One of the PSRC subcommittees has been working on reviewing the police department policies around protests. Here is our work so far, and next, we move on to recommendations.
A little update on where our subcommittee is at. We are in the process of compiling our recommendations on police protest policies. Our first two meetings we spend determining how we were going to do our work and compiling our questions. The second two meetings were spend with Captain Wahl answering our questions (or not). Committee members are submitting their recommendations now. We will compile a report and then seek public input.
July 28 – Day two of answers from Captain Vic Wahl
- 2:07 News Media Relations
- Committee Questions
- SOP should emphasize freedom of the press. Treatment of the Media during protests should be included in the policy. There is a news media relations SOP but does not address demonstrations.
- Media – tear gas, pepper sprayed. Shouldn’t there be some sort of rules/guidelines for the news media.
- SOP lacking any reference to the importance of the press for public information. General information to respect free press.
- SOP is lacking information on a large protest or gathering. News media relations should be mentioned. The tone is not favorable to the news media. General language can be cleaned up and information provided for transparency.
- What instructions are given to news media during major event coverage? What expectations are set for the behavior of the media and the officers?
- Video shows reporters/people with cameras getting hit with tear gas canisters and being pepper sprayed – are the media considered targets along with the rest of the population?
- Is there a protocol for handling the media during a major event?
- Do you require press passes for media at any point?
- Why can’t public information that hurts the integrity of MPD be released, as it creates transparency and accountability standards?
- Committee Questions
- 15:36 Mutual Aid Requests
- Committee Questions
- If there are over 500 police officers on the force why do we need mutual aid? Random other police departments assist – why?
- Officers should only take action if the situation is urgent – more clarity. What constitutes the level of urgency, determines the level of staffing.
- No assurance that another department is following the MPD’s policies and standards.
- Were rubber bullets used from other police departments? It was used in our city and if we are using other police departments it doesn’t follow MPD policies.
- If bringing in an officer from another town they should have an identifiable patch/number on them.
- Video should be publicly available. If you have mutual aid keep the videos because you don’t know what the other officers are doing.
- Committee Questions
- 28:40 Field Extrication Team
- Committee Questions
- There was discussion on referring to a lot of protest devices and what do they mean with sign carrying, and tanks? What are they thinking when they are talking about?
- SOPs are not being followed is a major thing that we are seeing. If an officer observes another officer using excessive force, etc. the officer has an affirmative obligation to intercede. Have they violated the policy? Does every case have to be judged on their own?
- How does the team seek to get voluntary compliance and de-escalate first?
- What weapons are included in the term “protest device”?
- How often are inventory reports done? Can we get a copy of the report from before and after the May 30 – June 2 events?
- Can we get the annual reports that the FX supervisor does?
- At the last meeting Mindy says the SET medic is there for the officers not the public, what is the purpose of the medic and the ambulance standing by?
- How many members are there of the FXT, who are they? Were all their reports included in the response to the alders?
- What considerations do you have about using tear gas and OC spray during a pandemic? Would you use chemical weapons again given what we know?
- What criteria does the commander use to activate the set team?
- Would MPD consider using stronger language and eliminate the use of terms like “attempt,” “preferred,” etc. Phrases like this allow for the development of grey areas that can lead to an abuse of civilian rights.
- Do officers typically anticipate protests to violate law?
- Have all uses of force displayed in the past month been properly recorded?
- How is this policy enforced and how specific are these documentations?
- Committee Questions
- 41:44 Grenadiers
- Committee Questions
- #3 under procedure, when they are going to use chemicals they should give a warning. No prior warning is required but feels it is encouraged.
- How quickly is information shared with the officers on being deployed?
- Concern there is a dis-connect in how it is being decided to use it.
- Since de-escalation for crowds isn’t in the de-escalation policy, why isn’t it in this policy?
- What training is required to carry a MK9 OC canister, how often, how many hours?
- Why is no verbal warning required, but only encouraged to give voluntary compliance?
- What are the decontamination and medical assistance expectations when using chemical weapons? When do you actually provide the assistance? What circumstances prevent you from doing it?
