Chapter : Recommendation 4.5: Set clear policies regarding specific force instruments.
Recommended Best Practices

Recommendation 4.5: Set clear policies regarding specific force instruments.

Different instruments introduce specific considerations and risks. Pepper spray requires different knowledge and precautions than tear gas, and handguns require different approaches than Tasers. Yet many departments lack specific policies regarding the use of each instrument.[i]Without such policies, and training to adhere to them, supervisors can’t adequately hold officers accountable when officers misuse instruments. Specifically, departments should:

Set clear policies regarding firearms. Firearms, such as handguns, shotguns, and rifles, are among the most lethal weapons at officers’ disposal, and their use impacts not only officers and individuals but entire departments and communities.[ii]Some departments address the use of firearms in general policies, while others provide specific, stand-alone guidance. Either way, firearms merit special attention, and their proper use should be a major component of departments’ policies regarding the use of force.[iii]Force policies should clearly address all topics related to firearm use, including training and certification, holstering and discharge, and reports, investigations, and discipline.

Departments should ensure that officers follow the general guidelines relating to use of force listed in Recommendation 4.4.

In addition, departments should ensure that officers:

  • Understand that “use of force” includes pointing a firearm at people, which is considered a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment.[iv]
  • Unholster, draw, and exhibit firearms only when they reasonably believe the situation may rise to a level where lethal force would be authorized.[v]
  • Understand that unsuccessful use of less-lethal weapons does not automatically authorize an officer to use a firearm.[vi]
  • Determine whether the person is experiencing a mental health or substance use crisis and, if so, use crisis intervention techniques.[vii]
  • File a force report whenever a firearm is unholstered and pointed at someone.[viii]
  • File a report even after unintentional discharge and even if no injury or death results. All discharges should be immediately investigated.[ix]

Departments should prohibit officers from:

  • Firing warning shots (so as not to harm others in the area).[x]
  • Shooting through doors, windows, or when targets are not clearly in view.[xi]
  • Firing at moving vehicles (except in limited situations).[xii]

Set clear policies regarding Tasers. Tasers — also referred to as electronic control weapons (ECWs), conducted electrical weapon (CEWs), and conducted energy devices (CEDs) — are increasingly used by law enforcement agencies as a less-lethal alternative to firearms.[xiii]Tasers fire two barbed wires that pierce the skin and deliver high voltage electric shocks to stun and disable people.[xiv]Tasers can also be used in “drive-stun” mode, which does not affect motor functions but causes significant pain.[xv]

Though most Taser shocks do not inflict serious injury, some do. The shock induces muscle contraction, which can cause people to fall and sometimes break bones, hit their heads, and even die.[xvi]On the other hand, Tasers are less injurious to members of the public and officers than other applications of force, such as punches, kicks, batons, and flashlights, research shows.[xvii]

Community and advocacy groups have questioned the safety of Tasers and raised concerns about their use (and abuse). Indeed, studies show that some officers use Tasers with impunity because supervisors don’t scrutinize Taser use as closely as firearm use.[xviii]One study found that officers deployed Tasers without appropriate justification in nearly 60 percent of reported Taser incidents and sometimes shocked people who were “merely passively or verbally noncompliant” or were already handcuffed or restrained.[xix]A study of the Chicago Police Department found that expanded use of Tasers did not reduce the use of firearms or the number of people injured by the department’s officers.[xx]

For these reasons, departments should develop and implement specific policies to maximize safety and restrict the unnecessary or improper use of Tasers and should train officers to comply with these policies. In general, departments should consider Tasers a “weapon of need, not a tool of convenience.”[xxi]And supervisors should respond to the scene whenever one is used.[xxii]

Departments should ensure that officers follow the general guidelines relating to use of force listed in Recommendation 4.4.

