
medical reason to routinely expect grievous bodily harm or death
following the correct application of the vascular neck restraint in the
general population by professional police officers with standardized
training and technique.”
Page 25 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Summary
•While there have been deaths associated with the use of VNR it is
rare that such deaths are caused by the use of the VNR.
•As officers we know that no technology or tactic is 100%.
•The VNR has a long and proven “track record” of success and
safety.
•Legal decisions and medical information supports its use at less-
than-deadly force levels. Page 26 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Robert M. Bragg, Jr.
•Washington State Criminal Justice Training
Commission –Fitness and Force Training
since 1981
•BA in Physical Education and MS Exercise
and Movement Sciences UW
•Training in a variety of martial arts since
1968
•206-835-7350 rbragg@cjtc.state.wa.us
Page 27 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Auburn PD Policy
Lexipole 300.3.4 Vascular Neck Restraint
Page 28 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Auburn PD Lexipole 300.3.4
The proper application of the VNR may be effective in
restraining a violent or combative individual. However,
due to the potential for injury, the use of the VNR hold is
subject to the following:
Page 29 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Auburn PD Lexipole 300.3.4
(a)
The officer shall have successfully completed
department-approved training in the use and application
of the VNR.
Page 30 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Auburn PD Lexipole 300.3.4
(b)
The VNR may only be used when circumstances
perceived by the officer a the time indicate that such
application reasonably appears necessary to control a
person in any of the following circumstances:
Page 31 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Auburn PD Lexipole 300.3.4
1.
The subject is violent or physically resisting
Page 32 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Auburn PD Lexipole 300.3.4
2.
The subject, by words or actions, has demonstrated an
intention to be violent and reasonably appears to have
the potential to harm officers, him/herself or others.
Page 33 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Auburn PD Lexipole 300.3.4
(c)
The application of a VNR on the following individuals should
generally be avoided unless the totality of the circumstances
indicates that other available options reasonably appear ineffective,
or would present a greater danger to the officer, the subject or
others, and the officer reasonably believes that the need to control
the individual outweighs the risk of applying a VNR:
Page 34 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Auburn PD Lexipole 300.3.4
1. Females who are known to be pregnant
2. Elderly
3. Obvious juveniles
4. Individuals who appear to have Downs Syndrome, or
who appear to have obvious neck deformities
malformations, or visible neck injuries.
Page 35 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Auburn PD Lexipole 300.3.4
(d)
Any Individual who has had the VNR applied and was
rendered unconscious, shall be promptly examined by
medical personnel and should be monitored until
examined by appropriate medical personnel.
Page 36 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Auburn PD Lexipole 300.3.4
(e)
The officer shall inform any person receiving custody, or
any person placed in a position of providing care, that
the individual has been subjected to the VNR and
whether the subject lost consciousness as a result.
Page 37 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Auburn PD Lexipole 300.3.4
(f)
Any officer attempting or applying the VNR shall
promptly notify a supervisor of the use or attempted use
of such a hold.
Page 38 of 57
Vascular Neck Restraint
Auburn PD Lexipole 300.3.4
(g)
The use or attempted use of the VNR shall be thoroughly
documented by the officer in any related
Page 39 of 57
EEight Can’t Wait
•Ban Chokeholds & Strangleholds
•Require De-Escalation
•Require Warning Before Shooting
•Exhaust All Alternatives Before Shooting
•Duty to Intervene When Excessive Force is Being Used
•Ban Shooting at Moving Vehicles
•Require Use of Force Continuum
•Require Comprehensive Reporting
Courage Honor Integrity Professionalism
•Require Co
Page 40 of 57
BBan Chokeholds & Strangleholds
•Allowing officers to choke or strangle civilians results in the
unnecessary death or serious injury of civilians. Both chokeholds and
all other neck restraints must be banned in all cases.
•Presentation on VNR
Courage Honor Integrity Professionalism
Page 41 of 57
RRequire De-Escalation
•Require officers to de-escalate situations, where possible, by communicating with subjects, maintaining distance, and otherwise
eliminating the need to use force.
•De-escalation is covered in these sections of our policy and procedures manual.
•Section 207 Training
•Section 304 Taser and Use of Force
•Section 430 Crisis Intervention Incidents
•Section 409 Emergent Detentions
•Section 433 Civil Disputes
•Each year, we conduct four sessions of defensive tactics that all commissioned employees are required to attend. There is an
emphasis placed on de-escalation during each session. At the end of the year, we measure the success of this training with mock
scenes where officers are required to demonstrate crisis communications and de-escalation.
