Police-Encounters-With-People-In-Crisis

48. The absence of definitive research into the risks of CEWs for populations who are
likely to encounter the police in non-criminal contexts is a problem when considering
whether CEWs should be used against people in crisis. Some people with mental illness
may be particularly vulnerable to the potentially serious effects of CEWs as they may
present with many of the risk factors (existing medical conditions, prescription
medications, substance abuse issues, high levels of agitation) when they encounter
police during times of crisis. As many stakeholders have said, police are neither
equipped nor expected to diagnose medical or psychological conditions. As such, first
responders may not be able to identify heightened risk factors in an individual before
deciding whether to employ a CEW.
4. Comparative police service procedures
49. Following the Braidwood Reports, British Columbia has adopted a stringent
threshold for the use of CEWs. Officers are prohibited from discharging a CEW unless
the subject is causing, or the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person’s
behavior will imminently cause, bodily harm to themselves or others. Further, a CEW
can only be deployed if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that crisis
intervention and de-escalation techniques have not been or will not be effective in
eliminating the risk of bodily harm and no lesser force option has been, or will be,
effective in eliminating the risk of bodily harm. 47
50. Several North American police departments have created protocols to guide
officers in the matter of multiple or prolonged applications of CEWs on individuals. In
Lafayette, Louisiana, an officer has the discretion to apply the CEW multiple times or for
a prolonged period, but an investigation may be initiated in response to an application
that exceeds 16 seconds. 48 Police in Longueuil, Quebec are directed to avoid the
application of a CEW for longer than 15-20 seconds. 49 In Topeka, Kansas, officers are
required to stop and evaluate the situation after the first application of a CEW before
they are permitted to apply further CEW cycles, generally limited to a maximum of three
applications. 50
51. Several police services have taken a restrictive approach to the use of CEWs in
drive stun mode (involving direct application of the CEW on the subject’s skin) as a
result of medical concerns such as the risk of contact burns, as well as ethical concerns.
The Cleveland Division of Police recognizes that drive stun is not a preferable method of
47
British Columbia, Provincial Policing Standards, 1.3 “Conducted Energy Weapons” (2012), s. 1.3.1 (1)-(2).This standard was
developed following the Braidwood Report, which is discussed at paras. 35-46, above.
48
Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office, General Orders, “Electronic Control Device (TASER)” (Lafayette, LA: Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s
Office, 2011) at IX, 5 [Lafayette, “CEW Policy”].
49
Service de Police, Agglomération de Longueuil, Série 400 « Usage de l’arme á impulsion électrique (AIE) » (Longueuil, QC:
Service de Police, Agglomération de Longueuil, 2012), s. 5.1.18.3.
50
Topeka Police Department, Order 1.3.9 “Authorized Defensive Weapons” (Topeka, KS: Topeka Police Department, 2013), s. 2(g).
See also the policy in Clearwater, FL, which is similar to the Topeka policy. In Clearwater, repetitions are generally limited to
three cycles. See Clearwater Police Department, 103 “Use of Force and Firearms – Use of Less Lethal Force” (Clearwater, FL:
Clearwater Police Department, 2013), s. 103.7021.
Police Encounters With People in Crisis |253