San Francisco Police Department 5.01 GENERAL ORDER \?t-mon 1? USE OF FORCE The San Francisco Police Department?s highest priority is safeguarding the lin- rullgli ll} and lift?! 15;. it? all 12-51310.? in?rm? :e-i-s?rrli Emma? Officers Shall demonstrate this principle in their daily interactions with the community they are sworn to 131411;, it serve. The Department is committed to accomplishing thi s, mission with respect and minimal . in; guse of force by using crisis intervention and de- escalation in}. in; before resorting to force, whenever feasible. lit}; lying: My; a A ml {mine gentler; rivaling; ten-ii bail-.1: ill?thUl): ?gure - . mm; El 0 animal; thr- and. \um Ln?. The Law Enforcement Code of Ethics requires all sworn law enforcement officers to carry out their duties with courtesy, respect, professionalism, and to never employ unnecessary force. These are key factors in maintaining legitimacy with the community and safeguarding the public?s trust. earth-e we: git-Hill [ll lrll?. 0.11.1}, {Ll This order establishes policies and reporting procedures regarding the use of force;maiigg ?realms, and mm; The purpose of the policy is to guide an officer?s decisions regarding the use and application of force to ensure such applications are used only to effect arrest or lawful detentions or to bring a situation under legitimate control and assist the Department in achieving its highest priority. No policy can predict every situation. Officers are expected to exercise sound judgment when using force 0pt10n5POLICY I lulu.destinies: 1: a . i Elli-lilill?l rituals all?) literal? Magi sully yam H3 and, with ly?tisk?i 1} t!,,l,il1HLJH laidESTABLISH COMMUNICATION. Communication with non-compliant subjects is Ling most effective when officers establish rapport, use the proper voice intonation, ask questions and provide advice to defuse con?ict and achieve voluntary compliance before resorting to force options. C. DE-ESCALATION. Officers shall, when feasible, employ de-escalation techniques to decrease the likelihood of the need to use force during an incident and to increase the Deleted: sanctity of all human life Deleted: Deleted: police Deleted: reliance on the Deleted: Deleted: principles Deleted: feasible. . 1 Deleted: .r v.2! int with and have +5 l='llml mt. Deleted: SANCTITY or i?1 F1 - likelihood of voluntary compliance. Officers shall tit-Itch gait nip; it? under stand guilt, consider the possible reasons why a subject may be noncompliant or resisting arrest. A subject may not be capable of understanding the situation because of a medical condition; mental, physical, or hearing impairment; language barrier; drug interaction; or emotional crisis, and have no criminal intent. These situations may not make the subject any less dangerous, but understanding a subject?s situation may enable officers to calm the subject and allow officers to use de-escalation techniques while maintaining public ,and officer safety. Officers who act to de?escalate an incident, which can delay taking a subject into custody, while keeping the public and officers safe, will not be found to have neglected their duty. They will be found to have fulfilled it. D. PROPORTIONALITY. Witcii lac] ol Intro. oi i'trct ?lial tit committed 1th the HE resisting; [thirst .111?: ii. 1. er In at. the? is tart bailatlt Iii. Lt officers apply the-PW Proportionalityantt t3}; nutty when encountering a subject who is armed with a weapon other than afirearm., .- i e. E. CRISIS INTERVENTION. ?but feasible, ('i'isis liitci?wntiim 'l?t?aui truitml officer?? shall to cans liar x?L?tWit'L? ltl?y'ttl?t i132, in mental or lHIlltH lUt?ltl pursuant to General Order XX3 F. DUTY TO INTERVENE. shall intervene when they tinting or lIg}. tittgut ?lglmitjjqu Limititanother officer is about to use, or is using, unnecessary force. Officers shall report any use of unnecessary force and the efforts made to intervene to a supervisor. (9. PAIR AND iNlilASl?l) Hill tlUllLih. lit; urn-'01 that: In A 1W tatgtii amt! Qt tier DEFINITIONS: 1 FEASIBLE. Capable of being done or carried out to successfully achieve the arrest or lawful objective without increasing risk to the officer or another person. IMMEDIATE THREAT. Ari threat is tituixult-trtl lei exist 11' int) that would lL?tlti mic to rezimuublt helium: that \xiil toning}; lij?[fjij?wy piling}, t! lint without delay, tic-mm is an lliia'ut ll tilting: lithium: tlir liaison tile-wit intent and in it); ttn'tut regardless \iLWligtiict Ilia; action has been untitutgl,? i {7?s Deleted: safety Deleted: critical Deleted: Officers may only use the degree of force that is reasonable and necessary to accomplish their lawful duties 1[ Deleted: Deleted: 0 Deleted: reasonably Deleted: believe Deleted: person is an immediate threat if the officer reasonably believes the person has the present intent, means, opportunity and ability to complete the threat Deleted: . Deleted: Deleted: (Graham v. Connor?"whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others," (Graham, 490 US. at 396,) The "most important" factor under Graham is whether the suspect objectively posed an ?immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others.? Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 702 (9'11 Cir.2005). Deleted: LETHAL FORCE, Any use of force designed to and likely to cause death or serious physical injury, including but not limited to the discharge of a firearm, the use of an impact weapon under some circumstances, other techniques or equipment, and certain interventions to stop a subject?s vehicle (see DGO 5.05, Response and Pursuit Driving). MINIMAL AMOUNT OF FORCE NECESSARY. The lowest level of force within the range of objectively reasonable force that is necessary to effect an arrest or achieve a lawful objective without increasing the risk to others. . PERSONAL BODY WEAPONS. An officer?s use Of hislher body part, including but not limited to hand, foot, knee, elbow, shoulder, hip, arm, leg or head by means of high velocity kinetic energy transfer (impact) to gain control of a subject. REASONABLE FORCE. An objective standard of force viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer, without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and based on the totality of the Circumstances ilrtx' i' all: ll). will H: REPORTABLE FORCE. Any use of force which is required to overcome subject resistance to gain compliance that results in death, injury, complaint of injury in the presence of an officer, or complaint of pain that persists beyond the use of a physical control hold. Any use of force involving the use of personal body weapons, chemical agents, impact weapons, extended range impact weapons, vehicle interventions, and firearms. Any intentional pointing of afirearm at a subject. SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. A whim": lit-i my, ltisislm._! ;v Hi \kiit?eglJli?dl?x mm: /5 ildnrilt, l'l limluau alw' .vl rm?. mu. =71 manual .Llul - . VITAL AREAS OF THE BODY. The head, neck, face, throat, spine, groin and kidney, CONSIDERATIONS GOVERNING ALL USES OF FORCE A. USE OF FORCE MUST BE FOR A LAWFUL PURPOSE. Officers may use reasonable force options in the performance of their duties, in the following circumstances: To effect a lawful arrest, detention, or search. To overcome resistance or to prevent escape. To prevent the commission of a public offense. In defense of others or in self-defense. To gain compliance with a lawful order. To prevent a person from injuring himself/herself. However, an officer is prohibited from using lethal force against a person who presents only a danger to himself/herself and does not pose an threat of death or serious bodily injury to another person or of?cer. La.) Deleted: OF RESISTANCE. ?ll Compliant. A person contacted by an officer who acknowledges direction or lawful orders given and offers no passive/active, aggressive, or aggravated aggressive resistance?? Passive Resistance. The subject is not complying with an 5 officer?s commands and is uncooperative, but is taking only minimal physical action to prevent an officer from placing the subject in custody and taking control. Examples include: standing stationary and not moving upon lawful direction, holding onto a fixed object, falling [imply and refusing to use their own power to move, or locking arms to another during a protest or demonstration?l Active Resistance. The subject?s physical actions are intended to prevent an officer from placing the subject in custody and taking control, but are not directed at harming the of?cer. Examples include: walking or running away, breaking the of?cer?s grip.?j[ Aggressive Resistance. The subject displays the intent to harm the of?cer and prevent the of?cer from placing the subject in custody and taking control. Examples include: a subject taking a ?ghting stance, punching, kicking, striking, attacks with weapons or other actions which present an immediate threat of physical harm to another or the officerf? Aggravated Aggressive Resistance. The subject?s actions are likely to result in death or serious bodily harm to another, the subject or the of?cer. Examples include: the subject?s use ofa ?rearm, brandishing of an edged or other weapon, or extreme physical forcefll Deleted: presented at the time of the incident. Deleted: conducted energy devices Deleted: conducted energy device or :1 Deleted: bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death: causes serious, permanent disfigurement; or reSults in a prolonged loss or impairment of the functioning of any . bodily member or organ. Deleted: . Deleted: imminent The United States Supreme Court in (Ira/mm v, (1989) 490 US. 380 held that an ol?l'icer's use oi force must be objectively reasonable under the totality of circumstances known to the officer at the time. This General ()rdei builds upon the broad principles in (Em/mm by adding additional I'aetors upon which an ot'i'icer's ttse ol? l?orcc .shalLbc evaluated. This General Order is more restrictive than the constitutional standard and state law. must strive to use the USIC OF FORCE EVA LUATION v1 ?l minimal amount ol' I'orce necessary ea:th rm If, +4 1. The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than 20/20 hindsight, and without regard to the officer?s underlying intent or motivation. 