Loading...
CC 2020-06-23_6b Supplemental No 2 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: JESSICA MATSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM 6b – JUNE 23, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING PRESENTATION BY ARROYO GRANDE POLICE DEPARTMENT REGARDING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND TRAINING PROGRAM DATE: JUNE 23, 2020 Attached is additional correspondence received. cc: Acting City Manager Police Chief City Attorney City Clerk City Website (or public review binder) From: Art Madson < Date: June 23, 2020 at 3:15:20 PM PDT To: Keith Storton <kstorton@arroyogrande.org> Subject: Council Meeting 6/23 Item 6b Council Member Storton Of late, I have not read or heard many positive comments about the Arroyo Grande Police Department, maybe I have not looked in the right places. Regardless, I wanted to first take this opportunity to say that I and hopefully others in our community appreciate and value the service that our police department provides as well as the dedicated leadership and officers in the department. Please keep up the great work! Now to the heart of my comments. I hope that our city council, before making any decisions on change, will allow our police chief to look at his program and or policies first and bring recommendations that pertain to our city, back to the council. First looking at what is working well, which are meeting current needs of our community and where we can or need to make changes/improvements. Even though current public views are to reform and or "defund" the police departments, taken literally I don't think that is the right approach for "our" city. I sincerely hope we do not make change for the sake of making change or be pressured by opinions and demands from outside our community. Any changes we make should move us in a direction that works for our community. Modeling ourselves like other cities in our county may not meet "our" needs either. I have the upmost confidence that our police chief and his dept. can evaluate their programs and policies and make the necessary changes where needed or desired. Knowing your background in law enforcement, hopefully other council members will be looking to you for input and insight as to the current and future needs of the Arroyo Grande police department. Respectfully, Art Madson Arroyo Grande Sent from my iPad From:Bend the Arc SLO To:public comment Cc:Caren Ray Russom; Kristen Barneich; Jimmy Paulding; Keith Storton; Lan George Subject:Agenda Item 6b: Police Policies Date:Monday, June 22, 2020 6:17:10 PM Attachments:300_4.docx City of AG - AB 392 UoF Policy Checklist.docx Santa Ana Letter to Lexipol_March 2020 (1).pdf Dear Councilmembers: Thank you for all the work you are doing to make Arroyo Grande better. We sincerely appreciate your leadership. I understand that you will be receiving a report from the Police Department regarding their policies, procedures, and training requirements at the City Council meeting this week. I wanted to take a moment to alert you to a serious deficiency in those policies, as posted on the City’s police department website at https://link.edgepilot.com/s/25f586ef/JvXUcEdyPESYIbjbx- MDhw?u=https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/7635/AGPD-Policy-Manual-PDF. I refer specifically to Policy number 300.4 regarding the use of deadly force (Attachment 1). As you might know, the state legislature recently passed two bills updating the rules on use of deadly force. Briefly, AB 392 changed the standard for the use of deadly force from one of “reasonableness” to one of “necessity.” SB 230 put forth new training requirements and gave agencies until January 2021 to update their policies accordingly. The City’s published policy 300.4 fails to meet these new requirements. The City relies on a stock policy statement purchased from Lexipol, a private, for profit company that sells canned, boilerplate policies to agencies across the country. In Attachment 2 I provide a cursory review that demonstrates the City’s policy is not compliant with AB 392. In this brief review I looked only at Policy 300.4, but I am certain that careful consideration of other related policy sections would find similar deficiencies. We further note that, in its communications to subscribing California law enforcement agencies, Lexipol has significantly misstated the meaning and significance of AB 392 to its customers. I urge the City of Arroyo Grande to reconsider its uncritical adoption of Lexipol policies. For reference, I have also attached a letter regarding this issue recently sent to Lexipol by the City of Santa Ana. Thank you again for your time. I would be happy to discuss this further with you and the City Council. Sincerely, Barry Price Bend the Arc: San Luis Obispo https://link.edgepilot.com/s/c70991a1/2THGjfjVFkWVGcpAt0L8jA? u=http://slo.bendthearc.us/ https://link.edgepilot.com/s/18d35493/TQb07s6hKUuLffcNt26Ong? u=https://www.facebook.com/groups/bendthearcslo/ follow us on Twitter @BendArc Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning. Arroyo Grande Police Department Arroyo Grande PD CA Policy Manual Use of Force Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/06/15, All Rights Reserved. Use of Force - 49 Published with permission by Arroyo Grande Police Department 300.4 DEADLY FORCE APPLICATIONS If an objectively reasonable officer would consider it safe and feasible to do so under the totality of the circumstances, officers should evaluate the use of other reasonably available resources and techniques when determining whether to use deadly force. The use of deadly force is only justified in the following circumstances (Penal Code § 835a): (a) An officer may use deadly force to protect him/herself or others from what he/she reasonably believes is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person. (b) An officer may use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, the officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts. Officers shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to him/ herself, if an objectively reasonable officer would believe the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person (Penal Code § 835a). An “imminent” threat of death or serious bodily injury exists when, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer in the same situation would believe that a person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person. An officer’s subjective fear of future harm alone is insufficient as an imminent threat. An imminent threat is one that from appearances is reasonably believed to require instant attention (Penal Code § 835a). 300.4.1 SHOOTING AT OR FROM MOVING VEHICLES Shots fired at or from a moving vehicle are rarely effective. Officers should move out of the path of an approaching vehicle instead of discharging their firearm at the vehicle or any of its occupants. An officer should only discharge a firearm at a moving vehicle or its occupants when the officer reasonably believes there are no other reasonable means available to avert the threat of the vehicle, or if deadly force other than the vehicle is directed at the officer or others. Officers should not shoot at any part of a vehicle in an attempt to disable the vehicle. AB 392 Policy Comparison Template: City of Arroyo Grande Lexipol Policy Issue Under State Law Under Your Local Policy Compliant? Y/N Legal standard for deadly force Only when necessary in defense of human life “An officer may use deadly force to protect him/herself or others from what he/she reasonably believes is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.” No – uses reasonableness throughout + specifically omits the word “necessary” when citing statute. Alternatives to deadly force Required whenever safe and feasible “If an objectively reasonable officer would consider it safe and feasible to do so under the totality of the circumstances, officers should evaluate the use of other reasonably available resources and techniques when determining whether to use deadly force.” No – only requires evaluation, not use – tortures language of statute Officer’s conduct leading up to use of deadly force Considered to evaluate force; part of the “totality of the circumstances” Included in list of reasonableness factors in 300.3. Yes. Use of deadly force against fleeing person Only when: - Used to arrest for felony threatening death or serious bodily injury; and Quotes statute. Yes. - Person would pose threat of death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended Warning Required, if feasible, before using deadly force against fleeing person Quotes statute. Yes. Danger a person poses to themselves Prohibited basis for using deadly force Quotes statute. Yes. “Deadly force” Defined as “any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury” Not defined. No. “Imminent”/ Defined as when “a Quotes statute. Yes. “Immediate” Threat person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or another person.” Not merely fear of future harm or likelihood of harm.