Author Archives: Menno Zacharias

San Francisco Police – Making Force Option Decisions Based on Evidence

San Francisco Police review  police shootings and use of force policy. 

George Gascon took over as the Chief of the San Francisco Police Department in July of 2009.   Early on in his tenure he realized that there might be a problem with the Department’s use of force policy.  San Francisco is one of the few major American police agencies that does not use conducted energy devices (Tasers).  This creates a gap in terms of the use of force options available to San Francisco Police officers – a gap that Gascon perhaps thought might be resulting in the overuse of the deadly force option. 

Instead of simply relying on intuition and making a unilateral move to introduce conducted energy devices to fill the apparent gap he  ordered that the issue be studied.  

The study undertaken by Assistant Chief Morris Tabak* used an evidence based approach to study the issue.  Tabak reviewed a total of 15 files that involved the use of deadly force by San Francisco police officers between 2005 and 2009.  

File data revealed that  police actions resulted in the death of the suspect in 8 of the 15 cases; the other 7 cases resulted in serious injury but the suspects survived.  Tabak concluded that the existing use of force policy (which did not include the use of conducted energy devices) was complied with in all 15 cases.  Under the existing policy the use of deadly force was justified as no less lethal option existed.       

Most, if not all, use of force policies do not consider the use of less than lethal force as an option in situations where the suspect is armed with a gun.  Seven of the 15 cases in question involved suspects armed with guns.  

The review centered on the remaining 8 cases that involved suspects not in possession of firearms.  Based on information in the case files it was concluded that in 5 of the remaining 8 cases the use of less than lethal force such as a conducted energy device would have been a viable option without endangering the lives of police officers. The study in essence superimposed a policy template that included a less than lethal force option over 5 real life scenarios to determine how the police response in  those 5 cases would have been affected had such an option existed.  

The study produced evidence  (data) that adds clarity to the issue and can be used by decision makers to debate and decide the issue on its merits.  This is an example of how evidence can be used to diminish arbitrariness in the decision-making process.  

Based on the findings, Chief Gascon will be recommending that  the use of force policy be amended to include a less than lethal option and that officers be issued with conducted energy devices.  The San Francisco Police Commission will have at its disposal research based evidence when this issue is debated and decided later this month.    

* The 185 page report written by Assistant Chief Morris Tabak is available  under the heading  –Officer Involved Shootings- A five Year Study at:

http://sf-police.org

Only as Much Force as is Necessary

The Constitution Act of 1982 (The Charter of Rights and Freedoms) guarantees basic individual rights.  Those rights include the right the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

In order to avoid anarchy and for society to function, the right to life and liberty are not absolute.  The Criminal Code gives police (and in some cases citizens) the authority to suspend the rights of persons who have violated the law.  The authority granted to police is wide-ranging and invasive.  It includes the authority to use deadly force and the authority to arrest. 

Along with this authority, come obligations and restrictions police must meet and comply with.  In order to lawfully arrest, police must have reasonable grounds to do so.  Reasonable grounds have been defined as a set of conditions or circumstances that cause an ordinary prudent individual to form a strong belief that goes beyond mere suspicion.  If resistance is encountered during the arrest process, police are given authority to use force.  The amount of force police use must be reasonable.  The law stipulates that police shall only use as much force as is necessary to carry out their lawful purpose. 

In the context of police making an arrest, this means that unless the arrest is lawful, any use of force cannot be justified.  In the case of a lawful arrest, the degree of force must be in keeping with the resistance that police encounter.  Most police departments have extensive policies that outline their use of force policy.   

In the recent case that has garnered so much media attention involving the arrest of Cody Bousquet, there is no doubt that police had the authority to arrest.  The question that must be addressed is whether the amount of force used in making the arrest was appropriate.  Could police have accomplished their lawful purpose, that purpose being to arrest Mr. Bousquet, using less force than was used, without putting themselves in danger?    

By now many have viewed the surveillance video presented in court last week during Mr. Bouquet’s trial.  Police actions on the video have been interpreted in a variety of ways.  My purpose here is not to add my interpretation to that long list.  The incident is currently under investigation by the RCMP.  The outcome of that investigation will be presented to the Crown’s office and a determination will be made if the amount of force used by police exceeded what was necessary.  In the event charges are deemed to be warranted, the officers involved will be required to appear in a court of law to justify their actions.    

