HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT USE 0F FIDBCE 20 2 Summary of Incidents i I II - Honolulu Police Department -. ii 3 Making Honolulu the Safest Place to Live, and F?Iai.r I Summary of Incidents Information Technology Division June 2013 Executive Summary 1 Introduction 2 General Characteristics of the Department 3 Use of Force Incidents 5 Subjects of Force Incidents 9 Subject Level of Resistance 1 1 Officer?s Response to Subject Resistance 13 Conclusion 20 Recommendation 21 Attachments 22 Attachment 1 Use of Force Report 23 Attachment 2 Levels of Control Chart 25 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides a summary of force incidents by Honolulu Police Department of?cers for the period January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. It is based on the Use of Force reports received by the Professional Standards Of?ce (PSO) for incidents involving force used by officers occurring during this period. There were 2,237 reports submitted by of?cers relating to 1,201 incidents. The key findings are summarized below: 0 In 2012, there were 36,962 persons arrested. During the year, 2,237 Use of Force reports were submitted of?cers relatin to 1,201 se arate incidents. This is an increase from 2011. 0 Only a small percentage of police interactions with the public involved the use of force. We used the measure of number of incidents per 1,000 calls for service. The department as a whole averaged 2.83 force incidents per 1,000 calls for service. The range was from a low of 1.62 (District 3 and 8) to a high of 7.30 (District 6) incidents per 1,000 calls for service. 0 The most common types of incidents requiring the use of force by officers were Disorderly Conduct and Mental Health cases. Miscellaneous Public cases accounted for at least 7.8% of all force incidents. The day of the week that most incidents occurred was Saturday and the time of day when most incidents occurred was between 2400 hours and 0100 hours. 0 The average age of subjects was 31 years old. Males accounted for 85% of subjects involved in force incidents. Juvenile subjects ranged in age from 12 to 17 years old and were involved in 7% of incidents. Unemployed subjects accounted for 40% of all subjects. The race of subjects was more frequently Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander, accounting for over 33% of force incident subjects. Subjects suspected of drug and/or alcohol use at the time of the incident were 47% of all force incidents. 0 Physical Confrontation techniques were the most frequent force option used by officers and accounted for 41.2% of force applications. 0 There were no subject deaths reported and no subject injuries reported in 67.1% of incidents. There were no of?cer injuries in over 90.2% of incidents. INTRODUCTION The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) deals with the justi?cation of the force (any bodily impact, restraint, or confinement, or the threat thereof) which law enforcement of?cers may use in carrying out their duties. Chapter 703, HRS, covers the definitions relating to justi?cation; justi?cation as a defense; choice of evils; execution of public duty; use of force in self-protection; use of force for the protection of other persons; use of force for the protection of property; use of force in law enforcement; use of force to prevent suicide or the commission of a crime; use of force by persons with special responsibility for care, discipline, or safety of others; and provisions generally applicable to justification. The legal authority for police of?cers to carry and use weapons is established in Chapter 134, sections 11 and 16, and Chapter 40, section 2.4, and Chapter 41, section 37.2, Revised Ordinances of the City and County of Honolulu. Reasonable Force. Constitutional justi?cation for the use of force is evaluated on the concept of "reasonableness." Police officers are restricted to the use of force that is "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances as the of?cer perceived them to be at