FROM:
-SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
CATE March 4, 1986
~-<JJ&<. OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE FILE NO.
LEE BACA, CAPTAIN
COMMANDER, NORWALK STATION
TO: RICHARD T. FREEMAN, CHIEF
FIELD OPERATIONS REGION III
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF FORCE USED BY NORWALK S_TATION DEPUTIES
At Lieutenant Maher's request, I am forwarding this
memorandum to you. There is merit to the suggestions
on page #3. However, the policy suggestion regarding
"intentional striking" of suspects on the head may be
too subjective ..... violations of the policy will
depend solely on a deputy stating his "intent."
LB:mt
Attachment
OAreJanuary 18, 1986
FILE NO .
Lee Baca, Captain
Norwalk Station
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF FORCE USED BY DEPUTIES JOHN S. SANFORD # 213477
AND JIMMIE L. OATES, SR. #137426
This memorandum, prepared pursuant to Division Order 3, reviews the
use of force by Deputies John Sanford and Jimmie L. Oates.
Although the force was used by the deputies in two separate and
unrelated incidents, there are similarities and identical concerns in
both incidents. Indeed, it is the similarities and related concerns
that prompt this review. For that reason, the two incidents ar
covered in the same memorandum.
INCIDENT SUMMARY
On January 3, 1986, Deputy Oates was assisting other deputies
fighting with an alledgedly mentally ill person wh~~s naked and
unarmed (File # 486-00157-0492-058). Deputy Oates aiils his baton to
strike the patient on his right side, across his back, and on his
arm, apparently not fazing him or detering his combativeness. As the
patient and two deputies fell to the ground, Deputy Oates "Then swung
high and struck the suspect on the right side of the head" with his
baton, even though he did not know if the deputies struggling with
the patient were injured.
Also on January 3, 1986, Deputy Sanford and his partner confronted
two suspects apparently under the influence of PCP (file # 486-0008~ -
1578-058). One unarmed suspect advanced on the deputies and bo
struck him in the leg with their batons. The suspect continued
advancing on the deputies and swinging wildly attempting to strike
them. Deputy Sanford struck the suspect "once on the forehead with
(his) baton" in response to the aggressive actions of the suspect.
REVIEW OF FORCE
Both deputies used their batons to intentionally strike an unarmed
combative person in the head. It is my opinion that the use of such
a deadly weapon in a manner that is potentially fatal when the attack
amounts to, at most, a misdemeanor, constitutes the use of deadly
force.
DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES
It is not possible to determine if the actions of t he deputies
violates any · departmental policies. Based on a review of
departmental policies, it is my opinion that our current policies are
' ·
insufficient to adequately direct deputies in the use of force and to
prevent serious injury or death.
There is no policy at the departmental or divisional
prohibiting a deputy from deliberately strking a suspect in the
with a flashlight, gun, baton, or sap at any time and under
circumstances.
level
head
any
Divsion Order #3 indicates that personnel shall use departmentally
approved control techniques, but these techniques are not listed in
any source generally available to deputies and supervisors. Thus,
personnel do not know what they can use and managers have no way of
knowing if a control technique is approved or not.
Consequently, the deputies do not appear to have violated any
departmental policies in the circumstances under which they used
their batons to deliberately strike unarmed suspects in the head.
TRAINING
Both deputies have received their quarterly training in use of force
procedures as required by departmental policy. However, as indicated
above, the existing policies are not adequate in dealing with this
type of situation and are silent on the appropriate and inappropriate
use of the baton and similar weapons (sap, flashlight, etc.)
The training concerning head blows and strikes to other vital organs
with defensive weapons provided by the Training Bureau is of
questionable sufficiency. The Training Bureau provides a lesson plan
that clearly identifies a number of points on the body (including the
head) in which a blow with a baton or similar object can cause death
or serious injury, yet the lesson plan does not provide any policy or
information concerning when or if such blows are permitted. We are
told that instructors tell students to avoid blows to these areas,
but . we do not have an official policy on or training material
outlining that policy.
The deficiencies in these policies and training have been brought to
the personal attention of at least the division chief. So far, no
action has been taken to remedy them.
Departmental training involving the use of the baton at the station
level is limited to practice swinging at the dummy. There is no
regular recurrent training in its use as a restraint method. Indeed,
in the past 7 years, I cannot recall a single situation in which any
deputy has used a baton in any manner other than as a striking
weapon.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 1970, issued a publication in
which they stated that the untrained officer will strike a suspect in
the head. Based on this, it can be concluded that the officer who
strikes a suspect in the head is untrained or insufficiently trained.
The department also does not provide any regular weaponless defense
training. Thus, personnel respond in the only manner they know: hit
somebody with something.
CONCLUSIONS
The deputies used their batons to deliberately strike combative, but
unarmed persons in the head with their batons. However, departmental
policies and training is inadequate and the deputies cannot be held
accountable for their actions considering the failure of the
department to remedy this vacuum.
It would appear that departmentally there is a need for
policies and procedures relating to the use of force to be rewritten
in a more comprehensive manner.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend that there be no further action concerning the deputies.
While it is my expert and professional opinion that, as a minimum,
additional training be conducted for the deputies, this is not
feasible since neither existing training or policy will deal with
this type of situation in the future.
The department can easily remedy all of the training and policy
deficiencies with little effort. However, since no action has been
taken so far,it is doubtful that any will be taken.
Greater direction to deputies and managers is critical to proper
management of force. The department must immediately issue a policy
prohibiting the intentional striking of suspects in the head and
other vital areas with a baton, flashlight, or sap unless deadly
force is justified by the circumstances. The department must also
identify and publish approved restraint holds.
In addition, training must be improved. All personnel should receive
regular training in the use of weaponless defense tactics and in the
use of the baton as a restraining and control device as well as the
use as a striking weapon.
Such actions should be undertaken immediately. Failure to do so will
undoubtedly result in continued inappropriate use of blows to the
head by personnel.
I reconunend that this memorandum be forwarded through channels to the
division chief.
...