•In addition to defensive tactics, officers get two hours of crisis intervention training through the state. This training focuses on
crisis communications and de-escalation. Additionally, the State of Washington requires that 25% of all patrol officers attend a 40
hour crisis intervention training course. The Auburn Police Department exceeds this standard and requires every commissioned
officer attend this 40 hour course. Officers also attend bias-based policing training every other year with ethics the year in
between. Additionally, all members of the Auburn Police Department will attend a 10 hour course at CJTC related to Implicit Bias.
On average, Auburn Police Department employees attend an average of 17,000 hours of training annually.
Courage Honor Integrity Professionalism
On average, Auburn
Page 42 of 57
RRequire Warning Before Shooting
•Require officers to give a verbal warning in all situations before using
deadly force.
•Our department policies are based on a national standard developed
through Lexipol. Our policy requires a verbal warning not only before
shots are fired but before the use of any force, when feasible.
•When feasible officers also advise of the action that will occur before
is used. (Example, stop resisting arrest or you will be tased)
Courage Honor Integrity Professionalism
Page 43 of 57
RRequires Exhaust All Alternatives
BBefore Shooting
•Require officers to exhaust all other alternatives, including non-force
and less lethal force options, prior to resorting to deadly force.
•Officers may use deadly force to protect him/herself or others from
what he/she reasonably believes would be an imminent threat of
death or serious bodily injury.
•State Law requires that no other reasonable alternative to the use of
deadly force occur at the time deadly force is used.
Courage Honor Integrity Professionalism
deadly forc
Page 44 of 57
DDuty to Intervene
•Require officers to intervene and stop excessive force used by other
officers and report these incidents immediately to a supervisor.
•The Auburn Police Department has had a policy for several years
requiring officers to intervene and report any use of force.
•This has occurred, there have been a few incidents that have been
reviewed in recent years because officers perceived what might have
been inappropriate force.
Courage Honor Integrity Professionalism
Page 45 of 57
BBan Shooting at Moving Vehicles
•Ban officers from shooting at moving vehicles in all cases, which is
regarded as a particularly dangerous and ineffective tactic. While
some departments may restrict shooting at vehicles to particular
situations, these loopholes allow for police to continue killing in
situations that are all too common. 62 people were killed by police
last year in these situations. This must be categorically banned.
•Shots at or from a moving vehicle are rarely effective. Officers are
advised to move out of the path of an approaching vehicle instead of
discharging their firearm at the vehicle or any of its occupants.
Courage Honor Integrity Professionalism
dsc ag g
Page 46 of 57
RRequire Use of Force Continuum
•Establish a Force Continuum that restricts the most severe types of
force to the most extreme situations and creates clear policy
restrictions on the use of each police weapon and tactic.
•Attached Presentation
Courage Honor Integrity Professionalism
Page 47 of 57
RRequire Comprehensive Reporting
•Require officers to report each time they use force or threaten to use force
against civilians. Comprehensive reporting includes requiring officers to
report whenever they point a firearm at someone, in addition to all other
types of force.
•Any use of force by a member of this department shall be documented
promptly, completely and accurately in an appropriate report, depending
on the nature of the incident. The officer should articulate the factors
perceived and why he/she believed the use of force was reasonable under
the circumstances.
•Use of force is reviewed by Sergeant, Commander, Assistant Chief, and in
some instances the Chief of Police.
Courage Honor Integrity Professionalism
•Use of force
some instan
Page 48 of 57
DDo Officers have In--CCar Video or Body
CCameras?
•Every Auburn Police Patrol Vehicle has in car video. Officers who don’t
operate patrol vehicles (traffic, parking enforcement, bicycle officers)
are equipped with body cameras.
•Detective and Admin Vehicles do not have video systems.
Courage Honor Integrity Professionalism
Page 49 of 57
FForce Incidents
Courage Honor Integrity Professionalism
Year Incidents Arrest Force
Incidents
% of arrest
that
resulted in
force
% of
Incidents
that
resulted in
force
2019 86,062 4,606 183 3.9%0.21%
2018 96,884 5,092 204 4%0.21%
2017 97,843 5,115 203 3.9%0.20%
2016 94,348 4,716 217 4.6%0.22%
Page 50 of 57
Courage Honor Integrity Professionalism
UUse of Force by Police
Page 51 of 57
Courage Honor Integrity Professionalism
Page 52 of 57
FORCE CONTINUUM v. REASONABLE OFFICER STANDARD
The Use of Force Continuum
• A guide that allows officer to conceptualize what amount or type of force to use in a certain
situation.
• The Use of Force Continuum gained popularity in the 80 and 90s.
• It is typically presented as a stepped approach to what level of force may be used to overcome
a violator’s resistance to being apprehended.
• Because the police use force to apprehend violators for a lawful purpose and not for sport, the
force continuum is designed to allow the officer to use more force than the violator.
Ex. A violator strikes an officer with a punch or a kick, the officer can respond with an impact
weapon.