- It seems like once the grenadiers are given the “go” order, there is no re-evaluating or stopping the efforts, is that true?
- What kind of follow up is done to look at the inventory of munitions before and after events and match it to the police reports indicating they used force?
- What rank do grenadiers hold, how many of each rank?
- Can we get a copy of the Grenadier Lieutenant’s annual reports for the past 10 years?
- Can we get the SET supervisor, commander or CP personnel directing the use of force reports for the events in May and June?
- What does it mean that if a grenadier is sent on a mutual aid request that they “abide by” “MPD SOPs generally” – what’s the exceptions?
- When would Grenadiers work outside of a SET situation?
- Committee Questions
- 58:30 Use of Force Data Collection
- Commmittee Questions
- Recordable force – Why are pain compliance techniques not a reportable use of force?
- Injury – Why is OC spray excluded from being an injury? Especially given certain populations it should not be used against?
- Procedure – were field supervisors asked to come to the scene when impact projectiles were used on civilians during the events of May 30 – June 2?
- What areas for improvement were identified by field supervisors entering use of force from May 30 – June 2?
- What civilian witnesses were identified and interviewed as a result of use of force used on May 30 – June 2?
- How much video/photo evidence is identified and preserved as a result of the incidents May 30 – June 2? How could that be obtained or viewed?
- How long does a use of force review take?
- Were there equipment related issues on the dates of May 30 – June 2 regarding use of force?
- Does the inventory and the use of force reported match up for the dates of May 30 – June 2?
- How many violations of use of force were found during the events of May 30- June 2? And what was the outcome of those findings (training, discipline, etc.)
- What exactly is the definition of unrecorded force and what precisely does not need to be record? Unrecorded force poses problems…what doesn’t have to be recorded?
- Can any of the examples of what recordable force is be used in improper ways that lead to an abuse of rights?
- How can the difference between what is recordable and what is not be better distinguished?
- Commmittee Questions
- Somehow we skipped continuing answering questions on Use of non-deadly force (see questions below)
July 15 – Day one with Vic Wahl answering questions
In this meeting Chief Wahl answered our questions on the following policies
- Start – How policies are updated. Changes to Code of Conduct and Standard Operating Procedures
- 12:30 Uniform Standards
- Committee Questions
- Where is the language for SET riot gear?
- Can something be done to have a more readable name tag?
- How is the resolution that passed council about riot gear identification incorporated into this SOP.
- Committee Questions
- 23:00 Police Weaponry
- Committee Questions
- Why are officers required to carry chemical agents?
- Are there any special rules about chemical agents during COVID-19?
- Why are special events, FT&# and SWAT not required to carry a taser?
- What is the purpose of a police officer carrying a knife – folding/retractable or fixed blade?
- Committee Questions
- 26:30 Demonstrations and Assemblies
- Committee Questions
- Clarification needed on the directive to be impartial and neutral during demonstrations. What are the implications if not followed and what does it means for the officer if they violate and what is the penalty. Neutrality was discussed with protests and why do the police have to remain neutral as there may be some officers who want to show solidarity and march with protestors.
- Other areas discussed and questions raised; when is it decided to use riot gear, when is it decided to advance and use pepper spray and other tools. How do they make the decision and what is the goal as this is not covered in the SOP.
- Policies should be more complete and easy for an individual to find what they are looking for. SOP’s should have the information included from another SOP. Who writes the policies?
- Communication and notification to the protestors that is more specific and a public warning to protestors to get into a safe place before chemical agents are used. Some thought protestors were to be warned three times before chemical agents are used.
- What process is there on changing policies and consideration of public on comments? There is a review process on the police department website when SOPs are posted but how much consideration from comments to make changes.
- Interest in the numbers from COVID-19 and the stay at home orders and how many people attended to protest and the number of officers that were sent versus how many officers were sent to the George Floyd protest or the Tony Robinson protest at East High School. What was the difference between the two?
- There were questions on charges and the inconsistency with who gets charged and who doesn’t and recovering the costs.
