Police-Encounters-With-People-In-Crisis

CEW deployment because it is based on pain compliance. 51 Drive stun mode is
permitted in Lafayette, Louisiana, but is discouraged and can be used “only to
supplement the probe mode to complete the incapacitation circuit.” 52 The Columbus
Division of Police has developed a new deployment method called “close quarter probe
deployment mode.” 53 This method uses CEW probes in close proximity situations to
replace the use of drive stun mode as a pain compliance approach. 54
5. Conclusion on CEWs
52. As regards people in crisis in Toronto, three main questions arise regarding CEW
use by police. The first is whether expanding the availability of CEWs within the TPS will
save lives of people who would otherwise be shot. The second is whether expanding the
availability of CEWs within the TPS will cause deaths because of possible harmful health
effects of CEWs themselves. The third is whether expanding CEW use will lead to abuses
and, if so, whether these abuses can be adequately controlled.
53. The answer to the first question is potentially yes. Historically, there are incidents
in which people in crisis have been killed, in which a CEW might have been used instead
of a firearm, possibly producing a better outcome. This fact makes expanded CEW use
desirable, to ensure primary response officers have access to tools that can be used
instead of a firearm. The Review heard this message from many TPS personnel, who
virtually unanimously favour expanded availability of CEWs.
54. The more challenging questions are the second and third ones noted above. It is
unclear, presently, to what extent CEWs may cause death, and the concern that CEWs
may be abused is well-justified. Accounts of misuse of CEWs by police, albeit relatively
rare statistically, are not hard to find, within the TPS and elsewhere. My conclusion is
that the TPS should proceed cautiously in this area, but that it should nonetheless
proceed with expanded availability of CEWs on a pilot basis, with careful safeguards to
help arrive at better answers to the questions posed. My detailed recommendations on
these issues are below.
C. Cameras
1. Existing use of cameras
55. The TPS has progressively implemented cameras to record interactions with
members of the public in interview rooms, police stations, and police cars (facing both
the rear seat and facing out of the windshield). In-car cameras are activated either
manually by officers or automatically when a car’s emergency equipment is engaged, or
51
Cleveland Division of Police, 2.1.06 “Taser Electrical Weapon” (Cleveland, OH: Cleveland Division of Police, 2013) at I, E. A similar
policy exists in Columbus, Ohio as well. See Columbus Division of Police, Columbus Police Division Directive, 3.91 “Chemical
Agents and Intermediate Weapons Regulation” (Columbus, OH: Columbus Division of Police, 2012) at II, B, s. 21(e).
52
Lafayette, “CEW Policy”, supra note 48 at V, H. Drive Stun usage is also discouraged in Denver. See Denver Police Department,
105.00 “Use of Force Policy” (Denver, CO: Denver Police Department, 2013) at 105.03, (4), s. e.
53
Sergeant Matthew R. Weekley, 2010 & 2011 Taser Study (Columbus, OH: Columbus Division of Police, 2012).
54
Ibid. This method avoids pain compliance, and Columbus reports a 100% success rate with this method.
Police Encounters With People in Crisis |254