The real issue that needs to be addressed is this: There are indications that the Winnipeg Police Service became aware of this video approximately a year ago. As the incident involved the Chief’s nephew, again, there is a high degree of probability that the Chief was made aware of the video and its contents.  When the video became a matter of public record last week the Winnipeg Police Service wasted no time arranging for an external investigation to be undertaken by the RCMP.  The issue then is this: why was that investigation not undertaken a year ago when the Winnipeg Police Service first became aware of the contents of the video? 

Had Mr. Bousquet quietly plead guilty and had his lawyer not brought the video forward, would the Winnipeg Police Service have asked the RCMP to initiate an investigation?  After sitting on the video for a year, it doesn’t seem likely.       

For those of you that don’t remember what happens when the Police Service does not take the appropriate steps to fully investigate the actions of its members, can you say ‘J. J. Harper’?  Can you say ‘A.J.I’?

Outcomes Based on Evidence

If the  outcome is known in advance don’t fool yourself into thinking you are doing research.  

When police agencies are considering the deployment of new technology, new tools or innovative service delivery approaches, it’s not good enough to cite their use in other jurisdictions as justification to replicate them.  Unfortunately, all too often that is what happens.  Mayors and police chiefs look at what other jurisdictions are doing and fall into the ‘cookie cutter trap’, an approach that assumes that if something works in another jurisdiction it will work here as well.  A review of reports from the jurisdictions that are doing what you might like to do or emulate is substituted for real research.  The conclusions and anecdotal accounts contained in those reports are treated as evidence.    

The fact is, what works in one jurisdiction may not work elsewhere.  Consider the  use of bait cars  to address auto theft.    Some cities that use bait cars claim they are the answer to curbing the auto theft problem.  This may be true if the cars being stolen in a particular jurisdiction are high-end vehicles destined for export.   When the strategy was tried in Winnipeg, it was largely based on recommendations from police agencies in other jurisdictions and the company selling the technology.  Following the expenditure of a significant amount of cash it was determined that based on the unique characteristics of the auto theft problem in Winnipeg, as well as the  climate, bait cars were largely ineffective in Winnipeg and the program was discontinued.    

Another example is the ‘lets recreate Edmonton in Winnipeg’ experiment of the mid-1990’s that saw the proliferation of Service Centers, Community Offices, and Foot Patrol Offices under the guise of community policing, Edmonton style.  At the height of the euphoria (some called it madness), the Winnipeg Police Service was attempting to staff as many as 22 public access locations at a cost of millions of dollars.  These included 6 District Stations and 16 satellite offices.  With the departure of the  Chief (who was from Edmonton) most of those offices were quietly closed down.  The Police Service now operates a total of 7 public access locations, 5 District Stations and 2 satellite offices.  This is another example of a failed and very expensive experiment that can be attributed to the cookie cutter trap. 

Examples abound of failed attempts to superimpose apparently successful approaches and technologies from one jurisdiction to another.  

As argued during the helicopter debate (which was more of an announcement than a debate), evidence based approaches are essential.  In the case of the helicopter, determining  its effectiveness and efficiency from an evidence based perspective involves at a minimum the following steps: 

  • Establish the number of hours the helicopter will be airborne
  • Establish the number of hours that the helicopter will be on stand-by
  • Determine the type of calls for service to which the helicopter will be deployed
  • Call up the historical call for service data
  • Superimpose the deployment template over the historical data
  • Determine the number of instances the helicopter would have been deployed
  • Establish a cost per deployment
  • Establish the benefit or added value that the presence of a helicopter would have provided in the instances where it would have been deployed. 

Take vehicle pursuits as an example.  Police collect data on vehicle pursuits which include the number of pursuits per year, broken down by month, week, day of the week and hour of day.  There is also data about how long pursuits last.  

It would not be difficult or time-consuming to take the historical pursuit data, superimpose the anticipated helicopter flight times and  specify with a reasonable degree of certainty  the number of pursuits that a  helicopter would have been available to deal with in 2008.   

Let’s say for the sake of argument that Winnipeg has 100 vehicular pursuits per year and that the average pursuit lasts about 4 minutes.  This means that unless the helicopter is airborne it will arrive too late to be of use.  Based on an optimistic projection of 1000 hours of flight time, that means the helicopter would be available to aid in perhaps a dozen vehicular pursuits annually.  That’s one a month.  And based on experience in dealing with auto thieves in Winnipeg, I’m not convinced that in those dozen cases the thieves will stop the stolen vehicle, get out and lie on the ground, and wait to be arrested as has been suggested,  just because a helicopter is hovering overhead.  