- Who is on the Special Events Team (SET) and how is that decided, do they have use of force complaints? Who are the officers in the riot gear, what kind of training do they have? What does the training look like?
- What kinds of tools, chemical agents, etc. What ones do we think are okay under different circumstances and what ones are we hoping to curtail? What will tear gas do to the crowd and is that the desired effect?
- Chemical tools should not be used unless there was an extreme circumstance such as “shooting in the streets”. It should be very clear.
- Disruption amongst the public and what that looks like. John Nolen Drive shut down. How can you keep those people happy that are going about their business and to keep the protestors happy. How do you make it more tolerant for those kinds of events and what is acceptable for the public?
- Committee Questions
- 1:19:21 De-escalation
- Committee Questions
- Is the policy written for a single person as it doesn’t address larger events. The “8 Can’t Wait” 6 steps of de-escalation that should be in the policy. The PSRC is going to study “8 Can’t Wait” and could be coordinated with those. OIR, Ad-hoc, and NCAAP did a lot of studying and has information on de- escalation on the six steps.
- Under examples on the de-escalation SOP; the last example could include any standard operating procedures. The 6 points of de-escalation needs clarity and less leeway for less legal tactics utilized. There are a lot of different interpretations with the examples.
- What is the difference from four months ago with until now with making arrests? The jail population is down. Is there something different with de- escalation? (See 1:22:10 – it’s about officer safety – they have been asked to avoid unnecessary arrests)
- Are officers trained on de-escalation and is that their specialty? Think everyone should be trained.
- Committee Questions
- 1:32:22 – Use of non-deadly force
- Committee Questions
- There was discussion on the SOP with the words objectively and subjectively when law enforcement is using force. It was said in the first paragraph, the primary duties should be to protect life, which is good, but the second paragraph says objectively reasonable which makes it not clear on what it means.
- There was discussion on the legal aspect if an officer does something that is wrong?
- Can there be language with an indication from the police department with what is coming next as there is no communication when pepper spray, tear gas, etc. is going to be sprayed. The policy only indicates how it is going to be used. Also, feels the policy should be centered on more communication, de-escalation, etc. There was discussion on how the SOP is written by which paragraph comes first with regard to following protocols.
- The SOP does not require to have communication going into other measures. Use of deadly force is still unclear from a member of the public and there is a need for communication before use of non-deadly force (chemical agents not used at all) Felt that communication could greatly solve situations seen at protests.
- The policy shares that projectiles will not be used to move or disperse crowds. This is not always observed.
- There was discussion on complaints and legitimate complaints and the small percentage of officers that are convicted as doing something wrong. There was mention on officers that don’t want to or don’t have a card to give to a citizen when requested, the complaint process as being long and drawn out with a lot of work on the citizen, the ability to identify officers is difficult in crowd situations and name plates that are shiny are hard to read.
- Medics in the crowd and providing aid to those injured in the crowd. What is the procedure?
- Use of non-deadly force authorized – How do you justify using non-deadly force to “maintain on order”, what does “maintaining order” consist of?
- Force considerations – What alternative methods were used to control the crowds?
- Force considerations – What offenses are considered “severe” enough to use non-deadly force?
- Special circumstances – “control of a person through presence and verbal commands shall always be the preferred method of control” – There seemed to be very few verbal commands to the crowd, please explain what is expected to be tried first.
- De-Escalation – De-escalation SOP seems to be written for individuals not the SET or SET FXT – do they have different De-escalation policies?
- Use of OC spray – what is the difference between active and passive resistance?
- Use of OC spray – what constitutes a “threat”
- Use of OC spray – what manner of use is “prescribed by the Chief of Police through MPD training”
- Use of OC spray – How would you offer people the opportunity to wash or flush the areas affected? How often is this done?
- Chemical agent use – what “manner” is “prescribed by the chief of police through MPD training” for use of chemical agents?
- Baton use – At what point should officers be using batons – how do they determine that a “lesser degree of force” is insufficient?