• Three levels of Force were taught.
Level 1 Control Tactics – Pain Compliance (Counter joint movements, hair holds, takedowns, OC)
Level 2 Defensive Tactics – Impact Impedance (Strikes, Kicks, Impact Weapons, VNR, Taser)
Level 3 Termination Tactics – Deadly Force
Reasonable Officer Standard
• Reasonable Officer Standard – An officer with similar training and experience would have done
something similar in the same or similar situation.
• Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386 (1989) – United States Supreme Court that determined objective
reasonableness would be the standard to which law enforcement use of force would be judged.
Graham had Type 1 Diabetes/friend take him to a convenience store to get orange juice.
Graham entered the store but left quickly after seeing that many people were waiting in
line. Connor, a police officer, observed Graham's behavior and became
suspicious/stopped them. Graham was acting Soon after questioning, Connor put
Graham in handcuffs. Once Connor confirmed that nothing had occurred at the store, he
released Graham.
Page 53 of 57
Graham claimed that he had sustained multiple injuries from the encounter and filed a
law suit against the officer for violating his Fourth Amendment rights.
• Objective Reasonableness of a particular use of force is based upon;
Totality of the circumstances known by the officer at the time
Judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with 20/20
vision of hindsight
• Determining Objective Reasonable
The severity of the crime at issue
Whether the subject poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others
Whether the subject is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
Other factors to be considered
Availability of alternative methods to capture or subdue the suspect
Influence of drugs/alcohol, or other mental history known by the officer at that
time
Proximity of weapons to the suspect
Previous history of violence, training, etc. of the suspect known by the officer at
that time
Officer/suspect factors – age, size, relative strength, skill level,
injury/exhaustion, number of officer v. suspects
Training and experience of the officer.
Discussion Points
Many law enforcement agencies used the Force Continuum to define or guide their policy. After many
years, agencies were encouraged to move away from the Force Continuum and to adopt the Reasonable
Officer Standard by professional law enforcement training groups such as Lexipole and the Washington
State Criminal Justice Training Commission to name a couple for several reasons.
In a nutshell, the courts to do not use the Force Continuum to determine if an officer’s use of force was
reasonable under the 4th Amendment. The courts use the Objective Reasonableness Standard, which is
defined in Graham v. Connor.
To have a policy that based on factors that are not to be considered by the court is doing the citizens,
the city, the department, and the officers a disservice. The Force Continuum was never meant to serve
as a policy, but simply a way for officers to conceptualize what type of force could be considered under
certain conditions, but the overriding factor is objective reasonableness. Furthermore, the Force
Page 54 of 57
Continuum is flawed as a policy because if does not consider the totality of the circumstances. For
example;
An officer encounters an elderly person using a walker or a cane to walk. The elderly person is angry
about the incident and strikes the officer in the leg with the walker or a cane. The officer is not injured,
the officer is about 6ft tall and over 180lbs, while the elderly person is about 5-8 tall and 130 lbs and
frail.
Under the Force Continuum, the officer is justified to use level 2 defensive tactics against the elderly
person, which could include punches, kicks, impact weapons, VNR, or taser. However, using the
Objective Reasonableness Standard, the officer is required to consider the above factors and the totality
of the circumstances before deciding to use force and what force is reasonable.
Further discussion:
Some mistakenly believe that under the Objective Reasonableness Standard, that officers are not
allowed to use force on minor crimes due to the “seriousness of the crime” being a consideration for
reasonableness. The fact is, officer can use force to enforce the law and apprehend suspects, per RCW
and Graham v. Connor. They just have to consider the amount and type of force used. For example;
An officer is attempting to apprehend a shoplifter. The officer can use chase and tackle the shoplifter or
use a take-down to arrest the shoplifter. Minus any other exigent circumstances, tasing the shoplifter,
using a VNR, striking the suspect with a vehicle or impact weapon would appear to be unreasonable.
Response to Resistance v. Use of Force
Calling Use of Force a Response to Resistance is semantics. Some agencies, to include the APD, have
changed the terms from Use of Force to Response to Resistance. Ultimately, officers are using force to
overcome resistance, and no matter what we call it, the use of force must be reasonable under Graham
v. Connor.
It also important to understand that when law enforcement uses force, it is not about a fair fight; it is
about subduing the violator and ensuring the safety of the public and/or the officer. The violator always
has the choice whether or not to comply, resist, or flee.
Neck restraints are not air chokes and do not cause death, and do not cause any long term affects
beyond temporarily loss of consciousness. They are a proven method of quickly subduing a violator
without minimal risk of injury to the violator and the officers. Many times, the alternative to a neck
restraint is strikes and kicks, or the use of impact weapons.
Page 55 of 57
Page 56 of 57
Page 57 of 57