This means that every time we have a pursuit in the city that ends badly and someone gets up on their soap box and says ‘it would have been different if we had a helicopter’ you need to take a big gulp of reality and say ‘it might have been different perhaps 12 percent of the time’.  The other 88 percent of the time the helicopter would have been sitting on the ground. 

It is research and data that bring reality to the debate.  It is data that elevates it from a political discussion to an evidence based debate and a decision-making process based on evidence 

Anyone who suggests that the recent council decision on the helicopter issue was an example of evidence based decision-making either does not fully understand the concept or has allowed their personal bias on the issue to cloud their judgment.   Anecdotes and rhetoric are not evidence.  

Winnipeg is a city with limited resources.  Our tax dollars need to be spent wisely.  Look at the spending of tax dollars like an investment.  Do we want our tax dollars invested with a money manager who does not do his homework, who does not do research, who simply looks at what other money managers are doing and attempts to mirror their investments and then crosses his fingers and hopes for the best?  

I suppose if you are not a Winnipeg resident and your  municipal tax dollars are going to East St. Paul  this may be less of an issue for you.   For the citizens of Winnipeg, however, it is a real issue.

A Dragons Den Scenario

The long-awaited $75,000.00 helicopter report hit the table of the Standing Policy Committee on Protection and Community Services on January 11th 2010.  Despite the fact that it has been in the works for over six months, it was late in getting there and required a suspension of the rules in order for it to be considered by the Committee.  

Let’s try to imagine for a moment what the discussion would have looked like if the Winnipeg Police Service (WPS)helicopter proposal had been brought before the popular television show, “Dragon’s Den”, instead of Standing Committee:  

WPS: “Good morning Dragons. The WPS is seeking approval for the creation of a Flight Operations Unit.  Other people wiser than you (with access to lots of money) have already decided it’s a good idea and have set aside 3.4 million dollars in the capital budget to purchase a helicopter and build a hangar.  Even wiser people (and with even more money) are looking at funding the 1.3 million dollar annual operating cost of the unit.”   

Dragon 1: “So let me get this straight.  You are not here asking for the money.  You are actually asking us to sanction the creation of a Unit within the Police Service so that you can then spend the 3.4 million dollars that has already been set aside?”  

WPS:  “Well yes, the decision has already been made but if you sanction the creation of the Unit it will make it easier for us to talk the Province into giving us the 1.3 million dollar annual operating cost.”  

Dragon 2:  “Just so that I understand – the City will incur a one time expenditure of 3.4 million for a helicopter that has a life span of, say, 10 years and the Province will pick up operating costs of between 11 and 15 million dollars over that period?”   

WPS: “Well… I guess when it comes right down to it, yes, that is what the numbers say.” 

Dragon 3:  “That sounds like a pretty sweet deal for the City.  How do you plan on talking the province into that one?”  

WPS:  “Once we get your approval it shouldn’t be too difficult.  Since the Province announced a willingness to negotiate a funding agreement in the Throne Speech, we’ve already got one foot in the door.  Besides, this isn’t an economic decision, it’s political.”   

Dragon 4: “You’re in the wrong place; you should be next door in front of Standing Committee on Protection and Community Services.  We only deal with proposals that involve a potential positive return on investment.  Our concern is the bottom line, not politics.”  

Dragon 5:   “But seeing as we have reviewed your proposal, why don’t we ask you a few questions.  It might be a good learning experience for you in the event you ever have to sell a proposal on its economic merit; you know, a proposal that involves an actual cost /benefit analysis.  Why don’t we pretend you are asking us for the money and we’ll ask you some of the questions we would ask people who ask us to invest our money in their proposals.”   

Dragon 1:  “That’s a great idea.  I’ll begin.  Your report says that a helicopter has the potential to save the Police Service money.  You mention reducing the amount of damage caused to patrol units during vehicle pursuits which right now is costing you $400,000.00 per year.  How much do you anticipate you will save in that area alone?” 

WPS:  “We haven’t actually come up with a number.” 

