City considers banning restraints known to cause death

Certain holds are being reconsidered following George Floyd protests

OAKLAND >> The city is moving toward banning police officers from using controversial restraints that render people unconscious, but the Oakland Police Department and the police commission that oversees it don’t see eye to eye on the specifics of a proposed policy.

Amid national outcry over the death of George Floyd, a Black man killed in May by a Minneapolis police officer who knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes, the Oakland Police Department instructed officers to not use carotid restraint holds in training or on the streets. Such holds are intended to slow or stop blood flow to the brain and until recently were part of statewide police training curriculum, according to police spokeswoman Officer Johnna Watson.

Even though officers have stopped employing the practice, an official policy to prohibit cartoid restraints and other methods of asphyxia must be approved by the police commission and, eventually, the Police Department’s special monitor.

New York passed an ordinance this summer banning its police from using carotid restraints and other cities, and police departments are exploring similar measures.

But although Oakland’s Police Department and police commission are generally in

sync about the practice, they’re split about whether officers should be barred from putting their knee on a person’s back to restrain him. The Police Department says no and the police commission says yes.

Banning the use of a knee would limit options for restraining people who may be bigger or stronger than officers and create a liability if officers were to violate the policy during chaotic encounters, according to police.

“None of this is scripted. It’s unpredictable. By not having the ability to use the knee across the lower back … it puts police at a disadvantage,” Officer Damon Gilbert said in a video shown at Tuesday’s City Council meeting depicting restraint scenarios. “We don’t want police to use more force … By utilizing the knee across the

back, it allows us that opportunity. We can reduce risk of injury not only to ourselves but the people we are trying to control,” he added.

Oakland interim Police Chief Susan Manheimer agreed, noting that pressing a knee across the back is considered the “lowest level” of force in police takedowns of people they are trying to subdue. Such instances can be reported and investigated, Manheimer said, adding that officers have conducted more than 430 takedowns so far this year.

“Lang uage mat ters,” Oakland Police Commissioner Tara Anderson said, and using a shin to subdue someone would not necessarily be precluded by the policy. “The commission version expressly prohibits techniques known to cause death.”

The commission’s proposal states that “of ficers shall not sit, kneel or stand on a person’s chest, back, stomach or

shoulders, once safely restrained, thereby reducing the person’s ability to breathe. Officers must position a person to allow for free breathing and not put the person facedown; to be clear, a prone person shall be placed on his side or in a sitting, kneeling or standing position as soon as practical.”

“We brought it forward, we want to be progressive and we absolutely want to make sure our community knows we stand with them in safety and in progressive policy aligned with Oak land values,” Manheimer told the council Tuesday. “To say that we can have a policy that says ‘ shall not’ and then second- guess what’s a knee, a shin, a hip — what’s transitory — it simply doesn’t

work. It is not based on reality.”

Having a policy that is not “achievable, obtainable, clear (and) trainable” would subject officers and the city to “liability of everything up to and including termination,” Manheimer continued.

John Alden, executive director for Oakland’s Community Police Review Agency, disagreed, saying he doesn’t believe the policy would “create any unnecessary liability for officers.”

Although Council members Rebecca Kaplan, Nikki Fortunato Bas and Dan Kalb expressed a desire to move forward with the police commission’s version of the ban, the council ultimately voted unanimously — at the request of Coun

cilmember Noel Gallo — to postpone the discussion to its Oct. 20 meeting to give the Police Department and the police commission more time to try resolving their dispute.

It’s not a matter that normally goes to the council, but the Police Department brought it there because of the disagreement. If the council does not act by Nov. 6, the commission’s proposed policy would prevail.

But it first would have to go through a meet-and-confer process with the police union and then be approved by the federal monitor who oversees police department reform.