CA 04 Corrections Use of Force Review Board

Last modified by superadmin on 2021/04/06 17:00

Washington County Sheriff's Office

CORRECTIONS DIVISION

Policy Manual

Volume: CA

Organization and Staff Management

Chapter: 04

Corrections Use of Force Review Board

Replaces and/or Supersedes:

None.

Published:

04/29/2013

Review Date:

04/06/2021

Sheriff Cory C. Pulsipher

Chief Deputy Jacob Schultz

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CA 04_101 Definitions

CA 04_102 Purpose

CA 04_103 Authority

CA 04_104 Schedule

CA 04_105 Board Members

CA 04_106 Review Process

CA 04_107 Protocol

CA 04_108 Findings and Recommendations

CA 04_109 Sample Use of Force Review Worksheet

CA 04_101 DEFINITIONS

WCSO: Washington County Sheriff's Office
PCF: Purgatory Correctional Facility
Significant Use of Force: Includes any physical contact used to effect, influence, or persuade an individual to comply with an order from staff, including the deployment of any less-lethal force options (Taser, OC, etc.). This does not include unresisted handcuffing, searching, or arrest control procedures that do not require a substantial application of pressure or are intended only to be precautionary.

CA 04_102 PURPOSE

Policy:
1. The Use of Force Review Board will primarily focus on significant use of force incidents. All other use of force incidents will be reviewed by the applicable chain of command and conclude with a review by the Corrections Chief Deputy. The Corrections Chief Deputy will conduct a quality control review of all use of force reports and determine whether the incident should be referred to the Investigations Branch, scheduled for a Use of Force Review, or forwarded to the Records Unit to be archived.

CA 04_103 AUTHORITY

Policy:
1. The Use of Force Review Board will be authorized to:
  1. Petition the appearance of any parties involved in the incident that they deem necessary;
  2. Recommend commendations or recognitions for staff who they determine to have acted with distinction during a use of force incident; and/or
  3. Recommend corrective or non-disciplinary follow-up actions for any incident or procedure.
  4. Recommend that additional investigative measures be taken.

CA 04_104 SCHEDULE

Policy:
1. Absent special circumstances, the Use of Force Review Board should meet within ten days of the Corrections Chief Deputy's determination that a hearing is necessary. The Corrections Chief Deputy should determine the date, time, location, and committee members for each Use of Force Review Board. Each Use of Force Review Board will consist of five members. If the Corrections Chief Deputy is involved in the incident, the Undersheriff shall act in lieu of the Corrections Chief Deputy.

CA 04_105 BOARD MEMBERS

Policy:
1. The Use of Force Review Board should consist of the following members:
  1. The Corrections Chief Deputy, or designee, who shall serve as the Chairperson of the Board;
  2. Two Branch Lieutenants or Directors;
  3. One Unit Sergeant or Manager; and
  4. One deputy or line staff member.

CA 04_106 REVIEW PROCESS

Policy:
1. The Use of Force Review Board shall review the actions of all staff involved in the use of force incident, not just the actions of the employees who used force. The actions of the employees leading up to and following the actual use of force should also be reviewed to identify commendable actions, conduct warranting corrective action, and/or potential training issues. In reviewing each incident, the Use of Force Review Board should have at their disposal, or available upon request, all pertinent reports, records, and evidence to be considered, as well as any relevant and appropriate directives, policies, and training materials.
2. The Use of Force Review Board shall review each use of force incident with respect to the following:
  1. Compliance with policies, procedures, directives, and training;
  2. Whether proper tactics and safety precautions were used by the employees involved;
  3. Risk management issues;
  4. Adequacy of related training; and
  5. Whether the level of force used was appropriate for the incident.