In addition, departments should ensure that officers:

  • Carry Tasers in “weak-side holsters” (i.e., on the side of their nondominant hand) to reduce accidental discharge.[xxiii]
  • Consider the severity of the crime before determining what mode to use them in.[xxiv]
  • Stop using them after one standard (five-second) cycle to determine whether more than one cycle is necessary.[xxv]

Departments should prohibit officers from:

  • Using Tasers against high-risk groups, such as pregnant women, older people, young children, or people who are visibly frail, have known heart conditions, are in a medical or behavioral health crisis, are under the influence of drugs (prescription and illegal) or alcohol, or who have slight builds.[xxvi]
  • Using them on vulnerable body parts, such as the head, neck, chest, and groin.[xxvii]

  • Using more than one Taser against one person at one time.[xxviii]

  • Using a Taser on someone more than three standard (five-second) cycles.[xxix]
  • Using “drive-stun” mode, which causes pain but not loss of muscle control[xxx]and can escalate encounters by causing rage in response to pain.[xxxi]
  • Using them for the sole reason of preventing [xxxii]

Set clear policies regarding batons. Batons, including straight batons, espantoons, and expandable batons, are impact weapons that can cause serious injury and sometimes death. Batons are inherently fraught with risk because they are less lethal if used properly but lethal if used improperly. For example, strikes to the head, neck, throat, spine, heart, and kidneys are lethal force; strikes to other body parts aren’t.[xxxiii]Thus, force policies should clearly state that batons are a low-risk option but are capable of lethal force depending on how they are used.[xxxiv]

Departments should ensure that officers follow the general guidelines relating to use of force listed in Recommendation 4.4. In addition, departments should ensure that officers:

  • Understand that strikes to vulnerable body parts are considered lethal force because of their high risk of serious injury and death.[xxxv]

Departments should prohibit officers from:

  • Using flashlights or other hard objects in place of batons (because flashlights are potentially more injurious).[xxxvi]
  • Striking the head or other vulnerable body parts, such as the neck, chest, spine, groin, or kidneys.
  • Using batons against people who are restrained, even if they are noncompliant, unless they pose an imminent threat to officers or others.[xxxvii]

Set clear policies regarding pepper spray. Oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray, commonly known as pepper spray, is an inflammatory agent that burns the skin, eyes, and throat and, in some cases, causes temporary blindness and restricts breathing. Officers often use pepper spray to disperse crowds and force people to comply with orders. While pepper spray is a valuable alternative to lethal force, it still risks serious harm. It is not very accurate, especially in windy conditions, and it can hit people other than intended targets, including other officers.[xxxviii]And, because it is flammable, it can’t be used in combination with Tasers or other ECWs.[xxxix]

Departments should ensure that officers follow the general guidelines relating to use of force listed in Recommendation 4.4. In addition, departments should prohibit officers from:

  • Using pepper spray on passive resisters or to disperse crowds.[xl]
  • Using spray on a person who’s handcuffed or otherwise restrained unless they pose a threat to public or officer safety.[xli]

Set clear policies regarding canines. Police canine (K-9) teams serve many important purposes: they detect evidence, bombs, and narcotics; find people who are suspected of criminal activity; and search fields and wooded areas for missing people, with much more precision than officers.

Without proper policies and training, however, police dogs can be traumatizing and physically threatening. One study found that the use of canine force resulted in a higher proportion of hospital visitations than Tasers, batons, and “bean bag” projectiles (fabric bags with lead filled pellets that are fired from a shotgun). The study also concluded that injuries inflicted by canines are more likely to require medical attention than those caused by less-lethal weapons.[xlii]

A 2011 U.S. DOJ investigation of the New Orleans Police Department found that police dogs were so uncontrollable that they bit people (including officers) more than twice as often as properly trained dogs in well-run canine units.[xliii]The department was ordered to suspend the program until it developed appropriate training.[xliv]

More recently, the St. Paul Police Department stiffened restrictions on canine use after two high-profile incidents involving the misuse of canine force (one man was bitten after he was mistaken for a suspect and a woman was bitten while taking out the trash).[xlv]The new policy limits the use of dogs to apprehend people suspected of felony crimes of violence (e.g., murder, manslaughter, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, criminal sexual misconduct, and drive-by shootings) and prohibits them in other felonies (e.g., theft, fleeing in a vehicle, drug sales, and burglary of vacant buildings).[xlvi]

Departments should ensure that officers follow the general guidelines relating to use of force listed in Recommendation 4.4.