the time of the incident. Information learned after the time of the officer's application of force is irrelevant to assessing the appropriateness of the force used. The of?cer in the situation will be evaluated based on what is considered good and reasonable police practice and whether the of?cer acted as other reasonable and prudent of?cers would act faced with a similar situation. Three factors are involved in determining reasonableness: Severity of the Crime. The more serious or severe the offense, the higher the justification for the use of force. An individual's right to privacy and physical integrity will be weighed against the police department's legitimate interest in taking action against the person. Level of Threat. The more immediate the threat to the safety of the officer or others, the higher the justi?cation for the use of force. Subject's Behavior or Level of Resistance. The greater the level of resistance, the higher the justi?cation for greater use of force. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND DEPARTMENT JURISDICTION The Honolulu Police Department?s jurisdiction is the City and County of Honolulu (island of Oahu). Land area is approximately 600 square miles with a resident population of 953,207 persons (US. Census 2010). Operationally, the department geographically divides the island into eight police districts. As of December 31, 2012, the actual personnel strength of the department was 2,486 of which 1,906 were police of?cers. Calls for Service. During the period January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012, the department recorded 424,629 calls for service. Calls for service are incidents that require the presence of of?cers and/or come to the attention of of?cers via the communications center (9-1-1 calls) or is ?eld-initiated. The following shows the geographical police boundaries and provides a general summary of use of force incidents by district. Honolulu Police Department Jurisdiction (Island of Oahu) Honolulu Police Department District Boundaries Department Jurisdictional Characteristics District 1 7.5 80,652 67,991 District 2 204.0 1 13,370 34,225 District 3 64.9 162,010 59,336 District 4 126.9 131,896 46,056 District 5 39.7 136,224 58,585 District 6 1.4 25,083 33,969 District 7 40.4 153,952 59,632 District 8 1 15.9 150,020 64,835 TOTAL 600.7 953,207 424,629 *Resident population estimates based on 2010 Census Data USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS Data collection. When any use of force beyond routine handcuf?ng is used, a use of force report is submitted by the of?cer who used force, whether injuries occurred or not. Data for this report is based on 1,201 incidents from 2,237 Use of Force Report forms (Attachment 1) for incidents occurring in during the period January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Multiple reports resulting from the same incident were submitted by the individual of?cers involved. Many of the ?multiple? reports often listed the same subject/suspect. Therefore, individual incidents could have up to ten completed Use of Force reports submitted by multiple officers. Incidents by District. District 1 reported the highest number of use of force incidents (354) during this period. Furthermore, District 1 had the highest number of calls for service (67,991) during the evaluation period. A summary of force incidents to 1,000 calls for service is provided below. The range of incidents per 1,000 calls for service was from a low of 1.62 (District 3 and District 8) to a high of 7.30 (District 6). The department as a whole recorded 2.83 use of force incidents per 1,000 calls for service. Use of Force Incidents by District DISTRICT Calls for Service Use of Force Incidents Use Of Force Incidents per 1,000 Calls for Service 1 67,991 354 2.51 2 34,225 69 2.02 3 59,336 96 1.62 4 46,056 92 2.00 5 58,585 132 2.25 6 33,969 248 7.30 7 59,632 105 1.76 8 64,835 105 1.62 Total 424,629 1,201 2.83 Types of incidents. The following is a summary of the type of incidents where force was