CA 04_107 PROTOCOL (for determining whether the appropriate level of force was used)

Policy:
1. When a situation dictates that force must be used to attain a legitimate penological interest, then there is presumed to be a justifiable need to use force. However, there must be a reasonable relationship between that need and the amount of force used. As the amount of force used in a given incident becomes less reasonably related to meeting the need created by the incident, the force becomes more likely to be deemed excessive. The force response is dependent upon several factors that should be considered when determining the need for force to attain specific penological interests or goals. The Use of Force Review Board should consider the effect the following factors have on the overall need for compliance and the force necessary to achieve it:
  1. Need for Compliance: Articulates the legitimate penological interest or goal that provides justification for using force in a correctional setting. For the purpose of utilization, the need for compliance has four risk levels associated with compliance:
    1. Essential to Safety: This compliance goal relates to the need to prevent serious harm to an inmate, staff member or other person. Our “Duty to Protect” specifically includes the protection of others from the actions of an inmate and protecting the inmate from their own actions.
    2. Essential to Order: This compliance goal relates to the need to maintain a safe, secure, and disciplined correctional environment. An orderly and secure correctional environment is intended to prevent an escalation of behavior that may result in escape, harm, or the destruction of property.
    3. Administrative Directive: This compliance goal recognizes that an inmate's compliance with an order is required to facilitate completion of an administrative task (e.g. signing documents, fingerprinting, DNA, etc.). Refusal to comply with an order may present an impediment to completion of the task, but will not necessarily present an imminent threat to the goals of safety or order as defined above.
    4. Compliant: This compliance goal indicates the successful completion of a request generally not requiring additional action.
  2. Threat Perception: The threat perceived by a reasonable officer that the compliance goal being enforced may involve a level of resistance and/or threat based upon factors such as behavioral observation, institutional history and/or an observable offense.
    1. Deadly Threat: The threat perceived, or observed behavior, indicates the likelihood of serious harm and/or death of an inmate, staff, or other person.
    2. Serious Threat: The threat perceived, or observed behavior, indicates the likelihood of harm (not amounting to deadly or serious bodily injury) of an inmate, staff, or other person based upon the inmate's active behavioral resistance.
    3. Non-Imminent Threat: The threat perceived, or observed behavior, indicates the likelihood of non-imminent harm of an inmate, staff member or other person if left unabated.
    4. Passive Refusal: The actual refusal, verbal or non-verbal, of an inmate to be compliant in the absence of any behavioral threat. The refusal is physically passive, not physically aggressive.
    5. No Threat Perception: Compliance has been gained and no perception of threat exists.
  3. Response Options: Based on a perceived threat, a staff member's response may, or may not, allow a full examination of facts and/or response alternatives before the need to act.
    1. Imminent Response: The perceived threat, or observed behavior, indicates that harm to an inmate, staff, or other person is imminent and requires an immediate response.
    2. Planned Response: The perceived threat, or observed behavior, permits time to develop a response plan that would take into account factors such as possible response alternatives (including the delay of a forcible response), the nature of the inmate's current charges, and criminal history, institutional behavioral history, any health or mental health conditions relevant to possible response decisions, etc. that may interfere with successfully accomplishing the compliance goal.
    3. Maintain Compliance: The original compliance goal has been achieved and diligence is maintained to assure continued compliance.
  4. Tempering the Need for Force: Based upon the urgency for the need to act or intervene, tempering the need for force should be consistent with the opportunity for intervention and the availability of response alternatives.
    1. Immediate Response: The perceived threat, or observed behavior, is such that a decision is made to act as soon as practical to accomplish a forceful intervention. Officer discretion should be used if the element of surprise is necessary to mitigate harm.
    2. Tempered Response: The perceived threat, or observed behavior, is such that a force response does not require an immediate intervention and staff have an opportunity to examine current or historical information that will better enable a positive outcome for both the inmate(s) and employees.
    3. None: Compliance has been achieved and there is no need for further action.
  5. Need for Force: Based upon the previous risk factoring, a decision must be made to determine the need for force relative to the legitimate penological interest and the likelihood of harm if the goal is not attained.
    1. Essential to Safety: If compliance is essential to protect the safety of the facility, or persons within, and if the perception of the urgency of the threat has been established, then the need for the force is validated.
    2. Essential to Order: If compliance is essential to the orderly operation of the facility and if the perception of the urgency of the threat has been established, then the need for force is validated.
    3. Administrative Directive: If it is determined that completion of the administrative task is necessary and cannot reasonably be delayed, then the need for force is validated. If it is determined that there is no imminent threat if the administrative task is not completed or there are other effective ways of responding to the refusal, such as discipline, then the need for force does not exist.
    4. None: Compliance has been achieved and there is no need for further action.
  6. Force Response: The force response should reflect reasonableness that corresponds with the legitimate penological interest (goal) and the risk to inmates, staff, and the public if the goal is not attained. There must be a reasonable relationship between the goal and the amount of force used. The reasonable relationship must also be clearly articulable.
    1. Lethal Force: This level of force is likely to result in death or serious bodily injury.
    2. Significant Force: This level of force is intended to prevent further serious harm and may result in unintentional serious bodily injury or unintentional death.
    3. Restraint Force: This level of force is intended to restrain, control, and prevent harm to either person or property. Although unintended, the use of restraint force to immobilize and/or control an individual could still result in serious injury or even death.
    4. Wait for Compliance: If the circumstances are such that the likelihood of harm is minimal, waiting for compliance without a force response may be effective in gaining compliance.
    5. Compliance: Compliance negates any need for force.