2. Factors for evaluating the Use of force include but are not [united to: a. b. Whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety oi the oiliccl?s The severitv of the crime at issue; or others; c. Whether the suspect is actively resistine arrest or attempting to evade arrest bv ?ight; d. the use of force is proportional to the threat; e. The asailabihtvol other feasible. less intrusive lorce options; l. The officer?s tactical conduct and decisions preceding the use of force; g. Mether the officer has reason to believe that the subject is mentally ill, ,has a phvsical. developmental or counitivedisability, is emotionally disturbed or underthe in?uence of alcohol or drugs; V_V,hether there was an opportunity to warn about the use of force prior to force being used, and if so, was such a warning given; Whether there was any assessment by the of?cer 0! the subject?s ability to cease resistance and/or comply with the oi't'icer's commands; Specialized knowledge. skills. or abilities ot?subiccts; . Prior contact; . Environmental l'actors?. but not limited to lighting. l'ootina. sound h. conditions crowds. trat?l'ic anti other hazards; and m. Whether the subiect's escape could pose a future, .sal'ctv risk. 4 Deleted: f. the availability of other feasible, less intrusive force . 9931935-.. - - t. .. Deleted: ies 4 I 11?; "ah, :1 . 1 a? t?'ifbaetesi 7 REASONABLE. i, Peseta:le . 7 [tartar "ifme 7] Pests? Pe'ete'tai Deleted: Deleted: emotionally disturbed, Deleted: development or cognitive Deleted: . . Deleted: Deleted: <#>When balanced against the type and amount of force used, the Graham factors used to determine whether an officer?s use of force is objectively reasonable arez?? ?ll The severity of the crime at issue?? Whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the public or the officers?? Whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest?? Whether the suspect was attempting to evade arrest by flight tillHittite?'i?i?ieitt?i triciwcettmt: lHt?tHiteiir-Wle?l-H mitten-e?in l?irallew-i?e ltL?r'H RH new leatineavhetheHm officer kiiseref?ft-H?ee til miller?ch knee ?when; We?: force eel?s - tact +e a-i "wade-er use-tswim-e ditt?i?s e. rt rillrr'EtL'N'rt?rtiC?t??E Not all of the above factors may be present or relevant in a particular situation, and there may be additional factors not listed. 3. California Penal Code section 835a states that ?Any officer who has reasonable cause to believe that a person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect an arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance. A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape of overcome resistance.? i (Disagreement between SFPOA and Community Stakeholder Representatives) encountering a non-compliant subject or a subject armed with a weapon otherthanafirearm .- - .- - officers shall when lciisiblc. use the following de-escalation tactics an trl'lni'l to reduce llIti liver] or decree ul turret Attempt to isolate and contain the subject; Create time and distance from the subject by establishing a buffer zone (reactionary gap) and utilize cover to avoid creating an immediate threat that may require the use of force; 5 Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: s?a-l-ene, 7 7 77 Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: I MM ~31 Deleted: <#>Ca1ifornia Penal Code section 835a states that ?Any officer who has reasonable cause to believe that a person to be attested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect an arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.1[ A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested; not shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self?defense by use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape of overcome resistance.?1[ [Peer-aw Deleted: ?11 ?il Deleted: a. gag/PW 3. Request additional resources, such as Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) trained officers, Crisis/Hostage Negotiation Team, ,or Extended Range Impact Weapon; 4, Designate an officer to establish rapport and engage in communication with the subject; 5. Tactically re-position as often as necessary to maintain the reactionary gap, protect the public, and preserve officer safety; and 6. Continue de-escalation techniques and take as much time as reasonably necessary to resolve the incident, without having to use force, if feasibleOther options, not listed above, may be available to assist in de-escalating the situation. Supervisors who become aware of a situation where an officer is using de-escalation techniques shall monitor the radio communications and evaluate the need to respond to the scene. 4 if; J, consider police pm. l-iglti?ir?v ?igl?t it; Lil'ul ?la??tii lift}; la, mrltigy l?hA-t ANNE a: Ml da'llt?ll ,tith.? Deleted: Conducted Energy Devic Deleted: Deleted: ae-tieipa-teel?te 1 Deleted: . UNLAWFUL PURPOSES. Penal Code Section 149 provides criminal penalties for i Deieted; every public officer who ?under color of authority, without lawful necessity, assaults or beats any person.? An assault and battery committed by officers constitute gross and unlawful misconduct and will be criminally investigated. i Deleted: 9 Deleted: Ii, SUBJECT ARMED WITH A WEAPON NOTIFICATION AND COMMAND. In Deleted: situations where a subject is armed with a weapon. officers and supervisors shall comply with the following: 1. RESPONSIBILITY. Upon being dispatched to or on-viewing a subject with a weapon, an officer shall call a supervisor as soon as feasible. 2. RESPONSIBILITIES. When notified that officers are dispatched to or on?view a subject armed with a weapon, a supervisor shall as soon as feasible: a. Notify DEM, monitor radio communications, respond to the incident I?m monitoring the incident and responding?); b. Notify responding officers, while en-route, absent a ?Code 33? or other articulable reasons why it would be unsafe to do so, to protect life, isolate and contain the subject, maintain distance, find cover. build rapport, engage in IV. communication without time constraint, and call for appropriate resources?1 151"? Lil\il?ll?CCi c. Upon arrival, where appropriate. the supervisor shall assume command, and ensure appropriate resources are on?scene or are responding. IV. LEVELS OF RESISTANCE. A. Compliant. Stibiect offers no resistance. urinal - 1 u-IVL. I . ?asshe Ntm?Con?tnlianee. Does not respond to verbal commands but also ol'l?ers Active Resistance. Physically evasive mmements to defeat an otl?ieer?s attempt at control ineludine bracing, tensine. running away. verbally or phrsicallv signaling an intention to avoid or prevent beine taken into or retained in custody, 7 a. . .1 Assam-tire Aggressive or combatiw: attenmtine to assault the officer or another person. Verballv or nhvsieallv displays an intention to assault the. officer or another person. We 4 Lil?e-threalenine. Anv action likely to result in serious bodilv injury or death of the officer or another person 4 - 4 ()ll?icers shall strive to use the minimum amount of force necessarv to accomplish their lawt'ul purpose. Deleted: I: liege? V. A. Low Level Force. The level of control necessary to interact with a subject who is or displaying passive or active resistance. This level of force is not intended to and has a low probability of causing injury. B. Intermediate Force. Thiylevel of force a tureseenhle i'ixlt n1 sienilieunt tn hum]. Inn is neither likely intended to eaitise dentli. Intermediate l?oree will typically only be acceptable when til?lieei?x are committed with active resistance and it Lljil?LLtL pig 3.1315 pt titglfigeij; others; ?Case law decisions have specifically identified and established that certain force options such as DC spray, prebe imPaCtProjecti165, I'esli'nintei innw :1 hi and baton strikes are classified as intermediate force likely to result in significant injury. C. Lethal-Deadh Force. Am the? ol toree substantially likely to enlist: sei'inux bodily- with in death. including hill not limited to the disehtn?ee 5.31:1, the use (it an impact weznitni undermine other techniques or etniimnenl. and certain interventions to MUD ti \iibieet's which (see 5.05. Response and l?uisnil DrivineJ ?tel t-clet'e nae *Wl'tt?l't he 1 iltieetl HH lzeiin-zthl lie-Ht- belie e141: Hirepemm its-?in ~i-mimli?te?dmdeatth Witt?! ti iei?e i s- no {63% ma blew e: i tweeter believe?tilthhepere-?eH??ww?a rimm edi ate Hf tel let Ht e?gletljralg:?:i??::AED are OPTIONS. The force options authorized by the Department are physical controls, personal body weapons, chemical agents, impact weapons, extended range impact weapons, vehicle interventions, 5311151 ,and firearms. These are the force options available to officers, but officers are not required to use these force options based on a continuum. While deploy ltlL? a particular ltn'ce option and when feasible. ol?l'leei's shall evaluate Deleted: Deleted: necessary to compel compliance by a subject displaying aggressive or eonibativeggressive behavior Deleted: This level of force poses a foreseeable risk of significant injury or harm, but is neither likely nor intended to cause death. Deleted: Bidea?m?rbed?