In addition, departments should ensure that dog handlers:

  • Complete a certification program with a qualified trainer in obedience, agility, scent work, criminal apprehension, handler protection, record-keeping and other areas.[xlviii]
  • Train dogs to “find and bark” rather than “find and bite.”[xlix]
  • Obtain supervisory approval before deploying dogs,[l]especially when off-leash.[li]
  • Use dogs on-leash primarily to locate people suspected of being armed or committing a violent felony or a person who is fleeing and presents a serious risk of injury to others.[lii]
  • Keep dogs within visual or auditory range.[liii]
  • Deploy dogs off leash only when people are suspected of being armed or of committing a violent felony.[liv]
  • Determine whether the person has limited proficiency in English. If so, determine whether they can understand the phrase “canine warning;” if not, obtain language assistance.[lv]
  • Call off the dog immediately if it bites someone.[lvi]
  • Consider whether people may not cooperate because of mental health, developmental, or physical disabilities.[lvii]
  • Document the use of dogs, including training, incident reports, and canine health reports.[lviii]
  • Submit a force report when a dog apprehends someone (even if no bite occurs).[lix]

Departments should prohibit dog handlers from:

  • Using dogs for crowd control.[lx]
  • Using dogs for force or intimidation.[lxi]

  • Using dogs when people don’t pose an imminent danger or when a lower level of force can secure them.[lxii]
  • Using dogs to apprehend children and adolescents or people suspected of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, who are in mental health crisis, or have or developmental disabilities.[lxiii]
  • Releasing dogs trained to “bite and hold” people without first issuing verbal warnings and offering an opportunity for peaceful resolution with the suspect.[lxiv]

[i]Brandon Garrett & Seth Stoughton, A Tactical Fourth Amendment, 103 VA. L. Rev. 211, 278 (2017).

[ii]Office of Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Officer-Involved Shootings: A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders 1, 7 (2016), https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/e051602754_Officer_Involved_v8.pdf.

[iii]U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Investigation of the Puerto Rico Police Department 35 (2011), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/09/08/prpd_letter.pdf.

[iv]SeeRobinson v. Solano Cty., 278 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th Cir. 2002) (concluding that police conducted a seizure when they pointed a gun at and handcuffed a suspect); Couden v. Duffy, 446 F.3d 483, 493, 496-98 (3d Cir. 2006) (concluding that police were not entitled to qualified immunity when they pointed gun at plaintiff in excessive use of force that constituted an unconstitutional seizure); Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758, 774 (7th Cir. 2000) (asserting that the law was “established that holding the gun to a person’s head and threatening to pull the trigger is a use of deadly force” and declining to extend qualified immunity to officers who committed such actions); Baker v. Monroe Twp., 50 F.3d 1186, 1193 (3d Cir.1995) (finding officers liable for excessive force when they pointed guns at and handcuffed family members without sufficient justification); McDonald by McDonald v. Haskins, 966 F.2d 292, 294–95 (7th Cir. 1992) (finding that police were not entitled to qualified immunity in claim alleging unconstitutional seizure and excessive use of force after officer pointed a gun at the head of a 9-year-old boy who did not pose a danger or risk of flight); see alsoCarmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.300 – Use of Force Tools, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8300—use-of-force-tools(“Pointing a Firearm at a Person is Type I Reportable Force”); New Orleans Police Dep’t, Policy Manual, Law Enforcement Role and Authority 98 (2014),  https://nola.gov/nopd/publications/documents/new-orleans-police-department-policy-manual-2014-1/(use of force includes pointing a firearm at a person).

[v]U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Investigation of the Puerto Rico Police Department 88 (2011), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/09/08/prpd_letter.pdf; Settlement Agreement, United States. v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:15-CV-01046-SO, ¶ 55 (firearms) (N.D. Ohio June 12, 2015), https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/908536/download; Consent Decree, United States v. City of Ferguson, No. 4:16-CV-00180-CDP, ¶ 82 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/833431/download.

[vi]See, e.g.,Police Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 67 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf.

[vii]See Liza Lucas, Changing the Way Police Respond to Mental Illness, CNN (Sept. 28, 2016) (“Traditional training teaches police to control situations by demanding compliance, and the unpredictable nature of a person with a psychiatric condition can be misinterpreted as a threat and quickly escalate to violence. CIT training is meant to prevent that.”),http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/health/police-mental-health-training/index.html.

[viii]See, e.g.,Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.300 – Use of Force Tools, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8300—use-of-force-tools(requiring police to “document all incidents where they point a firearm at a person”); Police Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 48 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf;see also Consent Decree, United States v. City of Ferguson, No. 4:16-CV-00180-CDP, ¶ 173(E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/833431/download.

