LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT Office of Chief of Staff Use of Force Review Division 100 West First Street, Suite 257D Los Angeles, California 90012 (213) 486-5950 1
PURPOSE OF THE 2008 USE OF FORCE YEAR END REPORT This is the first annual report on the status of the Los Angeles Police Department s Categorical and Non-Categorical Use of Force incidents for 2008. The purpose of this report is to provide a meaningful statistical analysis of the lethal, less-lethal and non-lethal force used by LAPD officers; provide an overview of the investigation; conduct a thorough review and adjudicate the use of force incidents; and enhance transparency between the Department and its stakeholders in the City of Los Angeles.
2008 Use of Force Year End Report C O N T E N T Section 1 Pg 4-13 Section 2 Pg 14-32 City and Department Information Definitions and Policies Categorical Use of Force Section 3 Pg 33-44 Pg 45 Non-Categorical Use of Force Use of Force Review Division
MISSION STATEMENT It is the mission of the Los Angeles Police Department to safeguard the lives and property of the people we serve, to reduce the incidence and fear of crime, and to enhance public safety while working with the diverse communities to improve their quality of life. Our mandate is to do so with honor and integrity, while at all times conducting ourselves with the highest ethical standards to maintain public confidence. L o s A n g e l e s P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t CORE VALUES The six Core Values of the Los Angeles Police Department are intended to guide and inspire us. Making sure that our values become part of our day-to-day work life is our mandate, and they help to ensure that our personal and professional behavior can be a model for all to follow. Service to Our Communities Reverence for the Law Commitment to Leadership Integrity in All We Say and Do Respect for People Quality Through Continuous Improvement MOTTO TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE In February 1955, the Los Angeles Police Department, through the pages of the internally produced BEAT magazine, conducted a contest for a motto for the police academy. The conditions of the contest stated that: "The motto should be one that in a few words would express some or all the ideals to which the Los Angeles police service is dedicated. It is possible that the winning motto might someday be adopted as the official motto of the Department." The winning entry was the motto, to protect and to serve" submittedby Officer Joseph S. Dorobek. To protect and to serve"became the official motto of the Police Academy, and was incorporated into the officers training as the aim and purpose of their profession. With the passing of time, the motto received wider exposure and acceptance throughout the Department. On November 4, 1963, the Los Angeles City Council passed the necessary ordinance and the credo has now been placed alongside the City Seal on the Department s patrol cars. 4
CITY/DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Los Angeles Police Department was established in 1869 and was comprised of six sworn officers. At the end of 2008, LAPD employed 9,846 sworn employees making it the third largest department in the nation behind the New York Police Department (NYPD) and the Chicago Police Department. LAPD provides police services to approximately four million people in the City of Los Angeles, which encompasses 468 square miles. On a per capita basis, LAPD has 2.4 officers per 1000 residents compared to Chicago Police Department and NYPD s ratio of 4.7 and 4.6 officers per 1000 residents, respectively. From a geographic perspective, LAPD has 21 officers per square mile, compared to Chicago with 57 officers per square mile and NYPD with 81 officers per square mile. 1 Sworn Personnel and City Population by Race 2 Department 10% 12% 11% 7% 47% 41% City Population 38% 32% 2% 1% Asian Black Hispanic White Other Sworn Personnel by Race 4 Other 236 White 3700 Asian 660 Black 1187 Hispanic 4063 Commanders and above Sworn Personnel by Rank 3 Captain Lieutenants Sergeants Detectives Officers 30 Sworn Personnel by Gender 5 78 280 1247 1768 Women 1838 19% Men 8008 81% 6443 L o s A n g e l e s P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t 1 Chicago Police Department Website: 13,400 Sworn Personnel, Census Data 2,836,659 and 237 Sq Miles. New York Police Department Website: 37,838 Sworn Personnel, (2007) Census Data 8,274,527 and 469 Sq Miles. 2 LAPD Data -Report PR91 as of 01/04/09, City Population data 2000 US Census. White Stats Includes persons reporting only one race. Hispanic Stats Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. 3 LAPD Data -Report PR91 as of 01/04/09. 4 LAPD Data -Report PR91 as of 01/04/09. 5 LAPD Data -Report PR91 as of 01/04/09. 5