-W Deleted: conducted energy devices, lousy HUHUH [ltd/y in: while still tn'hic?xme tlu arm! Ul til?! 22.5.1.1 i. Light and iu?lmiqum t?m l?urux Opium?. ,l'liv lullwrung: lW'll?ylWl Lars ll? 5! with Lilia with: incl mi c. r. l, i?iiuilliuilrz'i tel i U) 9W if"? ,i 21min,sz ?1 (Jaws-?v . ?131?! .l in]: .i I 2 i343)! .. flaw.? ?ll 'f-?xgrsililv- tl?a?l?tziri. him? i .lix?ll?liv ?vcltit?lt' lulu: in; lit; W'il Haul} "1 9 (Wt-ii a ?1 .53., . PHYSICAL BODY WEAPONS. Physical controls, such as control holds, takedowns, strikes with personal body weapons, and other weaponless techniques are designed to gum mid/oi 53.9311} 1! gm uncutillegallyt n2 The use of physical control techniques and equipment against vulnerable populations including children, elderly persons, pregnant women, people with physical and mental disabilities, people with limited English proficiency, and other can undermine public trust and should be used as a last resort. . PURPOSE. When a subject offers some degree of passive or active resistance to a lawful order, in addition to de-escalation techniques and appropriate communication skills, officers may use physical controls consistent with Department training to gain compliance. A subject?s level of resistance and the threat posed by the subject are important factors in determining what type of physical controls or personal body weapons should be used. 3. USE. Officers shall consider the relative size and possible physical capabilities of the subject compared to the size, physical capabilities, skills, and experience of the officer. When faced with a situation that may necessitate the use of physical controls, officers shall consider requesting additional resources to the scene prior to making contact with the subject, if feasible. Different physical controls involve different levels of force and risk of injury to a subject or to an officer. Some physical controls may actually involve a greater risk of injury or pain to a subject than other force options. 3.PROHIBITED USE OF CONTROL HOLDS. Officers are prohibited from using the following control holds: 10 a. carotid restraint (Disagreement between SFPOA who supports carotid restraint and Community Stakeholders who want it prohibited, see Section and End Note VI) b. choke hold-choking by means of pressure to the subject?s trachea or other means that prevent breathing. A. MANDATORY MEDICAL ASSESSMENT. Any subject who has been injured, complains of an injury in the presence of officers, or complains of pain that persists beyond the use of the physical control hold shall be medically assessed by emergency medical personnel. B. REPORTING. Use of physical controls is a reportable use of force when the subject is injured, complains of injury in the presence of officers, or complains of pain that persists beyond the use of a physical control hold. Striking a subject with a personal body weapon is a reportable use of force. C. CHEMICAL AGENTS. Chemical agents, such as Oleoresin Capsicum (0C) Spray, are designed to cause irritation and temporarily incapacitate a subject. 1. PURPOSE. Chemical agents can be used to subdue an unarmed attacker or to overcome active resistance (unarmed or armed with a weapon other than a firearm) that is likely to result in injury to either the subject or the officer. In many instances, chemical agents can reduce or eliminate the necessity to use other force options to gain compliance, consistent with Department training. WARNING. Officers shall provide a warning prior to deploying a chemical agent, if feasible: 3. Announce a warning to the subject and other officers of the intent to deploy the chemical agent if the subject does not comply with officer commands; and b. Give the subject a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily comply unless it would pose a risk to the public or the officer, or permit the subject to undermine the deployment of the chemical agent. MANDATORY FIRST AID. At the scene or as soon as possible, officers shall administer first aid by: a. Seating the subject or other person(s) exposed to a chemical agent in an upright position, and b. Flushing his/her eyes out with clean water and ventilate with fresh air. MANDATORY MEDICAL ASSESSMENT. Any person exposed to a chemical agent shall be medically assessed by emergency medical personnel. Any exposed person shall be kept under direct visual observation until he/she has been medically assessed. If an exposed person loses consciousness or has difficulty breathing, an officer shall immediately request for emergency medical personnel, render first aid and monitor the subject until relieved by emergency medical personnel. Officers shall notify dispatch to expedite emergency medical personnel if the person loses consciousness or has difficulty breathing. TRANSPORTATION. Subjects in custody exposed to a chemical agent must be transported in an upright position by two officers. The passenger officer shall 11 closely monitor the subject for any signs of distress. If the subject loses consciousness or has difficulty breathing, officers shall immediately seek emergency medical attention. Hobble cords or similar types of restraints shall only be used to secure a subject?s legs together. They shall not be used to connect the subject?s legs to his/her waist or hands or to a fixed object. 6. BOOKING FORM. Officers shall note on the booking form that the subject has been exposed to a chemical agent. 7. REPORTING. If an officer deploys a chemical agent on or near someone. it is a reportable use of force. IMPACT WEAPON. Department issued and authorized impact weapons include the 26? straight wooden baton, the 36? straight wooden baton, the wooden or polymer Yawara stick, the 21? to 29? telescopic metal baton and the wooden bokken, and are designed to temporarily to, its v. .2 val Deleted: Impact weapons, such as abaton. are designed to temporarily incapacitate a subject. 1. PURPOSE. An impact weapon may be used in accordance to Department training to administer strikes to non-vital areas of the body, which can subdue an ,i with! subject Mm t: 2: ii? 1.'i j. [it Him .is in lira. Mint} 3 Deleted: aggressive um: r, tub-oi Only Department issued or authorized impact weapons shall be used. Officers may resort to the use of other objects as impact weapons, such as a ?ashlight or police radio, if exigent circumstances exist, and officers shall articulate in writing the reason for doing so. 2. WARNING. When using an impact weapon, an officer shall, if feasible: a. Announce a warning to the subject of the intent to use the impact weapon if the subject does not comply with officer?s commands; and b. Give the subject a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily comply, except that officers need not do so where it would pose a risk to the public or the officer or permit the subject to undermine the use of the impact weapon. 3. RESTRICTED USES. Unless exigent circumstances exist, officers shall not: a. Raise an impact weapon above the head to strike a subject, list gm: Solute; at?. It by and tx-isima} ta -, it: It?iit Humor; it Intentionally strike vital areas, including the head, neck, face, throat, spine, groin or kidney. The use of an impact weapon to a vital area has a likelihood of causing serious bodily injury or death, and the intentional use of an impact weapon to these areas shall only be used in situations where lethal force is justified. 4. PROHIBITED USES. Officers shall not: Deleted: a. Use the impact weapon to intimidate a subject or person, such as slapping the palm of their hand with an impact weapon xx ih.?l tilt rm. it?uizn't manna: 1?3, \t?qaj'mi: minim; amnuwnissittit' b. Striking a handcuffed prisoner 5.x. ilw no [In tail is an inappropriate action and may result in disciplinary action and/or criminal prosecution. Deleted: this provision here cops 5. MANDATORY MEDICAL ASSESSMENT. Any officer who strikes a subject ("Phase-er more than Prohibited ?535- they are with an impact weapon shall ensure the subject is medically assessed. ?was i Deleted: or I 12 6. REPORTING. If an officer strikes a subject with an impact weapon, it is a reportable use of force. EXTENDED RANGE IMPACT WEAPON (ERIW). An Extended Range Impact Weapon (ERIW), such as a beanbag shotgun, is a weapon that fires a bean bag or other projectile designed to temporarily incapacitate a subject. An ERIW is generally not considered to be a lethal weapon when used at a range of 15 feet or more. 1. PURPOSE. The ERIW may be used on a subject who is armed with a weapon, other than a firearm, that could cause serious injury or death. This includes, but is not limited to, edged weapons and improvised weapons such as baseball bats, bricks, bottles, or other objects. The ERIW may also be used in accordance with Department training to subdue an aggressive, unarmed subject who poses an immediate threat of serious injury to another person or the officer. 