[ix]See, e.g.,Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.400 – Use of Force Reporting and Investigation, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8400—use-of-force-reporting-and-investigation;Denver Police Dep’t, Operations Manual 105.05 (2015), http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2015/0609/20150609_081455_OMS-105-05_APPROVED_06-08-15.pdf;U.S. Comm’n on Civil Civ. Rights, Who Is Guarding the Guardians: A Report on Police Practices: A Report 156 (1981), https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.32106015219253;view=1up;seq=172.

[x]Police Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 50-51 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf; Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.300 – Use of Force Tools, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8300—use-of-force-tools; Consent Decree, United States v. City of Ferguson, No. 4:16-CV-00180-CDP, ¶ 143 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/833431/download.

[xi]See, e.g.,United States v. City of Ferguson, No. 4:16-CV-00180-CDP, ¶ 143 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/833431/download.

[xii]Police Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 44 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf; Denver Police Dep’t, Operations Manual 105.05 (2015), http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2015/0609/20150609_081455_OMS-105-05_APPROVED_06-08-15.pdf; Agreement for Effective and Constitutional Policing, United States v. Town of East Haven & East Haven Bd. of Police Comm’rs, No. 3:12-CV-01652-AWT, ¶ 84 (D. Conn. Dec. 21, 2012), https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PN-CT-0001-0004.pdf.

[xiii]Nat’l Inst. of Justice, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Police Use of Force, Tasers and Other Less-Lethal Weapons 1 (2011), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/232215.pdf(reporting that as of 2011, more than 15,000 law enforcement agencies used Tasers); Orleans Police Dep’t, Operations Manual: Conducted Electrical Weapon (CEW) 1 (2018), https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/Policies/Chapter-1-7-1-CEW-EFFECTIVE-4-01-18.pdf/.

[xiv]Nat’l Inst. of Justice, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Police Use of Force, Tasers and Other Less-Lethal Weapons 2 (2011), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/232215.pdf.

[xv]SeeCarmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.300 – Use of Force Tools, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8300—use-of-force-tools.

[xvi]Nat’l Inst. of Justice, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Police Use of Force, Tasers and Other Less-Lethal Weapons 2 (2011), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/232215.pdf.

[xvii]Nat’l Inst. of Justice, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Police Use of Force, Tasers and Other Less-Lethal Weapons ii (2011), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/232215.pdf;see alsoBruce Taylor et al., Comparing Safety Outcomes in Police Use-of-Force Cases for Law Enforcement Agencies That Have Deployed Conducted EnergyDevices and a Matched Comparison Group That Have Not1, 12-13, 66-68 (2009), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Use_of_Force/conducted%20energy%20devices%20matched%20agency%20study%202009.pdf (finding that rates of suspect and officer injuries were lower among agencies using Tasers than among agencies using more traditional methods of force); John M. MacDonald et al., The Effect of Less-Lethal Weapons on Injuries in Police Use-of-Force Events, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health2268, 2269, 2272-73 (2009), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775771/pdf/2268.pdf(concluding that the rates of injury to members of the public and officers were lower when police used conductive energy devices like Tasers than when they inflicted physical force via punches, kicks, high-impact weapons, and other more traditional methods).

[xviii]See, e.g.,Dan Hinkel & Jennifer Smith Richards, Chicago Cops Get More Tasers, But Red Flags Remain, Chicago Trib. (Aug. 28, 2017), https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-police-tasers-met-20170825-story.html.

[xix]N.Y. Civ. Liberties Union, Taking Tasers Seriously: The Need for Better Regulation of Stun Guns in New York 2 (2011), https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/publications/nyclu_TaserFinal.pdf.

[xx]Bocar Ba & Jeffrey Grogger, The Introduction of Tasers and Police Use of Force: Evidence from the Chicago Police Department, Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Res. (2018), https://www.nber.org/papers/w24202.

[xxi]Police. Exec. Res. Forum & Office of Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines 11 (2011), https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Use_of_Force/electronic%20control%20weapon%20guidelines%202011.pdf; see alsoPolice Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 67 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf.

[xxii]See, e.g.,Police. Exec. Res. Forum & Office of Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines 22 (2011), https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Use_of_Force/electronic%20control%20weapon%20guidelines%202011.pdf.