Dragon 1:  “I’m sure you must have looked at the vehicle damage costs in jurisdictions that currently operate helicopters.  You must know what their costs are.  How much could you save – 50%?  Say, $200,000.00?” 

WPS:  “Well perhaps, but we really haven’t run the numbers on that.” 

Dragon 1:  “You should have.  I’ll tell you what; I’ll give you 3.2 million dollars if you agree to make up the remaining 200 thousand from your existing budget based on anticipated savings.  Deal?” 

WPS:  “Actually, we were not planning on using existing budget to fund any of this cost – we were hoping to get all new money for this.  We are not prepared to put any real dollar savings on the table.”  

Dragon 1:  “And for that reason, I’m out.” 

Dragon 2:  “Maybe I can make a deal with you.  In your report you mention a number of scenarios that could yield opportunity savings, in terms of freeing up patrol units.  It you can show me a detailed report that shows projected flight times, a list of the types of incidents that the helicopter will be deployed to, and an estimate of the potential opportunity savings in terms of hours and how those savings will be invested, I’ll fund you.”   

WPS:  “That report has not been prepared yet.” 

Dragon 2:  “For that reason I’m out.”  

Dragon 3:  “Let’s try to make a deal on investing opportunity savings from another angle.  You indicate that the Service is involved in approximately 1,825 ‘containment’ operations annually and that having a helicopter would free up patrol units to perform other duties.  You also mention several other scenarios where patrol units would be freed up.  Here’s my deal:  You make an estimate as to the total number of hours of patrol time that would be freed up service wide, and use that amount of time as an opportunity saving to attack the chronic issue of slow response times to high priority calls by setting a goal for response time reduction, and I’ll give you the money.”  

WPS:  “We can’t do that because we have not run those numbers and are not prepared to commit ourselves to measurable goals that could be difficult to achieve.”     

Dragon 3:  “And for that reason I’m out.” 

Dragon 4:  “I was going to go down the research road and ask you about cherry picking quotes from studies that support your position.  Research is intended to present both sides of the argument on the issue being researched.  I’m no longer convinced that is your interest.  The last quote at the bottom of page 10 says it all and I’ll just paraphrase here:  ‘Don’t think of a helicopter as a tool to achieve specific results, think of it rather as a nice thing to have in and of itself.’   

“I’m out.” 

Dragon 5:  “What about me, don’t I get a shot at this?” 

Other Dragons:  “Go ahead.” 

Dragon 5:  “I don’t think this is going to fly.  I’m out.” 

Back to reality:  The WPS has brought their proposal before Standing Committee on Protection and Community Services.  It was quickly rubber stamped and sent on to EPC.  There, another rubber stamp is poised to apply the ‘approved’ label.  Then it’s off to council for a vote by the same group that already tucked the 3.4 million into the capital budget.     

And next,  its off to Broadway.  

What would happen if the Province offered to buy the city a helicopter and made the City responsible for the operating costs?  Isn’t that how deals between different levels of government are usually structured?  The senior level provides capital funding, the level delivering the service covers the operating cost.

Officers to Display Names on Uniforms

In a move designed to help rebuild trust and confidence in their local police service, police in Leicestershire U.K., (2300 officers 1200 staff) will display not only their service numbers but also their name on their epaulettes starting in February of 2010. 

A similar approach that would have seen Winnipeg police officers wear name tags was proposed by city councilors in Winnipeg in the early to mid- 1980’s.  The move was opposed by some officers and their union (Winnipeg Police Association) citing officer safety concerns.  The plan was subsequently abandoned.

National Standards for Taser Use

Taser Standards on the Way 

Federal Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan has announced that a group of federal officials and law enforcement experts have been tasked with devising national standards for Taser use.  

Van Loan stressed the importance of a standard approach applicable across the country indicating that he favours the guidelines adopted by the RCMP which restrict Taser use to situations where there is a threat to police or a member of the public. At present individual police agencies establish guidelines for Taser use, and those guidelines vary from one jurisdiction to another. 

 This move by the Federal Government is supported by the Canada Safety Council.

Baltimore Police to Walk the Talk

More beat officers to hit the street in Baltimore 

In Canada and the United States most police chiefs will admit that, ideally, they would like to dedicate more resources to foot patrol.  However, citing high violent crime rates and high volumes of call for service, few demonstrate the strength of their convictions. 