2. USE. The ERIW shall be properly loaded and locked in the shotgun rack of the passenger compartment of the vehicle. Officers shall observe the following guidelines: a. An officer deploying an ERIW shallalways have a lethal cover officer. When more than one officer is deploying an ERIW, tactical judgment and scene management in accordance with Department training will dictate the appropriate number of ERIW and lethal cover officers. mm a wimz A i, l1": lfll? 1.. til-lice; i than number b..The ERIW officer?s point of aim shall be Zone 2 (waist and below). The ERIW officer?s point of aim may be Zone 1 (waist and above) if: i. Zone 2 is unavailable; or ii. The ERIW officer is delivering the round from 60 feet; or Shots to Zone 2 have been ineffective or in the officers judgment a shot to zone 2 would be ineffective. Officer shall articulate in writing the reason for intentionally aiming the ERIW at Zone 1 c.The use of an ERIW to a vital area has a likelihood of causing serious bodily injury or death, and the intentional use of an ERIW to these areas shall only be used in situations where deadly; force is justified. d.The ERIW officer shall assess the effect of the ERIW after each shot. If subsequent ERIW rounds are needed, the officer shall aim at a different target area. 3. LIMITED USES. The ERIW should not be used in the following circumstances elm -- llii.? a. b. "n primipiillicit: The subject is at the extremes of age (elderly and children) or physically frail. The subject is in an elevated position where a fall is likely to cause serious injury or death. . The subject is known to be or appears pregnant. 13 Deleted: all Deleted: In most circumstances, there should be fewer lethal cover officers than the number of ERIWs deployed?l 3 Deleted: lethal At ranges ofless than 15 feet. o. witt?l'u?il lat-mil lo. acme-tars Eitiw. aural". "l about r. ?ut'tsimv minim" . .t . a rug-I area: tlriw mini: Melina \lam liar! i. 4. WARNING. When using the ERIW, an officer shall, if feasible: a. Announce to other officers the intent to use the ERIW by stating ?Red Light! Less Lethal! Less Lethal!? b. All other officers at scene to acknowledge imminent deployment of ERIW by echoing, ?Red Light! Less Lethal! Less Lethal!? c. Announce a warning to the subject that the ERIW will be used if the subject does not comply with officer commands; d. Give the subject a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily comply unless it would pose a risk to the community or the officer, or permit the subject to undermine the deployment of the ERIW. 5. MANDATORY MEDICAL ASSESSMENT. Any subject who has been struck by an ERIW round shall be medically assessed by emergency medical personnel. 6. BOOKING FORM. Persons who have been struck by an ERIW round shall have that noted on the booking form. 7. REPORTING. Discharge of an ERIW is a reportable use of force. L. .. VEHICLE INTERVENTIONS. An officer?s use of a police vehicle as a ?deflection? technique, creation of a roadblock by any means, or deployment of spike strips, or any other interventions resulting in the intentional contact with a noncompliant subject?s vehicle for the purpose of making a detention or arrest, are Considered a use of force and must be {alum a tic-l3 mayarable under the circumstances. The Department?s policies concerning such vehicle intervention tactics are set forth in DGO 5.05, Response and Pursuit Driving. CONDUCTED ENERGY DEVICE (CED). See Special Operations Bureau Order on use ofCEDa 12.: . my r? lit ll) 'llig is a u. Italian. Hus or. ?11 ltfiltl l?ih l'l? W- l_?_5_lltc limit]. slit; LL: wu 'w?i?lil a! 1. LiLThc Carotid Restraint is considered an intermediate force option. Based on the totality ot'circumstanccs. it may be an acceptable use of force in the following circumstances: a. When an officer is physically attacked. b. To stop a physical attack on another person c. An officer has attempted a lesser level of force and found it to be inadequate d. In the officer?s having evaluated a particular circumstance. a lesser level of force would be inadequate. Blil Ule [7 SIM lip-cu tidying in}; llu.? shall. cuntul i; .a a. \mtmn?: 1-: i. ?15 'iv'lV-E l? i? "k ?5?3 b. tl'u? film \lli?llfadmin}: .vz?wl'lt . tzgfuii'gh in that in; ?smwi 1min.- [ie-w H. "w 2 3.\l Nil-ll)? ax ll?m?i. ?ltd: :il lit; titre: . mgilw. ll?, Kalli] il. ?lit: ll 4? wilng? llvil his MUMQAQLQ 1.: .?il -, 'l'hht i) r5 1 v- ll lavilal. 5,.li? ?Ul?ilf??it. Au], l: I 1 Isl FIREARMS AND OTHER DEADLY FORCE. It is the policy of this Department to use gill) ,as a last resort ,when reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or an Itpi [wall to protect the safety of the public and police officers. The use of firearms and other is the most serious decision an officer may ever make. it?sleng \Ill' .1113 it .ngililt' blight} ?Z'l A it. tout- opt/ital; uthu't??ischarging a firearm or using other let-ha} th?Zitlly force. cwtt'dglz?l m: l. HANDLING, DRAWING AND POINTING FIREARMS. a. HANDLING FIREARMS. An officer shall handle and manipulate a firearm in accordance with Department?approved firearms training. An officer shall not manually cock the hammer of the Department-issued handgun to defeat the first shot double?action feature. b. AUTHORIZED USES. An officer may draw, exhibit or point a firearm in the line of duty when the officer has reasonable cause to believe it may be necessary for the safety of others or for his or her own safety. When an officer determines that the threat is over, the officer shall holster his or her firearm or shoulder the weapon in the port arms position pointed or slung in a manner consistent with Department approved firearms training. OTHERWISE PROHIBITED. Except for maintenance, safekeeping, inspection by a superior officer, Department-approved training, or as otherwise authorized by this order, an officer shall not draw a Department issued firearm. A FIREARM AT A PERSON. The pointing of a firearm at a person is a seizure and requires legal justification. No officer shall point a firearm at or in the 15 Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: lethal Deleted: only Deleted: Deleted: ppear impracticable Deleted: lethal Deleted: I I Deleted: When safe and feasible under the totality of circumstances, officers shall consider other (minimal) force options before Deleted: If an officer points a firearm at a person, the officer shall, if feasible, advise the subject the reason why the officet(s) pointed the firearm. direction of a person unless there is a reasonable perception of a substantial risk that the situation will y; i. a. 2. DISCHARGE 0F FIREARMS OR OTHER USE OF LEJIHAL g3; escalate to justif ,lglj; lethalforce. :31; Lillipgr piggy! Ll writirlxw . a. a [193:1 m. at. Deleted: lethal Jilii sills Milli} 3 it?. 45.3 ?x i xi . .. .ll extreme?? e. REPORTING. When an officer intentionally points any firearm at a person, it shall be considered a reportable use of force. Such use of force must be reasonable under the objective facts and circumstances. FORCE. PERMISSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES. Except as limited by Sections and an Deleted: officer may discharge a firearm or use other dealt; ?let-hal force in any of the Deleted: H1 following circumstances: i. In self?defense when the officer has reasonable cause to believe Deleted: ?3 that he or she is in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury; or ii In defense of another person when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person is in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury. However, an officer may not discharge a firearm at, or use digitalis lethal force against, a person who presents a danger only to him or herself, and there is no reasonable cause to believe that the person poses an immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or any other person; or T0 apprehend a person when both of the following circumstances exist: The officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person has committed or has attempted to commit a violent felony involving the use or threatened use of tlifiltil} lethal force; AND The officer has reasonable cause to believe that a substantial risk exists that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to officers or others if the person?s apprehension is delayed; or iv. To kill an animal posing an imminent threat. The above circumstances (2a, i-iv apply to each discharge of a firearm or application of silt. Officers shall eenstantl?y reassess the situation, 11m feasible trial tale, to determine whether the subject continues to pose an aetive threat- i? a g. ml. Deleted: lethal Deleted: as 16 WARNING. If feasible, and if doing so would not increase the danger to the officer or others, an officer shall give a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the officer before discharging a firearm or using other deadly