Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2021-02-26 Use of Force Comparison WPD to MA Reform Bill_WCBL Policy 2020 WPD UoF Policy (October, 2020 revision) vs. Model Policy and Mass Police Reform Bill ( 1) — Changes from WPD UoF 2019 to October 2020 shown in red Mass. Reform Bill Requirements shown in Green Areas of Full or Partial Congruence • Use of Force (UoF) continuum • Criteria for deadly force, including drawing/pointing firearm • Use of intermediate (non-lethal) force • Duty to intervene • No shooting at moving vehicles—Mass. Reform Bill limits to cases of imminent harm and proportionate to that • No shooting in defense of property • De-escalation required—No use of force unless de-escalation attempted or infeasible • Officers must report UoF incidents to department • Department must investigate/evaluate incidents • Use of tear gas, chemical agents, rubber bullets not mentioned in WPD UoF Policy, thus seem presumptively banned. this exceeds provisions in Mass. Reform Bill WPD Policy vs. Model Policy and Mass. Reform Bill (2) Areas of disparity • Criteria for UoF: "reasonable," not "minimal"; problem of subjectivity (officers' "belief")(Graham v. Connor, 490 US 386 (1989) Mass. Reform Bill states that amount of force must be proportionate to threat of imminent harm • Exhaust all alternatives—not included in policy; Chief Lawn states implied in level of force policy • Chokeholds/Vascular neck restraints/Positional asphyxia—defined but not prohibited in 10/20 revised policy; allowed only when there is imminent risk of serious injury or death—Mass. Reform Bill absolutely prohibits chokeholds, no exceptions • Shooting at fleeing individuals—not prohibited. Revised policy 10/20 allows use of lethal force to prevent escape and effect arrest of individual whom officer has probable cause to believe has committed a felony involving use of lethal force and will cause death or serious injury if apprehension is delayed—Mass. Reform Bill would make these insufficient predicates • Use of canines: WPD policy allows use to apprehend assaultive suspect who poses risk of bodily harm to officer and to apprehend fleeing felony suspect; Mass. Reform Bill only allows use if de-escalation attempted or infeasible and in proportion to risk of imminent harm. WPD Policy vs. Model Policy and Mass. Reform Bill (3) Areas of disparity (cont.1 * Civilian oversight/independent criminal investigation not required - Ma��. Reform Bill : Division , , olicC standards has authority to investigate all incidents of UoF • Public disclosure of incidents/investigations not required • Officers' disciplinary records not released mass. Reform Bill : Decertification of officers and related investigative findings are maintained in a publicly available database Other Provisions of Mass. Police Reform Bill • Limits on No-Knock Warrants: Only if announcing presence would pose imminent danger to officer or others; no minor children or adults >65 present • Police Officers (SROs) stationed in schools only on request of superintendent • Racial profiling banned in conducting any law enforcement action • Training on de-escalation and cultural competency required • Community policing and behavioral health advisory council to recommend expansion of non-police resources, such as mental health experts, on crisis intervention teams