[xxiii]See, e.g.,Police. Exec. Res. Forum & Office of Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines 17 (2011), https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Use_of_Force/electronic%20control%20weapon%20guidelines%202011.pdf;New Orleans Police Dep’t, Operations Manual: Conducted Electrical Weapon (CEW) 4 (2018), https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/Policies/Chapter-1-7-1-CEW-EFFECTIVE-4-01-18.pdf/;  United States v. City of Ferguson, No. 4:16-CV-00180-CDP, ¶ 146 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/833431/download.

[xxiv]Police. Exec. Res. Forum & Office of Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines 20 (2011), https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Use_of_Force/electronic%20control%20weapon%20guidelines%202011.pdf.

[xxv]Police. Exec. Res. Forum & Office of Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines 20 (2011), https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Use_of_Force/electronic%20control%20weapon%20guidelines%202011.pdf;see also Settlement Agreement, United States. v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:15-CV-01046-SO, ¶ 62 (N.D. Ohio June 12, 2015), https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/908536/download/ (firearms).

[xxvi]See, e.g.,Police. Exec. Res. Forum & Office of Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines 14 (2011), https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Use_of_Force/electronic%20control%20weapon%20guidelines%202011.pdf; Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.300 – Use of Force Tools, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8300—use-of-force-tools.

[xxvii]See, e.g.,Police. Exec. Res. Forum & Office of Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines 20 (2011), https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Use_of_Force/electronic%20control%20weapon%20guidelines%202011.pdf; Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.300 – Use of Force Tools, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8300—use-of-force-tools.

[xxviii]See, e.g.,Police. Exec. Res. Forum & Office of Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines 20 (2011), https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Use_of_Force/electronic%20control%20weapon%20guidelines%202011.pdf.

[xxix]See, e.g.,Police. Exec. Res. Forum & Office of Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines 18 (2011), https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Use_of_Force/electronic%20control%20weapon%20guidelines%202011.pdf(“multiple applications or continuous cycling of an ECW resulting in an exposure longer than 15 seconds (whether continuous or cumulative) may increase the risk of serious injury or death and should be avoided”).

[xxx]See, e.g., Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.300 – Use of Force Tools, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8300—use-of-force-tools;Settlement Agreement, United States. v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:15-CV-01046-SO, ¶ 64 (firearms) (N.D. Ohio June 12, 2015), https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/908536/download.

[xxxi]Police. Exec. Res. Forum & Office of Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines 14 (2011), https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Use_of_Force/electronic%20control%20weapon%20guidelines%202011.pdf.

[xxxii]Id.;see alsoNew Orleans Police Dep’t, Operations Manual: Conducted Electrical Weapon (CEW) 1 (2018), https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/Policies/Chapter-1-7-1-CEW-EFFECTIVE-4-01-18.pdf/;  United States v. City of Ferguson, No. 4:16-CV-00180-CDP, ¶ 146 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/833431/download; Consent Decree, United States v. Police Dep’t of Baltimore, No. 1:17-CV-99-JKB, ¶ 146 (D. Md. 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/925056/download.

[xxxiii]SeeNew Orleans Police Dep’t, Operations Manual: Control Devices and Techniques 4 (2018), https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/Policies/Chapter-1-3-1-2-Control-Devices-and-Techniques-EFFECTIVE-4-01-18.pdf/.

[xxxiv]SeeU.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Investigation of the New Orleans Police Department 1 (2011), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/03/17/nopd_report.pdf.

[xxxv]Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.300 – Use of Force Tools, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8300—use-of-force-tools(noting that batons can deliver lethal blows, and explicitly prohibiting strikes to the head unless deadly force is justified).

[xxxvi]See, e.g.,Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.300 – Use of Force Tools, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8300—use-of-force-tools; Denise Rodriguez et al., Office of Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Collaborative Reform Initiative: Assessment Report on Fayetteville Police Department30 (2015), https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-w0790-pub.pdf(recommending that the Fayetteville Police Department reconcile inconsistent guidance on the use of flashlights as impact weapons by stating “that while a flashlight can be used as an impact weapon, it should not be ‘used to strike any person in the head, spine, neck, kidney[,] or groin unless circumstances justify the use of deadly force’”).