lethal force. REASONABLE CARE FOR THE PUBLIC. To the extent feasible, an officer shall take reasonable care when discharging his or her firearm so as not to jeopardize the safety of the public or officers. PROHIBITED CIRCUMSTANCE. Officers shall not discharge their firearm: i. As a warning; or ii. At a person who presents a danger only to him or herself. MOVING VEHICLES. An officer shall not discharge a firearm at the operator or occupant of a moving vehicle unless the operator or occupant poses an-i-mmi-nent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the public or an officer by means other than the vehicle. Officers shall not discharge a firearm from his or her moving vehicle. Stakeholders? suggested provision: behm Sl?l?UA?s suggested provisions) The [itiliciex shall um erti the discharge of at or from L1 min in: or at the opt-rater ur of it mminu \eltiele: Mmhig t'ireurni at it maxing \ehiele. with the intent to tlixttlile H. l?ium at Murine Vehicle. officer shall not discharge it fru Ill] :1 mmine \ehicle unless the_nl_'lieer llih cause to believe there ix ittimedhle death or atrium hudilt? to the officer or to others. the Discharging :t Lit the t?utierulur or til' it mmine \eltiele ix inherentlx dim-serous to nt?t'ieerx and the public. ?militate the ill :tti initiiedigtle danger of death or lmdih rim-n mu ehiele with a disabled operator mum- injur) tn i?tjgmerx ul'the [mile or officers. Accordingly it is the [hillt'V til tlte Department that nl?l'ieers are prohibited from their l'it'eai at in" mun 0113.1 tut narrnu set in this subsection. nl'lit'er shall nut discharge a til the Upt?l'ttlul or til and er the Jill int: t'irtrtitiistuneex: till the operator or tsl'u 111m in: whale is threatening' the ul'lieer with immediate danger of 17 Deleted: b. 7 Deleted: I Deleted; Deleted: Deleted: 5 ls lL'l (kl) lt?l death l)_o_tli_ly lljjIlLLlu-Jllc?nh other than the ehiele itsel I. the operator of the mm lug the officer v. immediate ?lancer of death or serious hotlilt iniun hv menus til' the \eltiele. and the ot'l?ieer has. no reasonable and apparent ?it; lu retreat or otherwise mm lo Ll place of \ztl'eu-y In defense of another person when the nl'l'icer has rettmitaihle lo believe that the permit ix in immediate tluneer ol'tleath or \L?J'lulh hudll?, iniurt. ?l?o apprehend person hen hull] of the l'nllotvinLY The Ul?l'lt'et? lltt\ reatsonzihle cause to heliew that the person has Committed or has attempted to commit ti 3.19 item .Lk?lein 11.? ul nigthc use ut' deutll ti tree: ANI) The officer has reasonable cause to believe that at substantial risk e?x?lsls that the person will death or serious hndih iniurv to officers or others it' the miss In re?ewine incidents inwltine llie of firearms from a mmin?.y vehicle or at an pig-tutor of at [tinting which: the Department will consider the ol'the circumstances. including but not limited to whether the officer or others were in immediate dancer or serious bodily iniurv and whether the officers who were present with Department tumrm suggestion)? F. RENDERING OR REQUESTING MEDICAL AID Following the use of force. ol?l?ieers shall render or request medical aid il? needed or requested by anyone as soon as possible. Q, REPORTING. 1. DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS. Except for firearm discharges at an approved range or during lawful recreational activity, an officer who discharges a firearm, either on or off duty, shall report the discharge as required under DGO 8.11, Investigation of Officer Involved Shootings and Discharges. This includes an intentional or unintentional discharge, either within or outside the City and County of San Francisco. 2. OTHER DEADLY FORCE. An officer who applies other force that results in death shall report the force to the officer?s supervisor, and it shall be investigated as required under DGO 8.12, In Custody Deaths. An officer who 18 l- Deleted: . Q: applies other lethal 33? sorce that results in serious bodily injury shall report the force to the officer?s supervisor. The supervisor shall, regardless whether possible misconduct occurred, immediately report the force to their superior officer and their commanding officer, who shall determine which unit shall be responsible for further investigation. An officer who applies other-lethal ll?. Hill force that does not result in serious bodily injury shall report the force. (SFPOA Requests Use of Force Inserted I-lere)w VI. USE OF FORCE REPORTING A. REPORTABLE USES OF FORCE Officers shall report any use of force involving physical controls when the subject is injured, complains of injury in the presence of officers, or complains of pain that persists beyond the use of a physical control hold. Officers shall also report any use of force involving the use of persoual body weapons, chemical agents, impact weapons, ERle, vehicle interventions, l. in; and firearms. Additionally, officers shall report the intentional pointing of firearms at a subject. 1. NOTIFICATION OF USE OF FORCE. An officer shall notify his/her supervisor immediately or as soon as practical of any reportable use of force. A supervisor shall be notified if an officer receives an allegation of excessive force. 2. EVALUATION OF USE OF FORCE. A supervisor shall conduct a use of force evaluation in all cases involving a reportable use of force. 3. EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE. Every allegation of excessive force shall be subject to the reporting and investigative requirements of this General Order and applicable disciplinary policies. B. PROCEDURES 1. RESPONSIBILITY. Any reportable use of force shall be documented in detail in an incident report, supplemental incident report. or statement form. Descriptions shall be in clear, precise and plain language and shall be as specific as possible. a. When the officer using force is preparing the incident report, the officer shall include the following information: i. The subject?s action necessitating the use of force, including the threat presented by the subject; ii. Efforts to de-escalate prior to the use of force; saw-J vi a wt; Any warning given and if not, why not; iv. The type of force used;? 19 Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: CEDs, Deleted: C505 and v. Injury sustained by the subject; vi. Injury sustained by the officer or another person; vii. Information regarding medical assessment or evaluation, including whether the subject refused; The supervisor?s name, rank, star number and the time notified. b. In the event that an officer cannot document his/her use of force due to exceptional circumstances, another officer shall document this use of force in an incident report, supplemental incident report or statement form at the direction of a supervisor. 2. RESPONSIBILITY. When notified of the use of force, the supervisor shall conduct a supervisorial evaluation to determine whether the force used appears reasonable and within the provisions of this order. The supervisor shall: Immediately respond to the scene unless a response is impractical, poses a danger, or where officers? continued presence creates a risk. When more than one supervisor responds, the responsibility shall fall on the senior supervisor; Ensure the scene is secure and observe injured subjects or officers; Ensure that witnesses (including officers) are identified and interviewed, and that this information is included in the incident report. The number of witnesses may preclude identification and interview of all witnesses, however supervisors shall ensure identification to the best of their ability; Ensure photographs of injuries are taken and all other evidence is booked; Remain available to review the officer?s incident report, supplemental incident report and written statement at the direction of the superior officer. A supervisor shall not approve an incident report or written statement involving a use of force that does not comply with the requirements as set forth in ?t i i: 5 . above; If applicable, ensure the supervisor?s reason for not responding to the scene is included in the incident report. Complete and submit the Supervisory Use of Force Evaluation form, indicating whether the force used appears reaSOHable, by the end of watch; Complete the Use of Force Log (SFPD 128) and attach one copy of the incident report by the end of watch. Deleted: II.A(fix) i Deleted: ?11 If a supervisor determines that a member?s use of force is unnecessary or that an officer has applied force that results in serious bodily injury or death, the supervisor shall notify his/her superior officer. 20 3. SUPERIOR RESPONSIBILITY. When a superior officer is notified of unnecessary force or force that results in serious bodily injury or death, the superior officer shall: Respond to the scene and assume command, as practical; b. Notify the commanding officer and ensure all other notifications are made consistent with DGO 1.06, Duties of Superior Officers; c. to . ?than ganglia? Office of Citizen Deleted: Make the required Complaintsl?ll lir?3jliWEE-y l1? i?t' Deleted; team); I t: 4. tuft!" :it(SFPOA has technical question regarding DGO 2.04), Deleted: to d. Determine which unit(s) will be responsible for the on-going investigation(s); De'e?e?il if? citizen Complaint is made: e. Prepare a report containing preliminary findings, conclusions and/or recommendations, if appropriate. OTHER REQUIREMENTS. 