CA 04_108 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Policy:
1. After evaluating each incident, the Use of Force Review Board shall provide its findings and recommendations in writing. The findings and recommendations will be determined by a majority decision based on the votes of all five members of the Board. The Board's official findings will be submitted in the form of a Summary Decision, which will be prepared by the Board Chairman and will include the Board's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The Board will determine the findings for each use of force review as:
  1. Justified, Within Policy: This disposition reflects a finding in which the use of force is determined to be justified and during the course of the incident the staff member(s) did not violate any policies.
  2. Justified, Policy Violation: This disposition reflects a finding in which the use of force is determined to be justified, but during the course of the incident the staff member(s) violated a policy.
  3. Justified, Training Opportunity: This disposition reflects a finding in which the use of force is determined to be justified and no policies were violated during the course of the incident, but a review of the incident revealed tactical and/or safety errors that could be addressed through non-disciplinary training initiatives.
  4. Not Justified, Not Within Policy: This disposition reflects a finding in which the use of force is determined not to be justified and during the course of the incident the staff member(s) violated a policy.
2. If the Use of Force Review Board determines that the use of force incident may constitute a case of excessive force by staff member(s), the Board should note this opinion in their written decision. In such cases, the Corrections Chief Deputy should forward the incident to the Investigations Branch for an Internal Affairs Review.
3. If there is not a unanimous decision reached, dissenting or non-concurring members of the Use of Force Review Board's finding and/or recommendation may submit a minority report to be included with the official documentation.
4. When the Use of Force Review Board determines there has been an act that merits specific acknowledgment, the Board shall forward appropriate commendation/recognition recommendations to the staff member's Branch Lieutenant.
5. When appropriate, the Use of Force Review Board shall submit training recommendations for specific staff members, or in some extreme cases the entire agency, division, branch, or unit. Training recommendations for specific staff members, units, or branches should be made to the appropriate Branch Lieutenant, while training recommendations for a division or the agency should be made to the division chief.
6. When the Use of Force Review Board determines that a violation of policy has occurred, the Board shall forward the case to the Corrections Chief Deputy to determine the appropriate level of discipline. When disciplinary action is initiated as the result of a recommendation made by the Use of Force Review Board, documentation of the action should be attached by the Corrections Chief Deputy to the Board's recommendation and findings as part of the official record.
7. The Investigations Branch shall follow up on all recommendations for an Internal Affairs Review requested by the Corrections Chief Deputy and report all outcomes to the WCSO Administration immediately upon completion.
8. The Corrections Chief Deputy will be responsible for notifying the staff members and their supervisors of all Board decisions, maintaining records of the Board's decisions and recommendations, and preparing an annual report, which will be submitted to the Sheriff, that documents the Board's activity for the year.

CA 04_109 USE OF FORCE REVIEW WORKSHEET

WCSO Corrections Division

USE OF FORCE REVIEW

Incident Under Review (JL#):

Incident Date: Incident Time: Incident Location: _____________________

Staff Involved:

Circle the most appropriate answer:

The need for compliance was:

Essential to safety

Essential to order

An administrative directive

The inmate(s) was already compliant

Did the threat reasonably perceived justify the response option that was taken:

Yes

Were the means used to temper the need for force consistent with the perceived threat and the appropriate response option:

Yes

Based on the known risk factors, was the need for force relative to the same penological interests as the need for compliance:

Yes

Was the force used reasonable in respect to the need for force:

Yes

NOTES:

DISPOSITION:

( ) Justified, Within Policy ( ) Justified, Policy Violation

( ) Justified, Training Opportunity ( ) Not Justified, Not Within Policy

Board Member Review Date