⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 7 findings
F1
Reviewed of both incidents and found all of the officers involved absolved of any criminal liability and not in violation of Department Policy.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The factor of “excited delirium” was apparent in both incidents and the decedents were out of control and a danger to themselves and others.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
That RPDPS adopt a policy similar to the Sonoma County Sheriff, relating to “excited delirium” with frequent retraining, to sharpen judgment in stressful situations, with regard to the use of less-than lethal force, particularly in situations involving “excited delirium.”
F3
In the Fernandez case, one PSO fired a Taser which was not functional due to lack of a full battery charge and, therefore, failed to subdue him. The other PSO’s Tasers were unavailable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Tasers issued to RPDPS PSO’s should be fully charged and checked at the beginning of each shift. It should be carried at all times, on the officer’s service belt, in a proper holster on the weak side. PSO’s should leave on each shift with a fully functioning device. Replacement Tasers or fully charged batteries should be available at all times.
F4
Mr. Fernandez was attempting to leave Walmart with stolen goods and exhibiting signs of excited delirium. He was confrontational to others and waving around a pole. He was later manually restrained by the officers and died of asphyxiation while restrained.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
That RPDPS adopt a policy similar to the Sonoma County Sheriff, relating to “excited delirium” with frequent retraining, to sharpen judgment in stressful situations, with regard to the use of less-than lethal force, particularly in situations involving “excited delirium.”
F5
One incident involved the fatal shooting of a female citizen on 03/16/08. The officer responded to a family disturbance call. At the house Ms. Billings approached the PSO with a utility blade and failed to respond to directions to drop the blade. When the decedent was within four to six feet, the PSO fired his gun. Ms. Billings was struck and killed.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The PSO in the Billings case was a lateral transfer to the RPDPS for eleven months, had four weeks of supervised training, rather than the departmental policy standard of sixteen weeks of supervised training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Probationary PSO’s be supervised for a full sixteen week period, without reduction for lateral transfers. The training officer should be recognized as experienced, and with a history of exercising excellent judgment. Responses to Findings: Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety F-1, F-2, F-3. F-4, F-5, F-6, F-7 Required Responses to Recommendations: Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety – R-1, R-2, R-3
F7
In Billings case, the PSO’s department issued Taser was inoperable due to a lack of battery power and was left in his patrol car. [2] A fully charged M26Taser should spark at twenty pulses per second but the PSO’s Taser was functioning at only four pulses per second. The newer X26 Taser has an LED readout to inform the user it is fully charged. At the time of the two incidents, RPDPS had issued M26 Tasers. [3] RPDPS current policy manual includes a section on “excited delirium”. CONCLUSIONS It must be emphasized that Tasers and their use is a highly controversial issue nationwide. Many police agencies will not issue them to their officers and Taser International, the largest producer of Tasers, is constantly issuing new guidelines for Taser use. Tasers must be considered potentially lethal weapons. Although their use does not often result in a fatality, they do occasionally, and in that context, they must be used as carefully as a side arm. Give the police an alternative to a lethal outcome in any situation and they will welcome it. However, Tasers must be carried, be fully functional and, above all, the training must be intense and thorough. RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Tasers issued to RPDPS PSO’s should be fully charged and checked at the beginning of each shift. It should be carried at all times, on the officer’s service belt, in a proper holster on the weak side. PSO’s should leave on each shift with a fully functioning device. Replacement Tasers or fully charged batteries should be available at all times.
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 3It must be emphasized that Tasers and their use is a highly controversial issue nationwide. Many police agencies will not issue them to their officers and Taser International, the largest producer of Tasers, is constantly issuing new guidelines for Taser use. Tasers must be considered potentially lethal weapons. Although their use does not often result in a fatality, they do occasionally, and in that context, they must be used as carefully as a side arm. Give the police an alternative to a lethal outcome in any situation and they will welcome it. However, Tasers must be carried, be fully functional and, above all, the training must be intense and thorough.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Rohnert Park
City