1. USE OF FORCE LOG. The following units shall maintain a Use of Force Log: a. District Stations b. Airport Bureau c. Department Operations Center 2. RECORDING PROCEDURES. Supervisors shall document a reportable use of force for all officers including those officers assigned to specialized units in the Use of 5 Deleted; Force Log at the District Station where the use of force occurred, except as noted below: a. Any use of force occurring outside the city limits, except at the San Francisco International Airport, shall be recorded in the Department Operations Center?s Use of Force Log. b. Any use of force occurring at the San Francisco International Airport shall be recorded in the Airport Bureau? 3 Use of Force Log. 3. DOCUMENT ROUTING. a. Commanding officers shall forward the original completed Supervisor?s Use of Force Evaluation Form(s) to the Commanding Officer of Risk Management and one copy to the Commanding Officer of the Training Division and another to the officer?s Bureau Deputy Chief no later than the end of the watch. This DeIeted; 0 information shall be entered into the Use of Force database at Risk Management to generate reports as described in section (5) below. b. tit, thinly tn" lt t. a un "1 again}. commanding officers shall sign the Use of Force Log and send it, along with one Deleted: On the 1st and 15th of each month. copy of the incident report, to their respective Bureau Deputy Chief and one copy of the Use of Force Log with copies of the incident reports to the Commanding Officers of the Training Division and Risk Mz-inagement, Deleted: 21 4. TRAINING DIVISION RESPONSIBILITIES. The Commanding Officer of the Training Division will maintain controls that assure all Use of Force Logs ,and Deleted: Use of Force Logs Supervisor Evaluations are received, and shall perform a non-punitive review to ascertain the number, types, proper application and effectiveness of uses of force. The information developed shall be used to identify training needs. 5. RISK MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES. The Commanding Officer of the Risk Management shall general report bi?weckly I"l and to the Chief of Police on the use of force by Department members that includes comprehensive use of force statistics consistent with current federal, state and local laws on use of force reporting. 6. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS. The Department will collect and analyze its use of force data in the Risk lVlunagement Use ol? Force database. The Use of Force statistics and analysis will include at a minimum: The type of force The types and degree of injury to suspect and officer Date and time Location of the incident Officer?s unit District station where the use of force occurred Officer's assignment Number of officers using force in the incident Officer?s activity when force was used (ex. Handcuffing, search warrant, pursuit) Subject?s activity requiring the officer to use force Officer?s demographics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, rank, number of years with SFPD, number of years as a police officer) Suspect demographics including race/ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, primary language and other factors such as mental illness, cognitive impairment, developmental disability, drug and alcohol use/addiction and homeless. ar?r'r?rqormenzsre The Department will post on a basis on its website comprehensive use of force statistics and analysis and provide a written use of force report to the Police Commission annuallyx Deleted:?ll it or: ivilhl?t?isliill lay x5}, will: an? walla Ilii l?ulin. it? ui/ t: gr?tliiu inn} tartan r. Elm." Erwin-1" ramsm ?Hsl "gr mats?! villi? a? in \t ?Elt ll. in. *ly :m 11m; vf 112?. 2. l- thitivti In trl':i~ gulls: wli tii ivy-milling lulu ll ll. in wit-u 1ft: (SFPOA did not address this provision) >95} [11.1.le ?1 at a diet! is. 22 References DGO 1.06, Duties of Superior Officers DGO 2.04 Citizen Complaints Against Officers DGO 5.05, Response and Pursuit Driving 5.17 Policy Prohibiting Biased Policins1 DGO 5.18, Prisoner Handling and Transportation DGO 8.11, Investigation of Officer Involved Shootings And Discharges DGO 8.12, In Custody Deaths XX Respondill?.? to Behavioral Crisis Calls and l?he Role of the Crisis Intervention Team i This SF POA believes that the Department should include the language of Penal Code 835a, as it has done here. For reasons unclear to the SFPOA, it has been suggested that the Department remove the language of Penal Code Section 835a. Penal Code Section 835a is California law. All officers and citizens are bound by Section 835a whether it is included in the Department?s general orders or not. Because Section 835a gives important guidance on the use of force by police officers, the SFPOA believes that it would be a mistake to exclude it from the Department?s general orders. ii PROPOSED CHANGE: The requirement that supervisors read a Miranda- type admonition over the air each time there is a call or on-view of a suspect with a weapon is absurd, dangerous, and should be eliminated. For many reasons. this requirement is dangerous. makes no sense. and will not in any way encourage de?escalation. First. although the proposal has an exception for Code 33 situations. this does not solve the safety problem. In many situations a call that an individual has a weapon is not immediately a Code 33 but it can become a Code 33 in the 10?1 5 seconds that a supervisor would spend reading this admonition over the air. If this policy is in place, valuable time will be lost during the 10?15 second admonition which could cost civilians and officers their lives. As the noted. "this will tie up radio communications during a critical incident and could create risk.? (DOJ COPS comment 33.) Second, this admonition will be ineffective at best. and dangerous at worst. even if it does not interfere with valuable air-time. This proposal requires that. regardless of the circumstances, a supervisor who is not on the scene and may know nothing about the situation, must go over the air and give advice to the on?scene officer about how to handle the call. This is inefficient and impractical. Suppose, for example. that an on?scene officer arrives to a weapons call and finds a suspect about to shoot a child: Should that officer heed his supervisor?s canned advice to ?build rapport." or should the officer make an appropriate decision based on what he or she observes based on the totality of circumstances known to him or her? The obvious answer is that the on?scene officer should ignore any advice that does not apply to that particular situation. If the on?scene officer does not ignore the canned advice, however, but treats the admonition as a directive from a supervisor, this could endanger the public and officers. Officers might be taking cover when it is unsafe to do so. maintaining distance when they should be advancing, and trying to establish rapport when 23 they should be quiet all because they believe they are following a supervisor?s orders. Third. almost none of this advice would apply to the great majority of the routine calls officers receive about individuals armed with weapons. For any of these admonitions to be appropriate, the following circumstances must apply: (1) the call is for an armed suspect; (2) the suspect is sufficiently far away from any possible victims that the officer can maintain distance, build rapport, call for additional resources. take cover, and engage in communications without time restraints and withoutjeopardizing anyone's safety; and (3) the scene is sufficiently secure and controlled that command of the scene can be transferred from the on-scene officer to the later-arriving supervisor. The only scenario in which this would he applicable is a very rare critical incident situation (such as a barricaded suspect situation), which is addressed by other general orders. Therefore, if this proposal is approved. the Department would be requiring that, regardless of the situation, supervisors must dispense advice that is almost never going to be applicable. Moreover. the blanket application of these tie?escalation principles would turn many routine weapons calls into dangerous critical incidents. Situations that might be resolved merely by the officer ordering a suspect to drop a weapon will now require the officer to retreat. call for backup and obtain cover. For example. in response to our survey. one officer recounted the following scenario: The officer responded to a weapons call and found a mentally unstable woman lying on her bed saying that she wanted to kill herself. The officer approached. the woman moved her leg and revealed a knife under her leg (which she was not holding yet). Without saying another word, the officers grabbed the woman and moved her away from the knife. The woman struggled, spat, and was held for a 5150. If the officer had instead backed off to establish rapport. called a supervisor. took cover and created a "reaction gap." this situation could have turned disastrous. The quick action by the officer resolved the situation and probably saved the woman?s life. Fourth. if the Department believes that officers should be instructed about