- Impact projectiles – They are only supposed to be used to overcome violent or assaultive behavior or to control persons to prevent them from haring an officer or another person – under which circumstances did you use these against the protesters
- Impact projectiles – the policy requires taking people to the emergency room for medical clearance if they have been hit by one of these, how can you justify their use if there is no way that you will follow up with the required medical care?
- Impact projectiles – How is it responsible to fire these into a crowd not knowing who you might hit and where, particularly because if a person is hit in the wrong area of the body it is deadly force?
- Impact projectiles – The policies say “impact projectiles will not be used in crowd control situations.” why were they used?
- Impact projectiles – Then policies say they will not be used to “move or disperse crowds” – so why were they used on the days of May 30 – June 2
- Aftercare – Is it considered responsible to use force knowing an officer can’t follow up with aftercare? Were there any incidents of aftercare during the events of May 30 – June 2
- Use of force review and investigations – how many investigations are happening as a result of the incidents May 30 – June 2? How many uses of force were put into the database? What does immediate emergency casualty care exactly look like? Is is the same for both officers and citizens?
- This category has no accountability issues (besides potential documentation discrepancies), while it has been apparent that not everyone gets the help they need in situations described in the policy – how would this concern be addressed?
- Can communication be a required step before the use of force in general? The policy mentions that is the “preferred” method of communication, but could this language be removed to ensure that this is indeed happening?
- If non-deadly force is meant to be as such, why does this SOP still use the phrasing “not likely to cause death” when referring to it?
- Can officer discretion be a dangerous precedent to be set, as there can then always be a justification for partaking in misconduct?
- Do peaceful protestors constitute “active resistance” or a “threat?”
- Did all impacted protestors receive the appropriate medical care as detailed in this SOP over these past 2 months?
- Committee Questions
July 7 – Committee reviewing policies and compiling questions
June 23 – Committee reviewing policies and compiling questions
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Since we have a small committee we can’t talk to each other. Matthew Mitnick submitted his recommendations and I added mine to his comments. I haven’t seen the ones from Mary Anglim or Charles Mayazde yet. These are drafts and some of the issues are involved in several policies. I’m sure this list isn’t complete and I agree with Matthew about pepperspray, tear gas and impact projectiles being banned, but wrote recommendations assuming that won’t happen in case it doesn’t. Hopeful it will. If you have suggestions, submit them to pdpsrc@cityofmadison.com.
Public Safety Review Committee: Policy Subcommittee
Recommendations from Committee Member Brenda Konkel building on recommendations of Matthew Mitnick on the City of Madison Police Department’s (MPD) Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
Mitnick: In general, the SOPs should not require clarification from an outside expert or entity to translate them to the general public. Like any law or ordinance, especially at the municipal level, these policies should be as clear as possible. However, it is also important to recognize the visceral reality that a policy does not promise compliance or accountability. My hope is that with more clear procedures, the public will not only know what to expect, but there will be no room for misjudgment in MPD actions that may potentially harm the public. Throughout these SOPs, I can’t help but notice vague language throughout. The rest of this report outlines this further.
Konkel: Some general comments that would make the policies easier to follow:
- Provide a way to search all SOPs instead of searching document by document.
- Provide links when referring to other SOPs
- Agree with Mitnick, policies leave too much discretion, rendering them meaningless. When officers are expected to do something, it should say “shall” or “will”.
- Chief Wahl reports they “received very little feedback” (7/15 10:45) during review process for policies should be more friendly to the community in the following ways:
- Give the community more than 2 weeks to comment.
- Allow community members to sign up to get notifications when policies are being reviewed or available for public comment. (Chief Wahl said they would look at it, it was an IT capacity issue. Anglim suggests a box on the MPD homepage. Mindy suggests using social media postings to inform public about policy changes.)
- If changes are made due to public comment, that information should be available to the public.
- Changes should be brought to PSRC or the new Civilian Oversight Board, if approved.
News Media Relations
-
- Mitnick: Offer a paragraph providing instructions on how the media can cover large protests or gatherings.
- Mitnick: Media should not be targets of law enforcement, as they are merely providing transparency to the public. There needs to be language protecting the media from any use of force.