used. Disorderly Conduct cases accounted for the largest number of force incidents with approximately 12.1% (146). Incidents involving emotionally disturbed subjects, categorized as MH-1, accounted for the second largest number of incidents at 11.9% (143). Miscellaneous Public cases were the third largest ?gure, accounting for 7.8% (94) of the force incidents. Use of Force Incidents by Incident Type Incident Type Incidents Incident Type Incidents DISORDERLY CONDUCT 146 FAILURE TO DISPERSE 3 MH-1 143 KIDNAPPING 3 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC 94 OPEN LEWDNESS 3 HARASSMENT 88 PLACE TO KEEP FIREARMS 3 ASSAULT 72 REPLICA GUN 3 HARASSMENT ON A POLICE OFFICER 55 RUNAWAY 3 UCPV 49 TRESPASS WARNING 3 3121;38ng FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD 47 ALARM CALL 2 THEFT 38 EXTRADITION WARRANT 2 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 37 ICF 2 OVUII 31 MURDER 2 2 ROBBERY 31 OBSTRUCTING 2 CRIMINAL PROPERTY DAMAGE 27 REFUSE TO STOP 2 SEEQUELJ 0? A LAW ENFORCEMENT 23 UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY INTO A DWELLING 2 BURGLARY 20 ARSON 2 1 CONTEMPT 20 ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE 2 1 UEMV 19 BEYOND PARENTAL CONTROL 1 RESISTING ARREST 18 BRIBERY 1 OBEY POLICE OFFICER 13 DEADLY WEAPON 1 PROMOTING A DETRIMENTAL DRUG 3 13 DUI 1 PROMOTING A DANGEROUS DRUG 13 FAILURE TO RETURN RENTAL 1 TRESPASS 13 FIREARM ON HIGHWAY 1 WARRANT ARREST 12 FUCC 1 ATTEMPTED MURDER 1o GEO RESTRICTED PROBABTION VIOLATION 1 CRIMINAL TRESPASS PUBLIC PARKS 1o HINDERING PROSECUTION 1 CRIMINAL TRESPASS 9 ILLEGAL CAMPING 1 DOMESTIC ARGUMENT 8 HARASSMENT 1 INJURIOUS BEHAVIOR 8 LIQUOR CONSUMPTION PROHIBITED 1 PROHIBITIONS 8 METHAMPHETAMINE TRAFFICKING 1 1 TRO VIOLATION 8 MISUSE OF 9-1-1 1 DRIVING WITHOUT A LICENSE (DWOL) 6 MVC, FLED SCENE 1 CRIMINAL LITTERING 5 NO CONTACT ORDER VIOLATION 1 RECKLESS DRIVING 5 OPEN CONTAINER 1 RECKLESS ENDANGERING 5 PROHIBITED 1 AUTO THEFT 4 PROBATION REVOCATION 1 ESCAPE 2 4 PROHIBITIONS INVOLVING MINORS 1 OBSTRUCTING GOVT OPERATIONS 4 PROTECTIVE ORDER VIOLATION 1 SCF 4 PUBLIC AREA 1 ASSAULT 4 TRAFFIC STOP 1 WEAPONS 4 TRESPASS TO VESSEL 1 ATTEMPTED SUICIDE 3 TRO HARASSMENT 1 ATTEMPTED THEFT 3 TRO SERVICE 1 EXTORTION Incidents by hour of day. The following is a summary of use of force incidents by hour of day and by day of week. The number of incidents was highest between 2300 and 0300 hours where incidents occurring between these hours accounted for 30.7% of force incidents. Incidents occurring on Saturdays and Sundays accounted for 35.3% of all use of force incidents. Use of Force Incidents by Hour of Day Hour of Day Incidents Hour of Day Incidents 2400 to 0059 95 1200 to 1259 32 0100 to 0159 79 1300 to 1359 29 0200 to 0259 86 1400 to 1459 44 0300 to 0359 66 1500 to 1559 50 0400 to 0459 45 1600 to 1659 52 0500 to 0559 16 1700 to 1759 57 0600 to 0659 11 1800 to 1859 68 0700 to 0759 16 1900 to 1959 53 0800 to 0859 30 2000 to 2059 61 0900 to 0959 18 2100 to 2159 59 1000 to 1059 30 2200 to 2259 56 1100 to 1 159 23 2300 to 2359 75 Use of Force Incidents by Day of Week Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Incidents 198 130 157 152 169 169 226 Percentage 16.5% 10.8% 13.1% 12.7% 14.1% 14.1% 18.8% Traffic Related Incidents. Traf?c stops and traffic related incidents can result in some of the most volatile types of contact with the public. There were 78 use of force incidents reported where the initial contact with the subject was as a result of a traf?c stop or traf?c related encounter. A person commits the offense of Operating a Vehicle Under the In?uence of an Intoxicant (OVUII), if the person operates or assumes actual physical control of a vehicle while under the in?uence of alcohol or any drug that impairs the person?s ability to operate the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner. The department recorded 23,488 traf?c stops, traf?c violations, and OVUII incidents for the period January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. This resulted in a use of