[xxxvii]Consent Decree, United States v. Police Dep’t of Baltimore, No. 1:17-CV-99-JKB, ¶ 152 (D. Md. 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/925056/download; see alsoRichard Winton, How the Rodney King Beating ‘Banished’ the Baton from the LAPD, L.A. Times (Mar. 2, 2016), https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-rodney-king-baton-20160303-story.html.

[xxxviii]Police Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 66-67 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf.

[xxxix]Police Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 66-67 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf.

[xl]SeeConsent Decree, United States v. Police Dep’t of Baltimore, No. 1:17-CV-99-JKB, ¶ 154 (D. Md. 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/925056/download;United States v. City of Ferguson, No. 4:16-CV-00180-CDP, ¶ 153 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/833431/download.

[xli]SeeCarmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.300 – Use of Force Tools, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8300—use-of-force-tools;Consent Decree, United States v. Police Dep’t of Baltimore, No. 1:17-CV-99-JKB, ¶ 157 (D. Md. 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/925056/download.

[xlii]R. Paul McCauley et al., The Police Canine Bite: Force, Injury, and Liability 27, Ctr. for Res. in Criminology (2008), http://www.iup.edu/criminology/research/policek9/.

[xliii]U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Investigation of the New Orleans Police Department 7 (2011), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/03/17/nopd_report.pdf.

[xliv]The Times-Picayune, NOPD Suspends Use of Dogs to Catch Suspects, NOLA.com (Oct. 10, 2010), https://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/10/nopd_suspends_use_of_dogs_to_c.html.

[xlv]Mara H. Gottfried, St. Paul Police Tighten Policy after 2 High-Profile K-9 Bites, Twin Cities Pioneer Press (June 1, 2018), https://www.twincities.com/2018/06/01/st-paul-police-tighten-policy-after-2-high-profile-k-9-bites-they-say-reviews-are-always-underway/.

[xlvi]St. Paul Police Dep’t, 462.00 Canine Unit (K-9 Team) 1-2 (2018), https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/Media%20Root/Police/462.00%20Canine%20Unit%20%28K-9%29_redacted%205%2022%20%202018.pdf.

[xlvii]N.J. Office of the Att’y Gen., Div. of Crim. Just., K-9 Training Standards and Qualification Requirements for New Jersey Law Enforcement (2002), https://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/k9_policy_2002.pdf.

[xlviii]N.J. Office of the Att’y Gen., Div. of Crim. Just., K-9 Training Standards and Qualification Requirements for New Jersey Law Enforcement 6-8 (2002), https://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/k9_policy_2002.pdf.

[xlix]U.S. Dep’t of Just., Examples of Promising Police Practices and Policies (2001), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojp/186189.pdf.

[l]U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department 93 (2015), https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=95274; Amended and Restated Consent Decree Regarding the New Orleans Police Department, United States v. City of New Orleans, No. 12-CV-01924, ¶ 41 (E.D. La. 2018), https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/NOPD-Consent-Decree-2018-10-2.pdf/; United States v. City of Ferguson, No. 4:16-CV-00180-CDP, ¶ 160 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/833431/download (requiring “verbal supervisory approval” before any canine deployment).

[li]Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.300 – Use of Force Tools, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8300—use-of-force-tools(requiring “canine officers to have approval from an immediate supervisor before the canine can be deployed off-leash.”).

[lii]New Orleans Police Dep’t, Operations Manual: Canine (2015), https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/Chapter-41-22-Canine.pdf;see also St. Paul Police Dep’t, 462.00 Canine Unit (K-9 Team) 2 (2018), https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/Media%20Root/Police/462.00%20Canine%20Unit%20%28K-9%29_redacted%205%2022%20%202018.pdf.

[liii]United States v. City of Ferguson, No. 4:16-CV-00180-CDP, ¶ 159 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/833431/download;Amended and Restated Consent Decree Regarding the New Orleans Police Department, United States v. City of New Orleans, No. 12-CV-01924, ¶ 40 (E.D. La. 2018), https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/NOPD-Consent-Decree-2018-10-2.pdf/.