- Mitnick: There should be mention of the importance of media / press coverage at the beginning of the SOP.
- Konkel: Have a clear way for people to sign up for press releases and press availability notifications from the Police Department.
- Konkel: Consider the use of press passes for press to identify themselves to police officers so they know they are not part of the crowd.
- Konkel: Best practices recommended by Joel Despain to some media, should be available to all media and written into policy.
Mutual Aid
-
- Mitnick: There is no mention of how other departments must follow MPD’s SOPs. More information needs to be provided here on mutual aid being provided to the MPD – not just MPD offering their services.
- Mitnick: Include a paragraph that states how officers assisting MPD in a mutual aid request must be versed on MPD’s SOPs by a designated supervisor or commander of a specialized unit.
- Mitnick: Remove “these guidelines do not prohibit individual officers from providing routine assistance and/or back up, as they deem necessary.” This leaves room for problematic and unethical tactics that are not approved by MPD to potentially be employed.
- Mitnick: Provide more clarity on the point concerning how officers should only take action if the situation is urgent. Clearly state what constitutes an urgent situation.
- Mitnick: Create accountability measures by requiring any outside agencies to wear identifiable uniform numbers.
- Mitnick: Make it clear that MPD will not use Emergency Police Services (EPS) from the State of Wisconsin, unless MPD can be in control of deciding who assists. Currently when EPS is called, MPD is no longer in control of mutual aid requests to other departments.
- Mitnick: Ensure that there is clear documentation of the outside entities that were employed in a mutual aid request.
- Konkel: MPD should track and provide to the public the names of the officers and departments that assist Madison in mutual aid.
- Konkel: MPD should collect police reports from officers who provide mutual aid within the City of Madison as they would any MPD police officer.
- Konkel: MPD should request after action reports from any officer responding to a mutual aid request in the City of Madison. At a minimum the reports should include any use of force and a summary of actions taken while providing aid in the City of Madison.
- Konkel: A policy should be written about what criteria is used to determine mutual aid is needed and whether to use Dane County mutual aid agreements or EPS.
- Konkel: A policy should be written about what officers do while they are providing mutual aid. Mutual Aid Officers should not be used without ensuring they are properly trained to provide the services they are fulfilling.
- Konkel: A policy should be written about how to assign mutual aid officers and communicate with them.
- Konkel: A policy should be written that says that mutual aid officers shall not use munitions or procedures we do not use.
Field Extrication Team
-
- Mitnick: Remove this SOP entirely. The Field Extrication Team has never been used before and its measures do not seem necessary. This appears to be a waste of resources, time, money for the department. In fact, the Field Extrication Team should be considered for removal.
- Mitnick: Potentially mention in the Mutual Aid SOP that in the event of a protest requiring Field Extrication Response, UWPD or another department can be called upon in a mutual aid response. However, this needs to clearly state why a Field Extrication response is needed and there needs to be more clarity on what a response would look like.
Grenadiers
-
- Mitnick: Require a warning before chemical agents are used. Currently no prior warning is required, which is quite problematic.
- Mitnick: Require de-escalation in all situations when grenadiers are being employed.
- Konkel: There needs to be a re-assessment of the authority to use tear gas. Clear criteria should be written to de-escalate from the use of tear gas and pepperspray.
- Konkel: Grenadiers should be trained in de-escalation specifically crafted to address large crowd situations and the impact of chemical munitions.
- Konkel: Grenadiers specifically should be required to give repeated communications to disperse.
- Konkel: If grenadiers are brought in for mutual aid, they should be trained by the Madison Police Department in de-escalation.
- Konkel: Inventory of supplies should be kept on a weekly basis and after an event there should be an additional inventory.
- Konkel: Grenadiers should go through additional (higher standards) use of force reviews prior to being appointed a grenadier.
- Konkel: Grenadiers should be trained with Dane County mutual aid partners at the staff level, not just the command level
- Konkel: The description of staff volunteering for the SET team and then just working with the skill sets (FXT, Grenadiers, Medics) that show up that day seems problematic. Staff with special skill sets, particularly Medics, should be called in when needed.