force traffic-related incident rate of 5.1% for the department as a whole. The following table summarizes the number of incidents where of?cers? initial contact with the public is through a traf?c stop or traffic related incident and the number of use of force incidents resulting from these encounters. District Traf?c Related Incidents Use of Force Incidents Percentage 1 3,598 354 9.8% 2 3,235 69 2.1% 3 1 ,827 96 5.3% 4 2,097 92 4.4% 5 2,526 132 5.2% 6 4,536 248 4.6% 7 2,677 105 3.9% 8 2,992 105 3.5% Total 23,488 1,201 5.1% SUBJECTS OF FORCE INCIDENTS Subject age. Of the 1,117 incidents where age can be determined, subject?s ages ranged from 12 years old to 74 years old. The most frequent age group was subjects in their twenties with 26 year olds being the most frequent subjects involved in force incidents. The average age of all subjects was 31 years of age with the median age being 26 years old. Juveniles (ages 12 to 17) were subjects in approximately 7% (75) of force incidents. INCIDENTS BY SUBJECT AGE 450 Age Incidents Subject Gender. In the 1,188 reports where gender is reported, 1,005 subjects were male and 183 were female. Juvenile males accounted for 61 of all male subjects and juvenile females accounted for 14 of all female subjects. Subject Employment. The number of subjects who were unemployed at the time of the incident continues to be signi?cant in 2012 as in previous years. Even with a large number of blank and unknown entries on the Use of Force Report form, subjects known to be unemployed at the time of the incident accounted for 484 of all subjects. Subject Race. The race of subjects involved in force incidents were more frequently Native Hawaiian and Other Paci?c Islander (NHPI), accounting for 33.4% of incidents. NHPI are de?ned by the Census Bureau as persons having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Paci?c Islands. It includes people who indicate their race as ?Native Hawaiian,? ?Guamanian or Chamorro,? ?Samoan,? and ?Other Paci?c Islander? or provide other detailed Paci?c Islander responses. NHPI was followed by White subjects and Asian subjects When compared with the US. Census estimates for Honolulu, there appears to be a significant difference in the number of Use of Force (UOF) subjects represented in the NHPI category when compared to the general population. Use of Force Incidents by Subject Race Honolulu County Population UOF Incidents Share by Race (US Census 2011 estimates) WHITE 330 27.5% 22.2% BLACK 84 7.0% 2.5% mrrijan Indian, Alaska Native) 2 01% 0'4% ASIAN 161 13.4% 43.6% NHPI 402 33.4% 9.6% 2 OR MORE RACES 103 8.6% 21.6% HISPANIC ORIGIN 40 3.3% 8.5 UNKNOWN 79 6.6% 19.4% Drug or alcohol use. Forty-seven percent of all incidents involved subjects that used or were suspected of using drugs and/or alcohol. Male subjects had a higher frequency of drug and/or alcohol use at the time of the incident than female subjects Incidents where subject used or suspected of using drugs and/or alcohol Gender Incidents Percent of Incidents Percent of all by gender incidents Male 484 85.1% 40.3% Female 78 13.7% 6.5% Unk or Multiple Subjects 7 1.2% Theses totals include 455 incidents where drugs alone were used or suspected or being used; 68 incidents where alcohol alone was used or suspected of being used; and 46 incidents where both drugs and alcohol were used or suspected of being used. 10 SUBJECT LEVEL OF RESISTANCE The amount of force used should be relative to the level of resistance (the actions taken by a subject to evade an of?cer's attempts at control). The Honolulu Police Department?s Use of Force Report form categorizes subject resistance into seven levels, listed here from the lowest to highest. Intimidation. Nonverbal cues, or body language, such as clenching of ?sts, widening of foot stance, ignoring the of?cer, or glaring at the of?cer, indicate that the subject's attitude is intimidating. Verbal Noncompliance. Threats or verbal responses of the subject indicate an unwillingness to cooperate. Passive Resistance. The subject's physical