Baca, memo, 1986-03-04, to Freeman |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 12 of 62 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
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. ...
Object Description
Title | Public sessions, résumés, 1984 Sept. - 1991 May |
Description | Public sessions, résumés, 1984 September 7 - 1991 May 23. PART OF A SERIES: Materials in the series fall into one of several categories related to the Independent Commission's work product: (1) Commission meeting materials, which include meeting agendas, work plans, memoranda, and articles about police misconduct that were circulated and reviewed during the Commission's internal meetings; (2) public correspondence, which includes citizen complaints against the LAPD in the form of written testimony, articles, and an audio cassette tape, as well as letters drafted by citizens in support of the LAPD; (3) summaries of interviews held with LAPD officers regarding Departmental procedures and relations; (4) public meeting materials, which include transcripts, supplementary documents, and witness statements that were reviewed at the Commission's public meetings; (5) press releases related to the formation and work product of the Commission; and (6) miscellaneous materials reviewed by the Commission during its study, including LAPD personnel and training manuals, a memorandum of understanding, and messages from the LAPD's Mobile Digital Terminal (MDT) system. |
Coverage date | 1984-09-07/1991-05-23 |
Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California |
Date created | 1984-09-07/1991-05-23 |
Type | texts |
Format | 210 p. |
Format (aat) |
articles bibliographies correspondence faxes fliers (printed matter) labels (identifying artifacts) memorandums notes (documents) papers (documents) résumés (personnel records) resumes (personnel records) |
Format (imt) | application/pdf |
Language | English |
Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
Part of collection | Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, 1991 |
Series | Independent Commission File List |
File | Public Sessions |
Box and folder | box 24, folder 22 |
Provenance | The collection was given to the University of Southern California on July 31, 1991. |
Rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ All requests for permission to publish or quote from manuscripts must be submitted in writing to the Manuscripts Librarian. Permission for publication is given on behalf of Special Collections as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained. |
Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
Repository name | USC Libraries Special Collections |
Repository address | Doheny Memorial Library, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189 |
Repository email | specol@dots.usc.edu |
Filename | indep-box24-22 |
Description
Title | Baca, memo, 1986-03-04, to Freeman |
Description | Sheriff's department office correspondence re: review of force used by Norwalk station deputies - from: Lee Baca, captain, commander, Norwalk station; to: Richard T Freeman, chief field operation region III |
Coverage date | 1986-03-04 |
Date created | 1986-03-04 |
Type | texts |
Format | 4 p. |
Format (aat) | memorandums |
Format (imt) | application/pdf |
Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
Series | Independent Commission File List |
File | Public Sessions |
Box and folder | box 24, folder 22, item 12 |
Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
Full text |
FROM:
-SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
CATE March 4, 1986
~- |
Filename | indep-box24-22-12.pdf |
Archival file | Volume81/indep-box24-22-12.pdf |