AgdaPkt 2011-07-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1.D. - Page 17 Police Department Chris Cesena Interim Police Chief 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation therefore. The City Council has authorized me to present the City's response to the Court. The Redwood City Council at its meeting of July 11, 2011 approved the responses to the findings and recommendations. FINDINGS Finding #3 Of the 18 uniformed police agencies using TASER devices in San Mateo County that the Grand Jury reviewed, the primary provider of Use of Force policies and TASER use policies is Lexipol, LLC. Fifteen cities, BART and the CHP use Lexipol, or have policies that are similar, if not identical, to Lexipol. Response The City disagrees partially with the finding. The City agrees that the Redwood City Police Department's TASER use policy is based on Lexipol's policy, but is not identical. The City does not have sufficient information regarding the policies of the other San Mateo County uniformed police agencies to either agree or disagree with that portion of the finding. Finding #4 All agencies using TASER devices require training prior to the issuance of a TASER to individual officers; require annual or more frequent retraining; require a "Use of Force Report" when a TASER device is activated; and require medical evaluation for a subject who has been "tased. " Response The City disagrees partially with the finding. The City agrees that the Redwood City Police Department requires training prior to the issuance of a TASER to individual officers; requires annual or more frequent retraining; requires a "Use of Force Report" when a TASER device is activated; and requires medical evaluation for a subject who has been "tared." The City does not have sufficient information regarding the policies and procedures of the other San Mateo County uniformed police agencies to either agree or disagree with that portion of the finding. 1301 Maple Street N M I Redwood City, CA 94063 C� Telephone (650) 780 -7100 �oun FAX Line (650) 780 -7155 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation therefore. The City Council has authorized me to present the City's response to the Court. The Redwood City Council at its meeting of July 11, 2011 approved the responses to the findings and recommendations. FINDINGS Finding #3 Of the 18 uniformed police agencies using TASER devices in San Mateo County that the Grand Jury reviewed, the primary provider of Use of Force policies and TASER use policies is Lexipol, LLC. Fifteen cities, BART and the CHP use Lexipol, or have policies that are similar, if not identical, to Lexipol. Response The City disagrees partially with the finding. The City agrees that the Redwood City Police Department's TASER use policy is based on Lexipol's policy, but is not identical. The City does not have sufficient information regarding the policies of the other San Mateo County uniformed police agencies to either agree or disagree with that portion of the finding. Finding #4 All agencies using TASER devices require training prior to the issuance of a TASER to individual officers; require annual or more frequent retraining; require a "Use of Force Report" when a TASER device is activated; and require medical evaluation for a subject who has been "tased. " Response The City disagrees partially with the finding. The City agrees that the Redwood City Police Department requires training prior to the issuance of a TASER to individual officers; requires annual or more frequent retraining; requires a "Use of Force Report" when a TASER device is activated; and requires medical evaluation for a subject who has been "tared." The City does not have sufficient information regarding the policies and procedures of the other San Mateo County uniformed police agencies to either agree or disagree with that portion of the finding.