BUREAUS AND DIVISIONS The Los Angeles Police Department is comprised of four Geographic Bureaus and 21 Community Police Stations (Geographic Areas) within the Office of Operations. L o s A n g e l e s P o l Bureaus Central South Valley West Stations 1. Central 2. Rampart 3. Southwest 4. Newton 5. Harbor 6. Hollywood 7. Wilshire 8. West Los Angeles 9. Van Nuys 10. North Hollywood 11. Northeast 12. 77 th Street 13. Newton 14. Pacific 15. North Hollywood 16. Foothill 17. Devonshire 18. Southeast 19. Mission 20. Olympic (open Jan 09) 21. Topanga (open Jan 09) i c e D e p a r t m e n t 6
DEFINITIONS Administrative Disapproval: A finding, supported by a preponderance of the evidence that the Tactics Drawing/Exhibiting and/or Use Of Force employed during a CUOF incident unjustifiably and substantially deviated from approved Department tactical training and/or policies. (Use of Force Directive July 22, 2008) Carotid Restraint Control Holds: The Department has three approved carotid restraint control holds: the modified carotid, full carotid and the locked carotid control holds. Prior to 2006, Carotid Restraint Control Holds were formally known as Upper Body Control Holds. 6 Categorical Use Of Force Incident: All incidents involving the use of lethal force such as intentional Officer Involved Shootings; Unintended Discharges of a firearm; all uses of Carotid Restraint Control Holds; all uses of force resulting in an injury requiring hospitalization, commonly referred to as Law Enforcement Related Injuries; all Headstrikes with an impact weapon; all other uses of force resulting in death; all deaths while the arrestee or detainee is in the custodial care of the LAPD referred to as an In-Custody Death; or a K-9 Contact which result in hospitalization. (Use of Force Directive July 22, 2008) Divisional Training: When an administrative review of an employee s performance results in a recommendation of Divisional/Area training, the employee s commanding officer shall ensure that: A member(s) of his/her command is designated to provide the recommended training. The command s Training Coordinator records the training in the employee s TEAMS II. (LAPD Manual Volume 3/796.35) Force Option: All Department-approved physical force techniques (i.e. firm grip, punch, takedown, etc.) or devices (i.e. OC spray, baton, TASER, etc.) available to an officer. Force Options fall into the following three categories: Lethal (Deadly Force) Less-Lethal (TASER, bean bag, other projectile devices) Non-Lethal (firm grip, takedown, etc.) Formalized Training: When an administrative review of an employee s performance results in a recommendation of formalized training, the employee s commanding officer shall ensure that: Training Division is advised of the specific training needs of the employee as identified through the administrative review; The employee receives the recommended training; and, The Area command s Training Coordinator records the recommended training in the employee s TEAMS II. (LAPD Manual Volume 3/796.35) General Training Update: Standardized training provided by the employee's command or Training Division personnel, to personnel involved in a CUOF incident. The Training Update is not an inquiry into the specific details of the CUOF. The intent of the Training Update is to provide involved personnel with standardized training material in the tactical issues and actions readily identified in the CUOF incident as well as an update on the Use of Force Policy. Training shall be provided within 90 days of the incident or as soon as practical. (Use of Force Directive July 22, 2008) L o s A n g e l e s P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t 6 2006 OIG Annual CUOF Report, page 2. 7
DEFINITIONS CONTINUED Headstrikes: When any suspect or subject is struck in the head by any solid object or device (e.g., flashlight, baton, etc.) during the use of force, whether intentionally or accidentally. (COP Notice, August 3, 2004) Headstrikesare not presumed to be Lethal Force. Headstrikeswere included in the LERI category prior to 2003. L o s A n g e l e s P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t In-Custody Deaths: On October 12, 2005, Special Order No. 34 deactivated the use of the term Law Enforcement Activity Related Death and provides for all incidents resulting in the death of an individual during an incident involving LAPD officers to be referred to as an In-Custody Death. Thus, for purposes of this report, all incidents previously referred to as a LEARD are included in the totals for ICD incidents. (Special Order No. 34, October 12, 2005) Non-Categorical Use of Force: An incident in which any on duty Department employee or off duty employee whose occupation as a Department employee is a factor, uses a less-lethal control device or physical force to; Compel a person to comply with the employee s direction; or, Overcome resistance of a person during an arrest