actions, usually in the form of a relaxed or "dead weight" posture, do not prevent an officer's attempt at control, but are intended to make the of?cer lift, pull or muscle the subject to establish control. Defensive Resistance. The subject's physical actions are intended to prevent an of?cer's control, but are not directed at harming the of?cer, such as walking away, breaking the officer's grip, holding on to a ?xed object, or locking arms in to the body. Active Resistance. The subject physically counteracts an of?cer's attempt to control the subject which creates a risk of bodily injury to the officer, subject, or others or the subject threatens to use force against the of?cer, self, or others in the immediate area. Active Aggression. The subject physically assaults the of?cer, which may result In Injury. Aggravated Active Aggression. Active aggression is considered aggravated if the assault involves the use of weapons and/or techniques or objects which could result in death or serious or substantial bodily injury to the of?cer. Examining the highest level of resistance encountered for each incident, Verbal Noncompliance was the most frequent level of resistance encountered in 453 incidents. Defensive Resistance was second with 370 incidents. No resistance was encountered in 141 incidents. 11 Sub'ect?s Actions (I highest Level 0 Resistance Encountered ncu ents where level of resistance was reported) Verbal staizfg?e Defensive Active Active Intimidation Noncompliance . Resistance Aggression . ReSIstance AggreSSIon Incidents 141 8.4% 3.1% 27.0% 8.3% 22.0% 13.3% 15.7% 2.1% 12 RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE An of?cer who determines that force must be used must also determine the level to be used in res onse to different levels of perceived resistance. will be evaluated on their ri . One type of force may belong to several levels, depending on how it is used. The Use of Force control model (Attachment 2) has been categorized into eight levels, listed here from lowest to highest. The lowest level indicates the level of force with the lowest propensity for injury or death, and the highest level indicates the greatest risk of injury or death. Officer Presence. Of?cers have identi?cation of authority, such as the police uniform, vehicle, or badge. Verbal Directions. Of?cers shall, when practicable, give voice directions to elicit voluntary compliance before, during, and after any use of physical force. Physical Contact. Certain techniques have a minimal chance of causing injury, such as the use of light pressure points, minimal joint locks, physical strength techniques, and escort techniques. Chemical Agents. Officers are authorized to use only department-issued oleoresin capsicum (OC) sprays to help reduce the risk of injury to themselves and the public. Of?cers are authorized to use the OC sprays only after they successfully complete the department-approved training. Physical Confrontation. Some techniques have a higher chance of causing injury, such as strikes, kicks, takedowns, strong grabs and intense restraining techniques, high intensity joint locks and pressure points, wrestling, and other active physical measures to control a resistant or violent person. Intermediate WeaponsNascular Neck Restraint/Electric Gun. The departmentally approved impact devices, such as the 26" wooden baton, 36" riot baton, expandable baton, 40? horse baton, and the vascular neck restraint (submission hold) are considered intermediate weapons. Of?cers are authorized to carry and use only department-issued electric guns and related equipment such as cartridges and holsters. Less-Lethal Ammunition and Weapons. Department-issued less-lethal ammunition such as shot-filled bean bags and wooden projectiles that are delivered with firearms are designed to temporarily incapacitate a subject with a reduced risk of death or serious bodily injury as compared to lethal (conventional) ammunition. Deadly Force/Firearms. Deadly force actions are those that could result in death or serious bodily injury. They usually involve the use of firearms, but could include the baton or other objects, as well as unarmed tactics or techniques. 