Frederick Bealefeld III the Police Commissioner in Baltimore  is determined to buck that trend.  Baltimore is adding 50 officers to its complement and their assignment will be to patrol beats, on foot.  Bealefeld seems to be adopting a long term view whereby policing is not just about emergency response to crimes that have already taken place.  The move back to foot patrols is intended to strengthen the ties between the community and the police and build community capacity.

Is Crimestat Broken?

Why are crime numbers on the rise in Winnipeg?

As indicated in a previous post, when the auto theft numbers are excluded, crime in the other 8 categories monitored under the Crimestat process is seen to have risen by 11 per cent in 2009.

What is Crimestat all about?  Crimestat is both simple and complicated.  Like community policing, if Crimestat is treated as an add-on to existing operations as opposed to a pervasive organizational- wide approach it is doomed to failure.  If an organization is not willing to ingrain Crimestat into the organizational fabric as its premier management and accountability process, it will ultimately fail.

Winnipeg Crimestat is based on the same four principles that were first set out by the New York City Police Department in 1995.  They are:

  • Accurate and timely intelligence (gathering and disseminating real time crime data and intelligence information);

 

  • Effective tactics (using evidence based approaches that have been proven to work);

 

  • Rapid deployment (recognizing crime trends and implementing action plans in a timely manner);

 

  • Relentless follow-up and assessment (holding commanders accountable for performance and results).

The Crimestat process has one primary goal:  crime reduction.  The added positive spin-off effects are transparency and accountability, both internally and publicly. 

The first step in the process is actually the easiest.  The gathering and formatting of accurate and timely crime data and intelligence information, although time consuming and labour intensive, is not difficult. 

What can be difficult is interpreting the data and identifying trends quickly, and selecting and implementing the appropriate tactics to deal with the issues identified.  Although difficult, it is not beyond the grasp of most qualified police commanders. 

The most important aspect of the program is follow-up and assessment.  Under the Crimestat process police executives must be immersed in the process.  This means they must be totally up to date on what is happening on the streets, they must be able to spot and identify trends, and have a good grasp as to tactics that will likely be successful as well as the resources required to implement specific plans.  If the police executive is not fully invested in the process the accountability aspect of the process will be lacking and it will fail. 

Normally when Crimestat like systems fail to reduce crime, it’s because either the organization (the executive) do not understand or appreciate the importance of the four basic principles, or they are not committed to the process.  In the words of Jeff Godown:

Chiefs are the linchpins of the CompStat process. They serve as both sponsor and champion of the philosophy. Only through chiefs’ leadership does the process gain the voluntary cooperation and support of others in the organization. If an agency’s chief does not believe in the process, neither will command, support, or line personnel.* 

A lack of understanding and appreciation of the process can be remedied; a lack of commitment to or belief in the process is more problematic. 

Is  Crimestat in Winnipeg broken?  If its goal is to reduce crime, and instead crime is increasing, there is reason for concern as to its current effectiveness. 

*   http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=1859&issue_id=82009

Selling Helicopters Not Naming Rights

In some American cities, city bureaucrats are not selling the naming rights to their police helicopter; instead they are selling the helicopters.   The Colorado Springs Police Department, for example, is selling its two Bell Helicopters for $350,000 each. 

A number of other police departments, including Tulsa Oklahoma, Oakland, San Bernardino and Corona in California, have either grounded or eliminated their helicopter units.   

The reason cited in all the above mentioned cases is budget constraints.   When it comes down to boots on the ground as opposed to an ‘eye in the sky’, these American police agencies are choosing the boots. 

Winnipeg being flush with money, and having fully stocked libraries, no potholes, a fine rapid transit system etc. is bucking the trend.   Up to this point the city has made the purchase of a helicopter contingent on the Province picking up the operating cost estimated to be in the range of a million dollars a year.

United States 2009 Preliminary Crime Stats

On December 21st. the FBI released its preliminary crime statistics for the United States for 2009.  The highlights are: 

  • Violent crime (murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault) decreased by 4.4% 
    • The largest decease occurred in cities with populations of 1 million or more (7%)
    • Small cities with populations of 10,000 to 24,999 saw an increase of 1.7% 
  • Property crime decreased; motor vehicle theft by 18.7%, larceny-theft by 5.3% and burglary by 2.5%.
  • Reported arsons declined b 8.2 % 

These figures are based on data submitted by 11,700 American law enforcement agencies.