or a detention; or, Defend any individual from an aggressive action by another person. (LAPD Manual Volume 4/794.10) Substantially Involved Personnel: Employee(s) applying force or who had a significant tactical or decision making role in the incident. (Use of Force Directive July 22, 2008) Tactical Debrief: A formal debriefing of the CUOF incident for all substantially involved personnel. The Use of Force Review Board, Chief of Police and the Board of Police Commissioners may identify areas of conduct that should be included during the Tactical Debrief. During the Tactical Debrief, the fact pattern of the case is presented and all training, tactics, force and leadership issues applicable to the incident shall be discussed. The intent of a Tactical Debrief is to enhance future performance and is not to be considered punitive. The Tactical Debrief shall be completed within 90 days of the Board Of Police Commissioners adjudication with limited exceptions. (Use of Force Directive July 22, 2008) Unintentional Discharge: Discharge of a firearm which would result in an ultimate finding of Negligent or Accidental Discharge. Use of Force-Tactics Directive: Use of Force-Tactics Directive is a written directive from the Chief of Police, which will contain procedure and/or insight into use of force issues. Use of Force policywill continue to be placed into the Department Manual and may be reiterated in Use of Force-Tactics Directive. (Special Order No. 27, August 9, 2007) 8
POLICIES Drawing or Exhibiting Firearms:... Officers shall not draw or exhibit a firearm unless the circumstances surrounding the incident create a reasonable belief that it may be necessary to use the firearm in conformance with this policy on the use of firearms. (LAPD Manual Volume 1/556.80) Justification Limited To Facts Known To Officer: Justification for the use of deadly force must be limited to what reasonably appear to be the facts known or perceived by an officer at the time the officer decides to use deadly force. Facts unknown to an officer, no matter how compelling, cannot be considered at a later date to justify a use of deadly force. (LAPD Manual Volume 1/556.50) Use of Lethal (Deadly) Force 7 : An officer is authorized the use of lethal force when it reasonably appears necessary: To protect himself or others from an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury; or, To prevent a crime where the suspect's actions place persons in jeopardy of death or serious bodily injury ;or, To apprehend a fleeing felon for a crime involving serious bodily injury or the use of deadly force where there is a substantial risk that the person whose arrest is sought will cause death or serious bodily injury to others if apprehension is delayed. ACRONYMS L o s A n g e l e s P o l AD Administrative Disapproval LAPD Los Angeles Police Department BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics LERI Law Enforcement Related Injury BOPC Board of Police Commissioners MEU Mental Evaluation Unit COP Chief of Police NCUOF Non-Categorical Use of Force Incident COS Chief of Staff OCB Operations Central Bureau CRCH Carotid Restraint Control Hold OIS Officer Involved Shooting CUOF Categorical Use of Force Incident OSB Operations South Bureau D/E Drawing or Exhibiting OVB Operations Valley Bureau DT Divisional Training OWB Operations West Bureau FID Force Investigation Division SOB Special Operations Bureau FT Formalized Training TEAMS Training Evaluation And Management System GED Gang Enforcement Detail UD Unintentional Discharge GIT Gang Impact Team UOF Use of Force HS Headstrike UOFRB Use of Force Review Board IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police UOFRD Use of Force Review Division ICD In-Custody Death WIC Welfare Institution Code ITD Information Technology Division 7 On July 14, 2009 the BOPC adopted a revised Use of Force Policy, Special Order No. 36, July 14, 2009. i c e D e p a r t m e n t 9
USE OF FORCE STANDARD L o s A n g e l e s P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t Sworn Personnel have a range of force options available to them. The force options available to officers include: Verbalization Bodily Force: Body Weight, Take Downs Bodily Force: Wrist Locks, Twist Locks Bodily Force: Strikes, Kicks, Punches Chemical Agents (OC Spray) Electrical Control Devices (TASER) Impact Devices: Batons, projectile weapons (beanbag shotgun) Lethal Force: Firearms, CRCH Department s policy does not require that an officer consider or exhaust all available options before contemplating other options when a subject s behavior escalates. The following chart/graph illustrates the LAPD UOF Standard. Officers are required to articulate the level of force used, based on an objectively reasonable standard to overcome resistance, effect an arrest, or to prevent escape. Suspects Behaviors Facts & circumstances known to officer at the time of the incident Los Angeles Police Department Use of Force Standard 9 Legal Standing Policy / Law FOURTH AMENDMENT Objectively Reasonable Standard In Light of the Facts and Circumstances Confronting Officer Graham vs. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) Factors include but are not limited to: Facts and circumstances of a particular case; Severity of the crime at issue; Suspect posing immediate threat to safety of officers/ others; Suspect actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight; Time available to officer to make decision; Reasonable officer s perspective, based upon training and experience, without 20/20 hindsight; Officer/ suspect factors such as: number of officers vs. number of suspects; proximity of potential weapons; age/ size/ relative strength; suspect s special knowledge/ skill level; officer injury/ exhaustion; suspect s mental illness/ drug usage; officer s knowledge of prior contacts; risk of escape; environmental factors; other exigent circumstances. 8 Officer(s) Reactions Type and amount of force used in response to suspect actions / behaviors Suspect s Behaviors Officer s Response ADJUDICATION Objective Reasonableness Yes In Policy No Action, Counseling, or Training No Out of Policy Counseling, Training, or Discipline 10 8 Incident Management and Training Bureau, LAPD adopted the current UOF Standard Chart/Graph in 2009 based on Graham vs. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). 9 Incident Management and Training Bureau, LAPD adopted the current UOF Standard Chart/Graph in 2009 based on Graham vs. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS STATISTICS According to LAPD field data statistics for pedestrians, drivers and passengers, 873,752 persons were contacted in field investigations by officers in 2008. 10 In 2008, UOF occurred in 1.9 of every 1000 contacts. In 2008, UOF occurred 0.98 of every 100 arrests made; less than one percent of all arrests resulted in a reportable use of force incident. 169337 Arrests 12 168795 170455 UOF Incidents 11 1805 1793 1661 2008 2007 2006 Contacts 13 918449 873752 870001 L o s A n g e l e s P o l 100 10 1 0 2008 2007 2006 Statistics by Officers 90 91 98 17 18 18 2008 2007 2006 0.17 0.19 0.19 2008 2007 2006 Arrests per Officer Contacts per Officer UOF per Officer For purposes of this graph, Officers are those in the rank of Lieutenant and below. i c e D e p a r t m e n t 10 Information Technology Division (ITD), LAPD, began collecting field data statistics beginning November 1, 2001, as mandated by the Consent Decree. 11 UOFRD Data Report. 12 ITD, Arrests made by LAPD Officers in the City of LA. 13 ITD, Statistics. Contacts refer to Field Data Reports (FDR). FDR s are completed when an officer performs a detention of an individual (i.e., a temporary detention where a person is not free to leave) (LAPD Manual 5/1543.01). 11
SUBJECTS INVOLVED BY RACE L o s A n g e l e s P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t In 2008: Asian/Other subjects accounted for 11 percent of the City population and were involved in 3 percent of NCUOF incidents and 4 percent of arrests. Black subjects accounted for 11 percent of the City population and were involved in 34 percent of NCUOF incidents and 27 percent of arrests. Hispanic subjects accounted for 47 percent of the City population and were involved in 42 percent of NCUOF incidents and 47 percent of arrests. White subjects accounted for 32 percent of the City population and were involved in 13 percent of NCUOF incidents and 15 percent of arrests. NCUOF incidents and arrests involving Black subjects have been declining over the past three years, while the other races have stayed relatively consistent over past three years. The following chart depicts the race of subjects involved in NCUOF incidents and arrests made by LAPD officers during 2006 through 2008. RACE OF SUBJECTS INVOLVED IN USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS 2000 US CENSUS 2008 2007 2006 RACE PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Asian 10 29 2 27 2 19 1 Black 11 580 34 658 39 705 41 Hispanic 47 715 42 712 42 676 40 White 32 220 13 252 15 243 14 Other 1 11 1 29 2 36 2 Unknown / Null 0 132 8 31 2 28 2 TOTALS 1687 1709 1707 ARREST STATISTICS BY THE LAPD 2008 2007 2006 RACE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Black 46443 27 50413 30 51865 30 Hispanic 80115 47 74640 44 72573 43 White 26057 15 25666 15 26747 16 Other 6293 4 5956 4 5872 3 Unknown 10429 6 12120 7 13398 8 TOTALS 169337 168795 170455 12 The term Race used herein are consistent with the FBI Uniform Crime Report methodology; each race covers all related nationalities (e.g. Asian includes Asian America and Taiwanese national). Arrest statistics for Asians were minimal and included in the Other totals. Percentages were rounded to whole numbers and will not equal 100%.