13 Summarized below is the highest level of force used by of?cers in each incident. Physical Confrontation techniques were the most frequent force options used by officers and accounted for 41.2% of force applications. Deadly Force accounted for 19.4% of force options used. It must be mentioned that the upholstering of a ?rearm is included in this category. Type of Force Used by Officers (Highest Level of Control Used During Incident) Verbal Physical Chemical Physical Intermediate Deadly Command Contact Agent Confrontation Weapon Force 15 349 88 489 15 230 1.3% 29.4% 7.4% 41.2% 1.3% 19.4% Officer Response to Subject?s Actions Of?cer Response Verbal Physical Chemical Physical Intermediate Deadly Command Contact Agent Confrontation Weapon Force None Intimidation Verbal 2 143 39 213 4 49 Noncompliance '3 Passive 35 3 22 12 Resistance .31 Defensive Resistance Active Resistance Active Aggression 2 3 9 21 0 4 Aggravated Active 0 0 1 3 0 8 Aggression Duration of Resistance. The duration of resistance ranged from ?no resistance? to more than 1 hour. Most of the resistance interactions lasted less than 30 seconds with 75.6% of all incidents lasting a minute or less. 402 Duration of Resistance 38.9% 36.8% 12.9% 7.9% 3.6% 14 Officer Response in Relation to Subject Age and Gender. Physical Contact (37.3%) and Physical Confrontation (30.7%) were most effective in incidents involving juveniles. The application of force options were applied consistently over all age groups with Physical Confrontation techniques (41.2%) then being the most commonly used option. Physical Contact technique was used most often with female subjects (43.7%) and Physical Confrontation technique was used most often with male subjects (42.5%). The Deadly Force option (unholstering of firearm) was used in a higher percentage of incidents where male subjects were involved (20.3%) versus female subjects (12.5%). Subject injuries. Of the 1,018 incidents where subject injuries were accounted for in the Use of Force report form, 683 (67.1%) subjects had no observable injury and reported none when asked. There were 86 (8.4%) subjects who had no observable injury but complained of injury. There were 243 (23.9%) subjects who sustained bodily injury, six (0.6%) subjects who sustained substantial bodily injury, and no subjects that sustained serious bodily injury. Physical Confrontation techniques accounted for 193 (19.0%) of bodily injury and substantial bodily injury sustained by subjects. This number also includes complaints of injury by suspects. No deaths were reported as a result of the use of force by police. Officer injuries. Of the 919 incidents where officer injuries were accounted for in the Use of Force report form, 829 (90.2%) reported no injuries sustained. There were 16 (1.7%) complaints of injury. Officers sustained bodily injury in 71 (7.7%) incidents and reported substantial bodily injury in three (0.3%) incidents. Physical Confrontation techniques accounted for 59 (6.4%) of Bodily Injury and Substantial Bodily Injury sustained by officers. This number includes complaints of injury by the officers as well. 15 Use of Batons. There were seven incidents where the police baton was used, with six of those involving only the display of the baton. One incident involved a baton strike. Use of Chemical Agents. There were 88 reports on the use of chemical agents. Of those reported, all were oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray incidents. These numbers also include three incidents where the OC spray was displayed only and not discharged. Of the OC incidents, 85 officers reported discharging the spray. Electric Gun Use. Based on the Use of Force reports submitted by officers, there were 26 incidents where the electric gun was used. Of those incidents, 17 were display only. Eight incidents were probe deployments and one was drive stun; of those, all subjects reported