My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2011-07-11
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
AgdaPkt 2011-07-11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/11/2011 9:40:02 AM
Creation date
7/11/2011 9:34:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
7/11/2011
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
219
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
6.1.D. - Page 8 <br />Lexipol uses a toolbox approach, allowing <br />the officer to use their best judgment based <br />on the subject's behavior. The California <br />Highway Patrol calls this the Use of Force <br />Option Wheel. See diagram at right. <br />CONDUCTIVE <br />ENERGY <br />WEAPON <br />OLEORESIN 1 \ SUBIECTBEHAVIOR PERSONAL <br />CAPSICUM WEAPONS <br />Investigation <br />The Grand Jury collected information <br />regarding the extent of standardization, the <br />use of TASER devices and the use of <br />Lexipol in San Mateo County using a <br />survey, analyzed reports and documents, <br />and conducted interviews with several <br />LESSLETHAL DEADLY FORCE <br />SHOTGUN <br />BATON <br />USE OF FORCE OPTION WHEEL DIAGRAM <br />Police Chiefs, the Sheriff and other C,,d Gmnh H , 01M P.10 11r R». W11-2 <br />personnel within their respective agencies. <br />Officers who had actually deployed and activated a TASER in making an arrest were also <br />interviewed. A chart summarizing information collected is provided in Appendix A. <br />To help understand the effectiveness and limitations of the TASER device, a local police agency <br />conducted a demonstration of a TASER device deployment and activation for the Grand Jury. <br />Among the documents reviewed were the Use of Force manuals published by the Police <br />Department of each city, sample post- incident Use of Force Reports, Lexipol generic standards <br />and protocols, and other relevant documents. <br />Findings <br />The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds: <br />1. The Sheriff s Department has a Use of Force policy that is different than the standardized <br />policies of the other uniformed law enforcement agencies in San Mateo County. The <br />Sheriff Department's policy requires a deputy to make physical contact with subjects who <br />are violent or threatening prior to the deployment and/or activation of the TASER device <br />unless the deputy can identify and articulate a reason to move up the ladder to the <br />TASER device use. Once engaged in physical contact, TASER use is limited to the <br />"drive stun" mode. <br />2. Law Enforcement agencies often respond to calls outside their jurisdiction for mutual aid <br />and joint task force operations, such as the San Mateo County Gang Task Force and Drug <br />Task Force. In these joint operations the protocols for Taser use by the Sheriff are not the <br />same as the other agencies in the county which also use TASERS. <br />3. Of the 18 uniformed police agencies using TASER devices in San Mateo County that the <br />Grand Jury reviewed, the primary provider of Use of Force policies and TASER use <br />a Many interviewees stated that "the TASER device is a use of force tool," that should be used appropriately just <br />like any other tool available to officers. <br />in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.