de? escalation and the "sanctity" of human life. the worst. most dangerous, and least effective means of achieving this is for supervisors to repeat those words over the air 20 times a day in situations where the admonitions do not apply and officers are responding to a potentially dangerous situation. Instead, the Department should provide additional training and draft appropriate general orders. Fifth, the Department does not have the resources for a supervisor to be dispatched to every weapons call. For example. the Mission district receives dozens of similar calls a day, but only has a limited number of patrol sergeants at any given time. The SFPOA Suggests that ifthe Department still believes that some variation of this policy is appropriate, it should study the practical effect of this policy before implementation to avoid the possible chaos that might follow. No police department in the entire country has a policy like this. San Francisco should not be the first. As the suggests, this proposal is ?better accomplished through training and something that should situationally be left up to the supervisor?s discretion.? Alternatively, if the Department insists on keeping this requirement. the SFPOA suggests that the Department could have a pre-recorded message, perhaps from the Chief, 24 that could play any time an officer responds to a weapons call. This could be done through DEM or the officer could have a device to play this recording in their vehicles which they couldjust depress when they respond to a weapons call. This would eliminate the risk of this message taking up valuable air-time. Having a pre-recorded message would also ensure that the message is delivered the same way each time regardless of whether it is appropriate for the circumstance confronting the officer (which appears to be the intent of this requirement), and it would avoid burdening supervisors with having to remember a script. See remarks concerning carotid restraint (Section 1? Sec Slil?UA's remarks concerning carotid restraint, endnote vi PROPOSED CHANGE: The Department should eliminate this entire paragraph because it is contrary to common sense: and inconsistent with the De )artment?s other )1?0 )osed orders. P.O.S.T. and the case law addressin the issue. First. contrary to the statement in this proposed policy. use of physical controls should not be the "last resort." with respect to any population. In fact. as this policy appropriately provides, the use of deadly force is the ?last resort." Of course. it is contradictory for a policy to have two ?lasts.? Moreover. only shouldn't the Use of physical controls be the ?last resort," it is the least intrusive means of gaining control of a suspect not following verbal commands. (Sec Learning Domain 20 The use of baton. K-9. spray. CED. and physical body weapons. all properly come before the use of a control hold in terms of the likelihood of causing And. the Ninth Circuit has held that control holds can properly be used against non-compliant. passive suspects. Ebcrle v. City of Anaheim. c)Ol F.2d 814. 820 (9th Cir. 1990) (reasonable as a matter of law to use a ?finger control hold? to remove belligerent spectator from arena). As written. under this policy. if a pregnant woman was refusing to obey a lawful order (such as to get out of the street). the officer would be required to consider deploying :1 k4). using a baton and discharging firearm before escorting the woman out of the street with a firm grip. Second. the description of?coptrol holds? as being ?designed to incapacitate and subdue subieets." should be removed because that is not their actual purpose. in fact. physical control holds are a critical part of a police officer?s tools to resolve a situation using minimal force. According to "control holds" constitute the least amount of force that an officer can use. and can even be used on suspects that are offering no physical resistance ofany sort. (See Learning Domain 20: Physical controls are not designed to incapacitate or subdue subiects. Frequently. physical control holds are merely intended to help move a non?compliant subiect from one location to another. (See Eberle v. City of Anaheim. 90] F.2d 814. 820 (9th Cir. 1990) [reasonable as a matter of law to use a "finger control hold? to remove belligerent spectator from Lll'Cllii I . if the Department defines all physical control holds to be the equivalent of intermediate force which is the level of force designed to incapacitate and subdue suspects then the Department will have left its officers with virtually no means of attempting to control non-compliant suspects. The result is that many suspects that are merely non? compliant will become actively resistant. requiring officers to exert an even greater level of 25 force with which to gain control, which will unnecessarily endanger suspects, civilians, and officers. Furthermore, this definition of physical control holds is inconsistent with the explanation of when such holds can be used. Below. the Department suggests that an officer may use "physical controls? on an individual who is passively resisting. But. if. as this paragraphs states, physical controls are ?designed to incapacitate" suspects, then it would be inappropriate to use such technique on an individual who is merely passively resisting. Third, this policy inappropriately lumps physical controls and personal body weapons into the same category even though they are significantly different. Under section 11.. G. this proposed general order defines "personal body weapons? as "lain officer?s use of his/her hand, foot, knee, elbow. shoulder, hip. arm leg or head by means of high velocity kinetic energy transfer (impact) to gain control of a subiect." A physical control hold can be anything from a finger hold (Eberle v. City of Anaheim. 901 F.2d 814-. 820 (9th Cir. 1990)) to an arm bar (Tatum v. City and County of San Francisco, 44] F.3d l090. l092-93 (9th Cir. 200(3)). Fourth. this proposed policy is internally i11con-_sistent. In the title and the first sentence, it discusses physical controls and other "weaponless techniques." in the next sentence it references ?physical control techniques and equipment." It is inconsistent for the Department to propose a policy that on one hand concerns only "weaponless techniques,? and in the very next sentence make reference to "techniques and equipment." As a result, unless modified or eliminated officers will have no idea what this proposed policy means. Fifth, the inclusion of "people with limited English proficiency,? as a category of individuals against whom physical control should be a "last resort? is ridiculous. Officers confront many violent criminals every day with limited English proficiency. To essentially prohibit officers from using the lowest level of force against a suspect merely because they have limited English proficiency makes no sense and will needlessly endanger officers. Sixth. the phrase "and others." stuck on the very end of the list of "vulnerable populations" makes the entire paragraph meaningless. If the Department is attempting to define a subset of citizens for whom none of the normal rules related to use of force applies. to add the phrase ?and others" to the end of the list undoes any value to the list because "and others" can include everyone else. While the SFPOA believes that including a list of populations against whom physical controls should only be used as a ?last resort." is unnecessary. confusing. and dangerous. having an open ended list does not provide officers with any guidance as to which populations are included in the list. Lastly, this policy. when read toeether with some of the other policies proposed by the Department, leads to absurd results. For example. if an officer sees a non-English speaking suspect strangling a civilian with handcuffs. the officer is precluded from using any impact weapon or any physical control technique (except as a last resort). or the carotid restraint. but the officer would be permitted to shoot the individual. But, if the individual 26 could spcak English and was stranglinu another individual with a rope instead of handcuffs. the officer would have the full rancc of force options available (except the carotid restraint). PROPOSED CHANGE: Consistent with P.0.S.T., the SFPOA believes that the carotid restraint should be authorized and considered intermediate force. The carotid restraint is not a choke-hold and should not be treated as such. The carotid restraint is an intermediate level of force. which can be used to subdue an actively resisting suspect without any injury to the suspect or the officer. (See Exhibit B, P.O.S.T. Learning Domain 20: 2-6, 2-9.) The SFPD has successfully used the carotid restraint for years without incident. As with other non-lethal force options, the more such options are at an officer's disposal, the greater the chance the officer will not have to resort to lethal force. Limiting the use of the carotid restraint to only those situations in which lethal force can be used will effectively eliminate this valuable tool from an officer's arsenal. making the use of deadly force more likely. Limiting the use of the carotid restraint to lethal force situations helps no one. and endangers the public and officers. In