[liv]Am Amended and Restated Consent Decree Regarding the New Orleans Police Department, United States v. City of New Orleans, No. 12-CV-01924, ¶ 39 (E.D. La. 2018), https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/NOPD-Consent-Decree-2018-10-2.pdf/;Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.300 – Use of Force Tools, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8300—use-of-force-tools(requiring canines to be leashed except under limited circumstances, including searches for armed suspects or those wanted for serious or violent crimes, or when a clear risk of death or serious physical injury to an officer or member of the public exists); United States v. City of Ferguson, No. 4:16-CV-00180-CDP, ¶ 163 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/833431/download.

[lv]New Orleans Police Dep’t, Operations Manual: Canine 5 (2015), https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/Chapter-41-22-Canine.pdf.

[lvi]United States v. City of Ferguson, No. 4:16-CV-00180-CDP, ¶ 165 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/833431/download;Amended and Restated Consent Decree Regarding the New Orleans Police Department, United States v. City of New Orleans, No. 12-CV-01924, ¶ 44 (E.D. La. 2018), https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/NOPD-Consent-Decree-2018-10-2.pdf/.

[lvii]See, e.g.,St. Paul Police Dep’t, 462.00 Canine Unit (K-9 Team) 2 (2018), https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/Media%20Root/Police/462.00%20Canine%20Unit%20%28K-9%29_redacted%205%2022%20%202018.pdf.

[lviii]N.J. Office of the Att’y Gen., Div. of Crim. Just., K-9 Training Standards and Qualification Requirements for New Jersey Law Enforcement 19 (2002), https://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/k9_policy_2002.pdf.

[lix]U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department 94 (2015), https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=95274;Amended and Restated Consent Decree Regarding the New Orleans Police Department, United States v. City of New Orleans, No. 12-CV-01924, ¶¶ 46-47 (E.D. La. 2018), https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/NOPD-Consent-Decree-2018-10-2.pdf/; Settlement Agreement, United States v. City of Albuquerque, No. 1:14-CV-01025-RB-SMV, ¶¶ 102–03 (D.N.M. Nov. 14, 2014), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2014/12/19/apd_settlement_11-14-14.pdf.

[lx]See, e.g.,Blake Norton et al., Office of Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Collaborative Reform Initiative:An Assessment of the St. Louis County Police Department 56 (2015), https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p316-pub.pdf; U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Investigation of the Puerto Rico Police Department 90 (2011), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/09/08/prpd_letter.pdf; Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.300 – Use of Force Tools, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8300—use-of-force-tools; United States v. City of Ferguson, No. 4:16-CV-00180-CDP, ¶ 167 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/833431/download.; Settlement Agreement, United States v. City of Albuquerque, No. 1:14-CV-01025-RB-SMV, ¶ 39(D.N.M. Nov. 14, 2014), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2014/12/19/apd_settlement_11-14-14.pdf.

[lxi]New Orleans Police Dep’t, Operations Manual: Canine 4 (2015), https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/Chapter-41-22-Canine.pdf.

[lxii]See, e.g.,Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.300 – Use of Force Tools, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8300—use-of-force-tools; United States v. City of Ferguson, No. 4:16-CV-00180-CDP, ¶ 163 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/833431/download;The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing 4-5 (2015), http://elearning-courses.net/iacp/html/webinarResources/170926/FinalReport21stCenturyPolicing.pdf;Amended and Restated Consent Decree Regarding the New Orleans Police Department, United States v. City of New Orleans, No. 12-CV-01924, ¶ 43 (E.D. La. 2018), https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/NOPD-Consent-Decree-2018-10-2.pdf/.

[lxiii]See, e.g., United States v. City of Ferguson, No. 4:16-CV-00180-CDP, ¶¶ 164, 166 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/833431/download;Cf.Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.300 – Use of Force Tools, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8300—use-of-force-tools(“In the case of known or suspected juvenile suspects, special consideration should be given to the suspect’s age and propensity for violence, and officers shall explore alternatives to the deployment of a canine”); New Orleans Police Dep’t, Operations Manual: Canine (2015), https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/Chapter-41-22-Canine.pdf.

[lxiv]U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department 32 (2015), https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=95274 (citingKuha v. City of Minnetonka, 365 F.3d 590, 598 (8th Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, Minn., 486 F.3d 385, 391 (8th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (holding that “a jury could find it objectively unreasonableto use a police dog trained in the bite and hold method without first giving the suspect a warning and opportunity for peaceful surrender”) (emphasis added)).

© 2024 Report • Built with