7. Piloto de Indicadores de RSE para la Clínica SERDIDYV S.A
7.6 Medioambiente
The Taser SOPs advise that TRPs:
… will be responsible for reviewing ALL operational TASER use within their respective Commands to ensure that TASER use complies with training and these Standard Operating Procedures.6
Our review of the TRP records identified a lack of transparency in the way the outcomes of reviews are recorded. The forms used by the TRPs do not require them to record the criteria for use that provided the justification for use in the particular incident. Neither do the forms require the TRP to specify breaches of the Taser SOPs that are identified. Although the TRPs often recorded reasons for remedial action, in many cases we found that records were unclear about whether the TRP considered the Taser use a breach of the criteria for use or whether the remedial action taken by the TRP addressed this issue.
During our investigation, we noted that the South West Metropolitan Region implemented an enhanced version of the form which requires the TRP to note which of the four criteria for use have been met and has the following question – Taser usage in accordance with SOPs: YES/NO. In our view all TRPs should be required to record this information. The TRP sent reminders to officers in 40 cases where they had also recorded that there was no breach of the Taser SOPs. These outcomes appeared to be contradictory as the reasons recorded in free text suggest a breach of the Taser SOPs – for example, five cases related to an officer failing to arm a Taser and 19 cases related to making incomplete records on COPS.
Case study 11 in Chapter 7 (see page 126) illustrates our concerns about a lack of clarity in TRP records about whether the incident involved a breach of the criteria for use. This matter involved the extended use of the Taser in draw and cover mode against a man who police had detained while waiting for ambulance personnel. The officer using the Taser communicated poorly with the man which, in our view, escalated tensions. Subsequently, the officer deployed the Taser probes in circumstances which we do not consider met any of the criteria for use.
The TRP initially considered the use of the Taser was in accordance with the SOPs. The footage was subsequently reviewed by a region weapons trainer who deemed the use of the Taser in draw and cover mode ‘not best practice’ and requested remedial training for the Taser user. The Taser user was decertified and retrained, and the TRP agreed with this course of action.
Our concern in this case is that the outcome of the review is unclear about whether the officer breached one or more of the criteria for use. On that basis, it also becomes unclear whether the remedial action squarely addressed the issues arising from the incident. A finding that a use of a Taser was ‘not best practice’ was also made in relation to Case study 23. Two officers deployed their Tasers a total of six times, in both probe and drive-stun modes. The matter was reviewed by the TRP who asked the LAC for further information.
Case study 23 – Unclear TRP findings after multiple Taser use
After receiving a 000 call, police attended a domestic disturbance. They were unable to raise the occupants, so obtained a search warrant and forced entry. Police found a man in his bedroom. He threw a sheet at police. A number of police tried to restrain him, while the man kicked his legs. The COPS record indicates that one officer drew and armed the Taser, deploying the probes into the man’s back. The Sitrep states that the Taser ‘had little effect on the [man] and the Taser was discharged a further three times including a drive-stun on the [man] who continued to struggle’. A second officer then also discharged his Taser. The Taser Cam footage shows three officers on top of the man, holding him face down on the bed. The first deployment of the Taser occurred after an estimated 50 seconds of struggle with the man, followed by an immediate second cycle. The man was then told to ‘comply’ and ‘stop resisting’ and a third cycle was delivered six seconds later. A final cycle was then delivered two seconds after this. It is unclear from the footage when the drive-stun was delivered. After the final deployment of the first Taser, another officer moved in and deployed his Taser into the man’s back and delivered a second cycle nine seconds after the first. In total, the man was subjected to six cycles from two Tasers.
Police assessment of the Taser use
Initially, the PSM referred the matter to an accredited weapons trainer. The weapons trainer recommended remedial training for the officer who fired the second Taser, although the reasons for this training were not made explicit in the TRP records. The matter was then reviewed by the TRP. They sent correspondence to the LAC asking for further information about the circumstances of the incident and why two Tasers were deployed.
The duty officer prepared a report, after speaking with the two officers. The duty officer found the Taser use to be justified and appropriate in the circumstances, and did not consider that either of the officers needed to be decertified from Taser use. The report noted that:
... consideration needs to be given in adding further training in relation to [t]actical options for Police who are faced with the failure of TASER use. The Police attempted to continue to deploy the TASER during this incident with little or no [e]ffect and the struggle may have continued further without the presence of the police dog. Police must learn to not completely rely on the TASER and be able to anticipate actions when faced with Taser failure.
The LAC Commander agreed with the duty officer’s recommendation, especially about further training that specifically addresses tactical options when Taser use has been unsuccessful.
When the report was received by the TRP, a further request for information was sought. In this instance, they requested that both Taser users be decertified and retrained. They commented:
Questionable as to why [the man] was Tasered with three police restraining him.
Also, after first Taser didn’t work, training is to ‘Drive-stun’ away from probes to ensure contact. TRP disagrees that male should have been tasered by second device when [the officer who deployed the Taser first] was already close to [the man] and able to Drive-stun.
The TRP also noted that it was concerned officers are becoming too reliant on Taser.
The officers were suspended from Taser certification and the TRP asked the LAC to arrange for a local weapons trainer to ‘retrain, explaining this, and recertify’.
Our assessment of the Taser use
The action taken in response to the Taser use in this case study was significant – suspension from certification and a requirement for retraining. However, in our view, taking this kind of action should be supported by clear and precise records. The TRP did not make an explicit finding about whether the officers breached the criteria for use in the Taser SOPs. In contrast, a sustained finding of ‘unreasonable use of force’ in relation to the Taser usage was subsequently made against the two officers after a complaint investigation into this Taser use by the LAC. The officers were counselled. The investigator relied on the information gathered during the internal review process to make the findings.
In our view, the transparency of the TRP process would be strengthened by amending the TRP SOPs to require the TRP to record a finding about whether a breach of the Taser SOPs has occurred and to record the reasons for remedial action taken – for example, criteria for use not met, Taser Cam obstructed by finger, hazardous use etc. We acknowledge that the Taser SOPs have recently been amended to include an additional provision that ‘TASER Review Panels are to articulate in their deliberations which of the Criteria to Discharge TASER (Probes Discharged;
Drive-stun) was used in the incident under review’.7 However, this provision does not expressly require the TRP to
make a finding about whether there was a breach of the Taser SOPs.
We consider that the TRP SOPs should be amended to require a finding on whether the Taser complied with the criteria for use in the Taser SOPs. In making this recommendation, we note that in some cases it is appropriate to take remedial action even if an officer has not breached the Taser SOPs.
Enhancing the Regional Taser Review Record and the TRP minutes to require TRPs to collect information about breaches of the Taser SOPs would also improve the opportunity for the TEC to monitor compliance, and to identify training needs and/or sections of the Taser SOPs that are not well understood by police.