Oakland considers banning police restraints that cut off blood supply
OAKLAND >> City and police officials are making moves to ban certain controversial police restraints that render people unconscious, but the Oakland Police Department and the police commission responsible for its oversight are split on defining the policy’s specifics.
While the police department already does not authorize “chokeholds,” which obstruct a person’s ability to breathe, it has still been allowing for and training officers to use carotid restraint holds — intended to slow or stop bloodflow to the brain — that until recently have been part of statewide police training curriculum.
The restraint has proved especially controversial since the death of George Floyd, a Black man killed in May in Minneapolis by an officer who knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes as he begged for relief and said he could not breathe. The New York Police Department passed an ordinance to ban the restraint this summer, and other police departments are exploring similar measures.
But while Oakland Police Commission and the Oakland Police Department are in favor of the ban, which would prohibit carotid restraints and other forms of asphyxia, language in the commission’s proposal that would bar officers from putting their knee on a person’s back to restrain them is causing a delay in approving the policy.
The problem, police say, is that banning the use of a knee to restrain people in a written policy would limit their options for restraining people who may be bigger or stronger than officers and that it would expose officers and the city to increased liability if officers were to violate the policy in the chaos of a moment.
“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,” said Officer Damon Gilbert in a video shown at Tuesday’s City Council about what a restraint scenario looks like. “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.”
Oakland’s Interim Police Chief, Susan Manheimer, echoed Gilbert’s comments at Tuesday’s meeting, noting that the use of a knee across the back was considered the “lowest level” of force in police takedowns of people they are trying to subdue. Such instances are reportable and investigated, Manheimer said, and in 2020 so far, officers have conducted more than 430 takedowns.
Oakland Police Commissioner Tara Anderson noted that the potential use of a shin by police to subdue someone would not necessarily be precluded. The policy the commission is urging states that “officers 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 face down; to be clear, a prone person shall be placed on their side or in a sitting, kneeling or standing position as soon as practical.”
“Language matters,” Anderson emphasized. “The commission version expressly prohibits techniques known to cause death.”
The decision puts Oakland at the forefront of cities rethinking rules for their police departments’ use of force, particularly after Floyd’s brutal death — coming after many police killings of other Black Americans in the last decade — sparked nationwide protests this summer.
“We brought it forward, we want to be progressive and make sure our community knows we stand with them in safety and in progressive policy aligned in Oakland values,” Manheimer told the council on Tuesday. “But the idea that we have a policy that says ‘shall not’ and then second guess what’s a shin, knee, hip — it’s not based in reality and you can’t make a policy obtainable that will shield officers.”
John Alden, the executive director for Oakland’s Community Police Review Agency, disagreed, saying on Tuesday that he doesn’t believe the policy would “create any unnecessary liability for officers.”
While Councilmembers 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 Councilmember Noel Gallo — to postpone the discussion to the Oct. 20 council meeting to allow the police department and the police commission more time to potentially work out the disagreement over the ban.
An issue like this would not normally go straight to the City Council, but the police department brought the issue forward to the full council after police and commissioners failed to agree on a version. If the Council does not approve, amend or reject the policy by Nov. 6, the commission’s version would take effect, but it will first have to go through a meet-and-confer process with the union and then be approved by the federal monitor that oversees police department reform.