Use of Force Data Collection
-
- Mitnick: OC spray should not be excluded from injury.
- Mitnick: Recordable force should include pain compliance techniques. If this measure were to be implemented, it would surely constitute some level of force. Hence, it should fall in this category.
- Konkel: Technology should solve the use of force recording issues, there should be a way to flag the use of force in the database.
- Konkel: Video with use of force incidents should be kept for two years.
- Konkel: Currently if people aren’t taken into custody they don’t investigate the use of force. This policy can lead to less accountability and these incidents should still be investigated.
- Konkel: Pain compliance techniques should be reportable, not just recordable.
Use of Non-Deadly Force
-
- Mitnick: The policy mentions that “verbal commands shall always be the preferred method of control.” Change this language to “verbal commands will always be the preferred method of communication.” Even if an individual is not complying, there should be some warning before non-deadly force is utilized. This SOP must reflect that. There also needs to be a paragraph that details the importance of communication, especially before use of any chemical agent.
- Mitnick: Change “action taken by an officer which is not likely to cause death” to “action taken by an officer which will under no circumstances cause death pursuant to that action.” I understand this could potentially open the door for litigation, however if an officer employs non-deadly force in a manner that causes death, they should be in violation of this SOP and removed from duty immediately.
- Mitnick: Officer discretion is a dangerous precedent to set, as there can then always be justification for partaking in misconduct. Remove any mention of this and if there is an area that is not fully clear, then provide more clarity!
- Mitnick: Following, “Officers may use O.C. spray when they reasonably believe they are facing active resistance, or its threat, from the subject. O.C. spray is not to be used against subjects who are offering only passive resistance,” please include a mention that peaceful demonstrators do not constitute active resistance. Although the Demonstrations and Assemblies SOP will explain this further, I feel that given recent events, this is a worthy mention.
- Mitnick: Remove the point on using non-deadly force to “maintaining order.” This opens the door for potential abuses of non-deadly force.
- Mitnick: Provide more clarity on the “objectively reasonable” point. The Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), is referenced, but please provide a reason or analysis as to why it was cited. This would be helpful to better understand this SOP, as it is important to know how this case is being interpreted.
- Mitnick: Although this cannot be achieved just through amending this SOP and is a more broad policy goal / ordinance change, I just want to point out that this SOP would benefit from an O.C. spray / chemical agents ban.
- Konkel: The policy clearly says that “ Absent an imminent risk of harm to officers or citizens, impact projectiles will not be used in crowd control situations. Impact projectiles will not be used to move or disperse crowds.” This policy should be followed and it clearly was not. If there needs to be clarifications about this restriction, they should be made. Chief says they can be used in a crowd control scenario if there is a safety threat. “Safety threat” should be required to be more severe. i.e. more than picking up a rock or a bottle at a distance. Police should hot be shooting impact projectiles into crowds.
- Konkel: If someone is shot with an impact projectile but the police do not take them into custody, they should still be offered medical assistance. Impact projectiles should not be used against people who medical assistance cannot be provided to.
- Konkel: If police are using chemical weapons in a crowd situation, they should have sufficient medical assistance available and water or other medical equipment to aid innocent bystanders. Aid should be offered, police shouldn’t wait to be asked for assistance.
- Konkel: It should be made clear that the Medics in SET are there for the officers, not the public, as described by Captain Winter. It should be clear what they carry. It should be clear how many Medics should be in each platoon. (There are only 7 out of 70+ officers)
Demonstrations and Assemblies
-
- Mitnick: If the demonstration or assembly particularly concerns law enforcement, officers should not have to remain neutral. If they wish to show solidarity with the protestors, this should be allowed, so long as it does not impact the ability to perform their job. Konkel: Policies should apply consistently from front line officers to the chief. If policies are waived for one officer, they should be waived for all and that should be communicated to the officers and the public that they are being waived and why. (See 7/15 29:30).
