San Ramon Police Chief Craig Stevens issued a point-by-point response to an eight point initiative calling for the immediate revision of police use-of-force tactics in a community letter released Friday night:
This past week, I have received many emails from members of our community. Some included words of support towards our police department, while others included concerns regarding our department and the law enforcement profession. Many community members proposed recommendations in regards to the “8 Can’t Wait” initiative. This campaign encourages law enforcement agencies to adopt eight policies that organizers believe lead to a reduction in the use of force incidents by police. I will respond to those recommendations below.
I want our community to know that the San Ramon Police Department is always striving to improve, both as individuals and as an organization. I believe that is one of the reasons that we have been successful as a department and have been able to forge many community relationships. With that said, we can never be satisfied with the status quo, and now, more than ever, we need to dedicate ourselves to continuous improvement. We look forward to working through these challenging times “with” our community.
Below is our response to the “8 Can’t Wait” campaign recommendations:
1. Ban chokeholds and strangleholds.
Effective immediately, the San Ramon Police Department has banned the use of the carotid restraint. Our Use of Force Policy is being updated to reflect this change.
2. Require de-escalation.
San Ramon Police Department Policy requires the use of de-escalation techniques before using force. Furthermore, Senate Bill 230 requires that “officers utilize de-escalation techniques, crisis intervention tactics, and other alternatives to force when feasible.” Senate Bill 230 also mandates each policy require officers to conduct all duties in a manner that is fair and unbiased. Additionally, Senate Bill 230 requires all officers be trained in alternatives to deadly force and de-escalation techniques.
3. Require warning before shooting.
San Ramon Police Department policy expressly requires officers to provide verbal warnings, where feasible, to make reasonable efforts to warn that deadly force may be used. Additionally, California Assembly Bill 392 states: “where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.” This requirement is consistent with federal case law.
4. Exhaust all other means before shooting.
San Ramon Police Department policy only permits the use of any deadly force when:
1) An officer reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to protect the officer or another from a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury, or
2) To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, the officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.
5. Duty to intervene and stop excessive force by other officers.
San Ramon Police Department policy expressly requires officers to intervene and stop excessive force if they observe it occurring. Policy also requires every officer to report any excessive force to a supervisor.
Any officer present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is objectively reasonable under the circumstances shall, when in a position to do so, intercede to prevent the use of unreasonable force. An officer who observes another employee use force that exceeds the degree of force permitted by law should promptly report these observations to a supervisor. Additionally, Senate Bill 230 set a “requirement that an officer intercede when present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is necessary, as determined by an objectively reasonable officer under the circumstances.” This provision is consistent with federal law as well.
6. Ban shooting at moving vehicles.
San Ramon Police Department policy expressly prohibits shooting at vehicles except in life- threatening circumstances. The policy states that Officers should move out of the path of an approaching vehicle instead of discharging their firearm at the vehicle or any of its occupants. An officer should only discharge a firearm at a moving vehicle or its occupants when the officer reasonably believes there are no other reasonable means available to avert the threat of the vehicle, or if deadly force other than the vehicle is directed at the officer or others. Officers should not shoot at any part of a vehicle in an attempt to disable the vehicle.
7. Require use-of-force continuum.
San Ramon Police Department policy specifically states that Officers shall use only that amount of force that reasonably appears necessary given the facts and totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time of the event to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose (Penal Code § 835a).
The use of force continuum is an outdated model that has proven impractical, even dangerous, when applied in real life situations. Instead, policies should focus on requiring officers to create space and separation in an attempt to utilize de-escalation techniques, which is captured in the training and policy requirements within Senate Bill 230.
8. Require comprehensive reporting each time an officer uses forces or threatens to do so.
The San Ramon Police Department has a comprehensive use of force review policy. Senate Bill 230 already requires “comprehensive and detailed requirements for prompt internal reporting and notification regarding a use of force incident.” Additionally, legislation from 2015 (Assembly Bill 71) requires statewide detailed reporting requirements on serious use of force incidents. Senate Bill 230 also requires officers to report excessive force they witness.
In closing, the San Ramon Police Department continually reviews our policies and procedures and makes frequent changes to our policy manual when appropriate. Our policy manual is posted in its entirety on the San Ramon Police Department webpage. We are also evaluating our training procedures and exploring training opportunities to enhance the skills of our staff. The San Ramon Police Department is committed to serving our community with professionalism and delivering the highest level of service to our citizens.
Thank you,
Craig Stevens/Chief of Police
Good to see law enforcement putting its head to the issues and problems we face. This is a good step forward.
It’s great to constrain behavior which will lead to more positive results. But let’s not forget the other side of the ledger, and that is to do outreach in order to enhance the department’s relationship with the community.
I wondered if you guys were going to do something with this. It’s in your area of interest.
Good.
“4. Exhaust all other means before shooting.
San Ramon Police Department policy only permits the use of any deadly force when:
1) An officer REASONABLY BELIEVES that the use of deadly force is necessary…” (EMPHASIS ADDED)
I know this is the tricky part, but shouldn’t the standard just be “when necessary” regardless of how the individual officer perceives the situation. When lethal force is used the officer always insists, as if from a script, that s/he feared for his life. And THAT too often is the primary shield that keeps improper use of lethal force from ever being successfully prosecuted even in the rare instances where charges are brought.
Shouldn’t the test simply be whether objective observers, e.g. a review board, a jury, etc. deemed the force necessary? What is needed is accountability, and not just accountability within a jurisdiction. There is no registry of disciplined/fired officers, and they are frequently hired on in a different jurisdiction. The system lacks accountability.
Also, there is no mention of body cameras here. Perhaps that is well covered in the policy manual already, but there should be consequences for not activating body cameras when an encounter, any enforcement encounter can be anticipated. The police chief in Louisville was recently fired when BOTH officers involved in a fatal shooting failed to activate their cameras even though they were already engaged in enforcement actions prior to the shooting.
More transparency and accountability will benefit all of us, including the honest and competent officers who are too often silenced by the current rules and “traditions”.
This statement looks like a good start, but we are from finished.
Or you could be a law abiding citizen that doesn’t resist arrest.
Soooo, we should all be more like George Floyd? I don’t understand .
Actually doesn’t seem to be an issue anymore. Lewd conduct suspect ran away today. No pursuit.
George Floyd didn’t resist. He was suffocated. He was suffocated by 4 uniformed officers. (I’m sorry if I sometimes seem to repeat myself, but my June 13 post (above) took somewhere between 3 and 5 hours to post. I don’t know if my posts will appear or not until they eventually do or don’t)