bodily injury as a result of probe and drive stun deployments. On the other hand, the Professional Standards Office (PSO) reported there were 49 electric gun deployments, including three drive stun deployments and four injuries as a result of electric gun deployments. The PSO received only one citizen complaint regarding the unnecessary or improper use of the electric gun. Use of Firearms. Firearms, including handguns, shotguns, rifles, and less-lethal weapons were reported in 230 force incidents in 2012. These numbers include unholstering of the weapon and when the weapon was actually discharged. Based on the Use of Force reports submitted by officers, there were no incidents where a weapon was fired. However, the PSO reports that firearms were discharged in three incidents. All Force Incidents. The PSO received six complaints relating to the use of force by officers. It is unknown how many complaints were reported to the Honolulu Police Commission as a result of force by officers. All force incidents resulted in investigations. Of the six complaints, two were not sustained. Tables on the following pages summarize some of the observations in this section. 16 Type of Control Used Within Each Force Option Verbal Command Where highest level of force used was Verbal Command) Setting Context Ordering Giving Options Con?rmation 10 1 3 1 0 0 Lt. Joint Lock Chemical Agent Displayed Only Chemical Agent Used Ph sical Confrontation Where highest level of force used was Physical Confrontation) Hand/arm Strike Foot/leg Strike Head Lock Joint Lock Physical Strength Technique 48 36 20 58 260 67 Electric Gun Display Only Probes Drive Stun 26 17 8 1 hest level of force used was Intermediate Wea . . Vascular Neck Stun Weapon (less- lntermediate Wea . on Where hi Display Baton Only Baton Strike Baton Jab Restraint lethal. impact. specialty) Force Where highest level of force used was Deadly Force) Display/Unholstered Weapon Fired Weapon 17 Type of Force Used by Subject Age 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 Spec1fled Verba' C?mmand Ph sical Contact Chem'ca' Agent . . Phys'ca'"te'med'ate weepDead'y Type of Force Used by Subject Gender Subject Verbal Physical Chemical Physical Intermediate Gender Command Contact Agent Confrontation Weapon Deadly Force Male FemaSpec'?ed (0.1 18 Type of Force Subject Injuries by Type of Force Used Substantial Serious Complaint Bodily Bodily Bodily Death None of Injury Injury Injury Injury Physical Contact 235 19 58 2 0 Chemical Agent 41 18 20 0 0 Physical Confrontation 244 44 149 0 0 Intermediate 8 0 3 0 0 0 Weapon Deadly Force 155 5 13 4 0 Total 683 86 243 6 0 Type of Force Officer Injuries by Type of Force Used Substantial Serious Bodily Bodily Death Complaint Bodily None . . of Injury Injury Injury Injury Physical Contact 263 4 11 1 0 0 Chemical Agent 66 0 7 0 0 Physical Confrontation 336 1 1 46 2 0 0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Deadly Force 164 1 7 0 0 Total 829 16 71 3 0 0 DEFINITIONS Bodily injury: As de?ned in section 707-700, HRS, means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition. Substantial bodily injury: As de?ned in section 707-700, HRS, means bodily injury which causes: a major avulsion, laceration, or penetration of the skin; a burn of at least second degree severity; a bone fracture; a serious concussion; or a tearing, rupture, or corrosive damage to the esophagus, viscera, or other internal organs. Serious bodily injury: As de?ned in section 707-700, HRS, means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent dis?gurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. 