- Mitnick: There needs to be more language pertaining to communication. There should be 3 very clear and loud public warnings for protestors to clear the area and get to a safe location prior to the use of chemical agents. Konkel: Sufficient time should be provided to avoid causing panic by the crowd. Officers should assume the public is not aware of the policies and clearly communicate the policies to the crowd. Verbal commands should be more frequent and emphasized throughout the policy. Police should do more communication than what is legally required to aid in getting compliance.
- Mitnick: Chemical agents should not be used unless under very specific situations. The wording could be something like “if shots were fired.” However, I want to mention that all chemical agents should be banned and if this were the case, this SOP would benefit immensely.
- Mitnick: Language should be included that MPD coverage of demonstrations and assemblies should be more about protecting the protestors and ensuring that they can safely advocate for their beliefs.
- Konkel: Policy should be clear about what constitutes a “public statement” by an officer in regards to “nuetrality”. The policy currently states: “The MPD and its personnel will be completely impartial and employees will make no public statement which reflects personal opinion on the pertinent issues(s) while on duty.”
- Konkel: Permits should not be required for political demonstrations. Groups should not be billed for using city services during a political demonstration where they are not charging money to participate or doing it as a commercial endeavor.
- Konkel: Clear criteria should be set for when riot gear is used, it shouldn’t be a decision made on a case by case basis without policy guidance.
- Konkel: If not banned by ordinance, there should be clear guidelines for when tear gas, pepperspray or other chemical weapons are used during a demonstration. Criteria should be set in policy for why and how chemical weapons are used. Finally, policies should be set to emphasis rapid de-escalation after the use of chemical weapons.
- Konkel: Impact weapons should not be used for crowd control. Shooting a projectile into a crowd should not be allowed. Particularly because most police reports admitted they did not see if the person was hit and they were not able to follow up with medical care.
- Konkel: Officers should not work more than an 8-hour shift during a demonstration for officer safety, fatigue and so there can be adequate police reports. Reports are that some people had been working 18 hour days.
- Konkel: There should be a de-escalation policy for demonstrations and assemblies. The “Madison Method” should be laid out in policy and broken down into steps for how it is implemented.
De-Escalation
-
- Mitnick: There needs to be greater levels of clarity in the “Examples of De-Escalation.” The policy as it stands opens up the possibility for force to be used. Remove “Any other tactics and approaches that attempt to achieve law enforcement objectives.”
- Mitnick: There are some innovative de-escalation tactics out there. This SOP would benefit from consulting with outside agencies, the Ad Hoc Committee, and OIR Report to potentially include more clear examples of de-escalation that are proven to be effective.
- Mitnick: This sentence makes little sense: “The number of officers on scene may increase the available force options and may improve the ability to reduce the overall force used.” Typically, more officers on scene may stress or agitate the impacted individuals. This SOP should prioritize less officer involvement when employing de-escalation.
Uniform Standards
-
- Konkel: Riot gear should be clearly labeled with identification on the front and back of the vests and helmets as well as an indication that it is a MPD officer. Currently the SOPs do not address this issue but there is an informal police department process, that process should be in the SOPs (7/15 13:23). The public should be able to see a list of who serves on the SET team and there should be a publicly available list of badge numbers if that is what is what is used for identificaiton for riot gear.
- Konkel: Any visiting officers should be required to have the same identification and specifically which law enforcement department they are with.
- Konkel: Follow resolution 60375 passed on April 8, 2003 or revise it and the SOPs to indicate identification policies.
- Konkel – Change to embroidered nametags that are clearly readable, discontinue tiny silver name plates that are unreadable.
Police Weaponry
-
- Konkel – Chief Wahl says pepperspray “is something that doesn’t cause injury” (7/15 23:37) and there are no special requirements about using pepperspray during COVID-19. Policies should be created to restrict the use of pepperspray (or other chemical irritants) during a pandemic if they are used in a crowd and cause the person being peppersprayed to cough, sneeze or otherwise create water droplets that would spread disease. This is for the safety of both the officers and the bystanders.
- Konkel – SWAT and other teams should carry a taser as a less leathal option.
