The Morning Journal (Lorain, OH)
Use of less than lethal policies
This is the second part of a two-part series on the less than lethal tools used by local police departments. Part one identified the tools and this article will identify the policies that govern their use.
While the Elyria Police Department has a handful of non-lethal tools at its disposal, the use is not left to the discretion of the officers.
The written policy was adopted in September 1996 and revised in April 2017.
“Employees may use only that amount of force which is reasonably necessary to accomplish lawful objectives,” the policy reads. “This includes, but is not limited to effecting a lawful arrest, overcoming resistance to a lawful arrest, the execution of legal process, enforcing an order of the
court, executing any duty imposed upon the officer by law, preventing the escape of an arrestee, or protecting or defending his/herself or others from physical harm.
“No employee shall use unreasonable or excessive force.”
Elyria police Capt. Christopher Costantino and Lt. Matt Eichenlaub said any time officers use force they follow what the police department calls the action-response continuum.
The continuum, which is contained within the written policy as well as posted in the department’s briefing room, is a table arranged in two columns.
The left column outlines the actions undertaken by a suspect and the right lists what an officer’s response should be.
The continuum is devised so that lesser forms of resistance, and officer response, appear toward the bottom of the table.
As the suspect’s resistance escalates, so does the options available to officers.
At the bottom of the continuum, is the subject being not responsive to verbal commands or nonviolent passive resistance.
In response to this, the officer is able to use balance displacement, escort position, receiving assistance from other officers, verbal or physical commands.
Moving up, if the suspect actively pulls away from the officer or runs, uses non threatening verbal or physical actions, refuses to move or is just non compliant, the officer can deploy weaponless strikes to muscle groups, stun techniques, take down techniques, head control techniques, joint manipulations or pressure points to gain compliance.
The next rung on the continuum begins to involve tools besides the officer’s own authority of being an officer of the law or pure physical prowess.
If a suspect begins wrestling with the officer, pushing away from the officer, actively physically or verbally resisting or spitting at the officer, personnel are able to use a Taser (a weapon that fires electricity conductive barbs into the target in an effort to override the central nervous system), weaponless strike such as punching or kicking, pepper spray, baton restraints and in SWAT situations, pepper balls, beanbag rounds and rubber bullets.
If the suspect is striking, kicking or biting the officer, the officer is authorized to use baton techniques and environmental/emergency impact techniques.
If the suspect uses a weapon against the officer or others, attempts to disarm the officer or commits a life-threatening weaponless assault, the officer is authorized to use lethal force.
“We’re allowed to be, essentially,
one step higher in the use of force continuum than the person we’re dealing with,” Eichenlaub said. “So, if you start to pull away or start to strike me, I can use my baton or something like that to try and gain control of you.”
Costantino said the officers are often much lower on the continuum than they’d be allowed.
“More often than not, when you look at our use of force reports, we’re much lower in regards of use of force than even what the continuum even calls for,” he said.
Costantino credits this to the training Eichenlaub and other instructors provide.
“Training is huge,” he said.
“We train a lot and it certainly pays dividends down the road in terms of professionalism of our officers out there and their understanding of policies.”
“We’re allowed to be, essentially, one step higher in the use of force continuum than the person we’re dealing with.”
— Elyria Police Lt. Matt Eichenlaub
Lorain uses similar policy
Lorain police Capt. Roger Watkins said his department operates under a similar policy.
Lorain’s written policy is broken into three sections: the first describes three levels of force available to officers; the second describes the three different types of resistance from the suspect; and the third explains how the first two correlate.
A level one, use of force is identified in the policy as “force that is reasonably likely to cause only transient pain and/or disorientation during its application as a means of gaining compliance.”
These include actions like pressure point compliance and joint manipulation, but not “escorting, touching or handcuffing a subject with no or minimal resistance.”
Level two use of force is defined as “force that causes an injury, could reasonably be expected to cause an injury or results in a complaint of an injury but does not rise to the level of a level three use of force.”
This includes the use of a Taser, pepper spray, weaponless defense techniques, use of the Armament Systems and Procedures (except for strikes to the head, neck or face) and any canine apprehension that involves contact or a bite.
Level three use of force is defined as “force that includes use of deadly force, uses of force resulting in death or serious physical harm.”
These include neck holds that result in loss of consciousness, more than three applications of a Taser and any level two use of force involving a handcuffed prisoner.
The policy defines the types of resistance as: passive resistance such as using dead weight forcing the officer to lift or pull the subject; active resistance which includes physical actions to avoid being taken into custody without attacking the officer; and aggressive resistance, which is defined as when a suspect poses a threat of harm to the officers or others.
Instances where the subject is offering passive resistance, the officer is authorized to use level one force only, the police says.
Active resistance warrants if level one force and level two force has failed or is unreasonable.
Aggressive resistance warrants level two force or level three when “the threat of serious physical harm or death is imminent.”
Use of force not contained in the policy “must be proportional and reflect the totality of circumstances surrounding the immediate situation, including the presence of imminent danger to officers or others.”