response to our survey. one of our officers wrote the following: "1 am a 5?4" female that has rarely used force in my 28 years of law enforcement: however. in the moments where have been attacked the Carotid Restraint has saved my life. It has saved my life 3 times because the person that attacked me was huge and extremely violent. The carotid restraint was applied correctly (due to training), was perfectly effective. and caused no injury to the suspect. It is a tool that call he effectively used by all officers - small/large/male/female -- to safely manage a violent suspect.? Regardless. if the Department wishes to ban this otherwise approved technique, it should not do so categorically. The Department should, at minimum, be allow to use this technique in the same situations where using lethal force is justified. The SFPOA cannot conceive of a reason why an officer could be in a situation in which he or she was justified in using lethal force, but should be prohibited from using this nondethal technique. PROPOSED CHANGE: The policy should restrict strikes to inappropriate parts of the body. not overhead strikes. Policies that reduce inappropriath baton strikes arc commendable. But a severe restriction on strikes does nothing to accomplish that goal. San Francisco policies. academy. and training already focus on the appropriate areas of the body to strike an individual with impact weapons, not whether the blow is delivered with a forehand or backhand swine. or an overhead strike. Bccausc it is the location on the individual struck that matters (head versus thigh). the method ol?dclivcrinc the strike is not the appropriate focus. Specifically. an ovcrhand strike may not be any more likely to rcsult in an inappropriate strike than a sidearm strike. Nor is an overhead strike likely to deliver more force titan a sidearm strike. in addition current best practices and San Francisco training teach that the proper way to hold a baton is with some portion of the baton extending over the officer's hcad before strikinU the suspect. Moreover what may 27 ii constitute an overhead strike mav not always be clear. the officer is bent over, is a strike over the officer's head an overhead strike? If the officer is on the around, would any strike be prohibited as "overhead"? If the suspect is above the officer, is an officer prohibited from reaching up to strike the individual on the thigh? The likely unintended consequence of this restriction on overhead strikes is that officers will be far less likely to use this non-lethal option even when it is appropriate to do so. Such an outcome will not increase safety. Additionally, if this provision is adopted. all SFPD officers will have to undergo extensive re-trainina on how to use batons because this general order wouid be contrary to their training. PROPOSED CHANGE: Officers should not be required to reassess the danger before each individual shot is fired. If this proposed policy is meant to require officers to reassess. after each individual shot. this would be contrary to all officer training. Supreme Court precedent. as well as inconsistent with every other police department in the country and exceedingly dangerous for officers and civilians. When officers are cneaeed in a potentially lethal situation. where the use of a firearm is appropriate. they are trained to shoot until the threat is over. Sometimes. t'lependincI on the situation. an officer may be able to fire one shot and reassess the situation. Often. however, that is impracticable. Including such a requirement will get officers killed. For exampie. surmise asuspect who inst robbed a bank emerges from the batik with a shotgun and aims it at an officer. If after a shot is fired. the officer is required to determine if the suspect has been incapacitated before firing again. the officer will likely be killed. While this proposal states that the officer should only reassess when feasible. the Department should titake it clear that it is not requiring that an officer reassess between every shot unless it is safe and appropriate to do so. PROPOSED CHANGE: l. The blanket prohibition against officers shooting at occupants of vehicles who are using their vehicles as weapons should be removed. It is beyond dispute that individuals can and do use their vehicle as a lethal weapon. [1 is also beyond dispute that officers can and have successfully saved lives by shooting at the operator of the vehicle to prevent them from killing officers or others. In the past. there has been a concern that officers were unnecessarily shooting at drivers when the officer could have instead gotten out of the way. The previous general order. which was revised in 201 l. directly addressed that concern. providing that officers could only shoot at the driver if there was an imminent threat of serious bodily iniury or death and the officer had no reasonable or apparent means of retreat. This proposed order eliminates that. language. and thus prevents; an officer from shooting at the driver of a vehicle. even if there is no means of retreat, and where the officer or a bystander will likely be killed if the officer cannot shoot. In addition, this categorical ban prevents an officer from 28 shooting at a driver of a vehicle to prevent their escape. even where there is a substantial risk that the driver will cause death or serious iniury to others if allowed to escape, Three examples illustrate the dangers of the proposed provision: First. if an individual were driving around San Francisco in an SUV, and running over pedestrians for fun. this policy would prevent an officer from shooting the driver to prevent that driver from killing a family of four in a cross?walk. even if the officer had a clear shot and there was little risk of iniury to anyone else. Under the proposed policy. the officer would be required to hold his or her fire and watch the driver run over the family. This is not an abstract hypothetical. On August 30. 2006. ()meed Aziz Pop-at. struck l8 pedestrians. killing one in San Francisco with his Honda Pilot SUV. Second. under the proposed policy. where a suspect is drivintY his or her vehicle straight at an officer. who has no means of escape or retreat. the officer would have to choose between his or her life and violating the policy. Officers risking their lives for the citizens of San Francisco should never be forced to make. that choice when it can be avoided by a carefully drafted. restrictive policy. such as the one that currently exists. Third under the proposed policy. if a terrorist was escaping after killinU numerous civilians. an officer would be iustified in using lethal force- to stop the terrorist. but only as long as the terrorist was fleeing on foot. Once the terrorist got into a car. the officer would he precluded from stopping the terrorist. even if the car was barely moving at the time the officer had a clear shot. This proposal turns a vehicfe into a safety zone for violent felons to facilitate their escape. The United States Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have repeatedly found that it can be reasonable for an officer to shoot at a suspect who is using his or her vehicle as a weapon. The dangers of an overly permissive policy can be. and have. been. addressed by the Department's current policy. There have been no incidents in which the current policy failed to achieve the goal of protecting civilians and officers alike to warrant any re-evaluation of the existing policy. Other cities. such as ()aktand. Portland. New Orleans, and Milwaukee. which have been held up as examples for San Francisco. have policies very similar to San Francisco?s current policy, which allows for a narrow exception to the prohibition against officers shooting at drivers who are using their vehicle as a weapon. One may wish that threats caused by moving vehicles will end. But in the real world confronting police officers. there will be cases involving violent suspects seeking to harm innocent people using their vehicles. The only question remaining is if the Department and Police Commission will enable officers to make reasonable choices in dangerous. rapidly- evolving situations to save lives. This proposed policv change precludes that. The also recommended that the Department "allow this [shooting at drivers of vehicles] under extremely limited circumstances when other options are unavailable and the life of the officer or member of the public is at risk." (DUJ COPS comment 27.) 29 2. The Department?s proposed blanket prohibition against shooting from a moving vehicle should he removed. Similar to the blanket prohibition on ol'l'icers shooting at suspects using their vehicle as a weapon. the Department should uilow some latitude for situations in which it might be appropriate {or an officer to fire from a moving vehicle. For example, if the vehicle is movinu slowly to it stop. but has not quite stopped. it would be inappropriate to require. the passenger officer who is being fired at by suspects to hold his or her fire until the vehicle has come to :1 complete halt. assuming that the officer can fire without unnecessarily endangering other people. An effective policy can be crafted using, very restrictive language that would allow for an ol'l'icer to fire in that circumstance. 30