San Mateo County Grand Jury
• 2010-2011
Tasers Standardizing to Save Lives and Reduce Injuries
⚠️ 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 8 findings
F1
The Sheriff’s Department has a Use of Force policy that is different than the standardized policies of the other uniformed law enforcement agencies in San Mateo County. The Sheriff Department’s policy requires a deputy to make physical contact with subjects who are violent or threatening prior to the deployment and/or activation of the TASER device unless the deputy can identify and articulate a reason to move up the ladder to the TASER device use. Once engaged in physical contact, TASER use is limited to the “drive stun” mode.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Adopt either the Lexipol standard policies and decision toolbox approach, establish similar policies, or reestablish the prior Use of Force policy dated April 10, 2008.
F2
Law Enforcement agencies often respond to calls outside their jurisdiction for mutual aid and joint task force operations, such as the San Mateo County Gang Task Force and Drug Task Force. In these joint operations the protocols for Taser use by the Sheriff are not the same as the other agencies in the county which also use TASERS.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Adopt either the Lexipol standard policies and decision toolbox approach, establish similar policies, or reestablish the prior Use of Force policy dated April 10, 2008.
F3
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 8 Many interviewees stated that “the TASER device is a use of force tool,” that should be used appropriately just like any other tool available to officers. 4 policies is Lexipol, LLC. Fifteen cities, BART and the CHP use Lexipol, or have policies that are similar, if not identical, to Lexipol.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
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;9 and require medical evaluation for a subject who has been “tased.”
No recommendations for this finding
F5
No agency requires reporting when a TASER device has been used in the “light up” deployment mode, but not activated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Add a “deployment only” category to all Use of Force Reports and track the effect that this “light up” mode has in assisting deputies to gain and maintain control over subjects.
F6
No agency requires that an officer who has been issued a TASER device actually keep it on his/ her person. The TASER device may be kept secured in the patrol car for those officers on patrol duty.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
The cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto are the only San Mateo County police agencies that do not supply TASER devices to their officers and therefore TASERS are not available as an alternative to lethal force. Conclusions The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes:
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
Require uniformed deputies to have TASER devices available to the same extent that the officers are required to have a firearm available for use. The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of the cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto:
R4
Require uniformed officers to have TASER devices available to the same extent that the officers are required to have a firearm available for use. The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of all cities other than Menlo Park and East Palo Alto:
F8
The use of a TASER device, before being required to physically subdue a subject, would result in fewer injuries to both officers and subjects. When an officer goes “hands on” with a subject, in the form of the use of a baton, flashlight prod, or other device that can cause physical injury, it places the officer and the subject into a position where physical injury is more likely.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 8
-
CL1 Page 5All agencies that are using TASER devices have adequate training, supervision, reporting, review, and medical evaluation of the subject when TASER devices are used.
-
CL2 Page 5TASER devices can be a use of force alternative to the lethal force of a firearm.
-
CL3 Page 5With the exception of the Sheriff’s Office, of those agencies using TASER devices, the use of force deployment and activation policies are sufficiently similar to consider them to be standardized.
-
CL4 Page 5Without standardized use of force policies across San Mateo County with respect to activation and deployment of TASER devices, police officers and Sheriff’s deputies do not have a consistent approach in responding to potential use of force events. In addition, a lack of common policies (and training) could set inconsistent expectations with the public and law enforcement officers alike as to when and how TASER devices will be deployed and activated.
-
CL5 Page 5Lexipol, LLC provides the most-used set of standards for Use of Force policies in San Mateo County.
-
CL6 Page 5TASER devices that are deployed, but not activated, are not included in Use of Force reports. This understates the effectiveness of Tasers because “lighting up” a subject with the laser light is often sufficient for the officer to gain the subject’s immediate compliance. The absence of this reporting can result in future decision-makers not having sufficient information about the utility of carrying and deploying this device.
-
CL7 Page 5An officer who is trained in the use of TASER devices cannot make use of the device if he or she is not carrying it when it is needed. 9 Please see attached sample Use of Force report attached as Appendix B 5
-
CL8 Page 6The use of a TASER device, before being required to physically subdue a subject, would result in fewer injuries to both officers and subjects. When an officer goes “hands on” with a subject, in the form of the use of a baton, flashlight prod, or other device that can cause physical injury, it places the officer and the subject into a position where physical injury is more likely.