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