5 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
#06-020 II.F.1 states: "Maximum of four effective applications per incident, either drive stun or discharge mode, whether from a single or a combination of multiple Energy Conducted Weapon(s) units." A review of a Taser report provided by the Sheriff's Department shows the Taser was used eight times on the same individual in a span of less than one minute. (See Attachment 1, Lines 0059-0066)
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The Less-Lethal Devices Manual Addendum to Department Directive #06-020 II.F.1 states: "Maximum of four effective applications per incident, either drive stun or discharge mode, whether from a single or a combination of multiple Energy Conducted Weapon(s) units." A review of a Taser report provided by the Sheriffs Department shows the Taser was used eight times on the same individual in a span of less than one minute. (See Attachment 1, Lines 0059-0066) Response: Respondent agrees partially with the finding. Respondent acknowledges the Taser report referenced indicates a Taser electronic contr...
F2
The Less-Lethal Devices Manual Addendum to Department Directive #06-020 III.F.1.b states: "When deputies deploy the X-26 Taser they need to remain aware and attempt to limit the time of each discharge to no more than five seconds." The X-26 Taser has a built-in feature that allows the user to keep track of the number of seconds activated. Deputies do not always adhere to the five-second policy. Attachment 1 shows five usages in excess of five seconds on the same individual in a period of less th...
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
Respondent agrees partially with the finding. Respondent acknowledges the referenced Taser download report indicates a Taser ECD was cycled one second longer than prescribed by policy; however, respondent submits that no conclusion regarding policy can be drawn from that report. The finding draws conclusions about deputies' adherence to five seconds when the policy states deputies should "remain aware and attempt to limit ... " The policy was written with the knowledge that each force incident is dynamic and to mandate such a restriction would be unreasonable. Grand Jury
R2
Require sheriff supervisors conduct a detailed review of all X-26 Taser If a report reveals non-compliance with written policies, reports. appropriate disciplinary action should be administered to the violator.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
The recommendation has already been in place for over four years. Respondent's policy for the deployment and use of ECDs currently requires, and has always required, all deployments be reported to and reviewed by a supervisor; which ensures proper Taser use. Additionally, current policy strictly requires that all allegations of misconduct be investigated. If a review of deployment indicates any misconduct, an investigation would be warranted and the involved employee(s) could face disciplinary action.
F3
There is inconsistency in the use of Less-Lethal Weapons in the Riverside County jails. One facility reported the first option to gain compliance would be the Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) spray (pepper), whereas another facility would rely on the X-26 Taser. The Riverside Sheriff's Department Corrections Division Policy and Procedures does not provide guidance regarding the prioritization of the use of Less-Lethal Weapons.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
Respondent disagrees with the finding. Respondent acknowledges individual members from different jail facilities may choose one force option over another in response to a given use of force incident; however, respondent disagrees that any conclusion regarding policy can be drawn from those differences. Respondent asserts policy provides sufficient guidance regarding less-lethal options, while recognizing the required flexibility in dealing with varying circumstances related to use of force incidents. The respondent also notes that there are five different correctional facilities throughout the...
F4
In a review of the Corrections Division Policy and Procedures Manual it was noted section 505.07.5.6 has no designated assignment on Emergency Response Team (ERT) for the use of the X-26 Taser. However, the Less-Lethal Devices Manual section on ERT states "Deploys the X-26 Taser as directed by the ERT Sergeant".
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
Respondent disagrees in part with the finding. Respondent disagrees that the lack of designation of a Taser X-26 assignment in one section of ERT policy or the inclusion of the deployment of the Taser X-26 in a different section of ERT policy causes any conflict. The Corrections Division Policy covers extensively and with great clarity the use of Less-Lethal devices and the ERT. Corrections Division personnel encounter a wide variety of use of force incidents daily. Those incidents that involve the ERT may not always require the use of an X-26 Taser, and it is possible the X-26 Taser may be un...