19 CONCLUSION Conclusion 20 RECOMMENDATION Recommendation A CHME TS 22 Attachment 1 HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT USE OF FORCE REPORT l] Date-?lime: Heal: Suhject's Name {Last. First: Middle]: DOB: Occupation il'none. school name it'jut'enile]: Sex: Ethnicity: Height: Weight: Build: Clothing Description: NATURE OF INITIAL CONTACT El Traf?c Violation Intervieo Misc. Assist Prisoner Transport El Sent to investigate case CI Arrest warrant El Follow-up On Beat Other: important int'onnation known before or upon arrival: OFFICER IDENTIFICATION {Check all that apply} I [3 Uniform Idescrihe]: Verbal Non-Unit'omtfliadge Non-llnitEI-m'rfMarked Clothing {describe}: Vehicle: None Police white car El Subsidized rbluc light] El Solo Bike El Bicycle El Other: RESPONSE TO ARRIVAL I El No Response El Complied witlt directions El Took evasive action-"lied El Stopped action El llid Tool?: aggressive action Called of?cer by title or slang: El Other: I ACTIONS [All Resistance Encountered) RESPONSE (All Control Et?fected} I None Verbal Command: El Asking CI Setting Contest El Ordering. {living Uplinns [)tlter: YES NU El intimidation tdescribe]: Physical Contact: El Touch CI Escort It Pressure Point El Joint Lock Other: Ell?cctive NO Verbal Noncompliancc rdescribe) Chemical Artur?; El El CS CN Display only El Used comment: YES NO Number of sprays: El Passive Resistance [describe] Pcpperhall :00; Display only Used 't?l-IS NO El Area saturation Impact I-Il?l?ectivc *r'l-IS NO Defensive Resistance ldeserihe} l?hvsie'gl Handr'arrn strike strike Hear] Iueli Joint Loci?; Physical Strength technique Other: lileclrie Gun El Display-only Probes deployed: "r?l-IS NO Drive Stun: ?r'liS NO Active Resistancetdescrilaet lil'l'eetive I intermediate Weapon: Display baton only Baton strike Batonjah El Vascular neck restraint El Other: El Active Aggression (describe: 12 go. Less lethal El Display only Deployed 4n MM Impact El 3? MM impact El Display only Deployed Specialty impact {describe}: . . . El I: Aggravated Active Aggressron ldesctheI l] lil'l'ective YES I, NU Deadly Force: [3 Handgun Rille Shotgun El Other: Weapon displayed El Fircd weapon Other neapon: I Ellan'ecm-c was NO DURATION OF RESISTANCE Less than 30 sec. El 30 sec. I min. l-Z min. El 2?1 min. Other: CONDITIONS [Check all that apply) I Approximate number of subjects in area: Approximate number of who resisted or assauilcd ot?t'rcers: Approximate number ot? bystanders: Approximate number ol'o?iccrs presenl: El Alcohol used Drugs used Suspected alcohol use Suspected drug use I: Known to resist or assault Subject size Great anger Great fear Great strength Threatening Fighting skillimanial ans Olticer injuryr'cxhaustion Mentally deranged Gang member Gang associate Diloslilc bystanders Potential ambush Fool pursuit El Close proximity to oliicer?s weapon El Weapons in area El Violent crime Vehicle lrallic El Vehicle pursuit Other tesplaint: Continue on the raver-Se side. HPD-192E {R-1L'll11) Page 1 23 Attachment 1 HONOLULU POUCE DEPARTMENT USE OF FORCE REPORT EDD RESTRAINTS USED I landcul?l?s l-?lex-eu IT Cumplainl till tightne?sv?pni It :iclimt [til-ten: El liscape?attempt El Restraint removed Leg irtms Checked 8.: UK Other: Checked 3; adjusted El Other: El meted to hunt El Other: I INJURIES I Arrival No injury observed. none renamed 1when asked No injury observed. bul complained oi'injury Bodily injury Substantial bodily injury El Serious lmdily injury El Death (*ll'sultiect and of?cer had none. skip to Describe. including cause: (Of?cer: 'l?t'eatment: El I I Refused I I 'l'reated and released El I El Admitted 11: hnspitul YES NO YIES NU Photographertnuntel: Disposition ul' l?hotugraphs: Huh milled intn evidence El Attached to key report Attached to arrest report Cooperative Hitting head Sitting SUBJECT TRANSPORT Demennor: Pesit inn: Hutt- 'I'mnspencd: It} When]: Date-?lime Arrived: l?ulice vehicle Nu: Threats Challenges I: Screaming El Kicking, El Spitting Obscene language Attempts to escape lEither: Lying on side Lying on back lOther: El Paddy Wagnn El Ambulance Other: II) No. Dale-Time Transported: Destination: I COMMENTS I OFFICER INFORMATION Writer TD Number Date-?Time Approved By Submit with the Incident Report Page 2 24 Attachment 2 Honolulu Police Department Levels of Control RESISTANCE USE OF FORCE OPTIONS Aggravated active aggression Active aggression Active resistance Defensive resistance Passive resistance Verbal noncompliance intimidation 25