blank page
C a t e g o r i c a l U s e o f F o r c e 14
Categorical Use of Force Incidents C O N T E N T Pg 16 CUOF Policies 17-18 CUOF Adjudication Process and Findings 19 2005-2008 Comparison Charts and Graphs 20-27 Officer Involved Shootings 28-32 Other CUOF Incidents: Animal Shootings Carotid Restraint Control Holds Head Strikes In-Custody Deaths K9 Contacts Law Enforcement Related Injuries Unintentional Discharges 15
POLICIES On July 22, 2008, a UOF Directive was approved by the BOPC, changing the adjudication process for CUOF incidents. 14 Prior to July 22, 2008 Area Findings Outcome Post July22, 2008 Area Findings Outcome C a t e g o r i c a l U s e o f F o r c e Tactics D/E UOF (NoPolicy, only Outcomes) Administrative Disapproval In Policy Administrative Disapproval - Out of Policy In Policy Administrative Disapproval - Out of Policy No Further Action or Divisional Training or Formal Training Formal Training and Personnel Complaint No Further Action or Divisional Training or Formal Training Formal Training and Personnel Complaint No Further Action or Divisional Training or Formal Training Formal Training and Personnel Complaint Tactics D/E UOF Tactical Debrief Administrative Disapproval In Policy No Further Action Administrative Disapproval - Out of Policy In Policy No Further Action Administrative Disapproval - Out of Policy Tactical Debrief Tactical Debrief plus (one or more): Extensive Retraining Notice to Correct Personnel Complaint Tactical Debrief Tactical Debrief plus (one or more): Extensive Retraining Notice to Correct Personnel Complaint Tactical Debrief Tactical Debrief plus (one or more): Extensive Retraining Notice to Correct Personnel Complaint Priorto July, 2008, a formal finding of Out of Policy (Administrative Disapproval) resulted in a personnel complaint. The July 2008, Use of Force Directive changed the process and protocol for findings and outcome. The new process requires a Tactical Debrief for all employees substantially involved in any CUOF incident. The Tactical Debrief is coordinated and facilitated by Training Division. This process provides for a consistent and comprehensive overview and review of the entire incident with all involved personnel including a critical look at the role of each involved person. While a finding of Administrative Disapproval no longer results in a mandatory Personnel Complaint, the COP can direct an outcome of Extensive Retaining, Notice to Correct, and/or a Personnel Complaint. In addition, soon after a CUOF incident, all employees substantially involved in a CUOF incident are required to complete a Generalized Training Update session in specified areas. This replaces the training that was previously accomplished after the adjudication of an incident often many months after the fact. 15 16 14 UOF Directive, dated July 22, 2008. 15 Special Order #25, dated August 5, 2008.
A DJUDICAT I O N P ROCESS Robert Saltzman Commissioner BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS Andrea Sheridan Ordin Commissioner Anthony Pacheco Commissioner President John W. Mack Commissioner Vice President Alan J. Skobin Commissioner The Board of Police Commissioners will receive the COP s recommendations and evaluate the CUOF incident. The BOPC will then adjudicate the incident and a Tactical Debrief is completed within 90 days. CHIEF OF POLICE William J. Bratton CHIEF OF STAFF Jim McDonnell First Assistant Chief The Chief of Police receives the UOFRB findings and evaluates the CUOF incident. The COP reports his recommendations to the Board of Police Commissioners. The Use of Force Review Board is convened consisting of representatives from the following : Chief of Staff (Chair) Office of Operations Incident Management and Training Bureau Geographic Bureau Peer (similar rank of the substantially involved personnel) Use of Force Review Board Process: Office of The Inspector General is present in an oversight capacity. Force Investigation Division provides a detailed presentation of the CUOF incident. The Commanding Officer of the substantially involved personnel provides their assessment of the CUOF incident and recommends findings to the Board. The Board evaluates the CUOF incident and forwards their recommendations to the Chief of Police. Use of Force Review Division receives completed FID investigative case and conducts an analysis of the CUOF incident and schedules a Use of Force Review Board. C a t e g o r i c a l U s e o f F o r c e General Training Update completed within 90 days of the CUOF incident for all substantially involved personnel (identified by the Area Commanding Officer). Chief of Police 72-Hour Briefing (all OIS and other significant CUOF incidents). Force Investigation Division personnel responds and begins the CUOF incident investigation. Categorical Use of Force incident occurs. 17
2 0 0 5 T H ROUGH 2008 ADJUDICAT I O N S 2008 statistics were not compared to 2005 through 2007, due to the change in the Use of Force Directive dated July 22, 2008. The 2005 through 2007 Adjudication Findings Chart is captured by incidentsand 2008 Adjudication Findings Chart is captured by officer. NOTE: Category numbers are based on at least one substantially involved officer receiving a finding in the particular area of adjudication. i.e. If there were five officers involved and one officer received a Tactics Finding of AD and four officers received Findings of DT, then the Incident would be considered AD. ADJUDICATIONFINDINGS 16 2007 2006 2005 C a t e g o r i c a l U s e o f F o r c e Tactics Drawing/ Exhibiting Lethal UOF January 1, 2008 to July 21, 2008: 78 incidents were adjudicated 271 Substantially Involved Officers PREJULY 22, 2008 ADJUDICATION FINDINGS 17 Tactics Drawing/ Exhibiting UOF Lethal UOF Out of Policy (AD )Type Incidents Adjudicated 115 100 122 No Further Action 26 23 18 Divisional/Formal Training 73 56 81 Administrative Disapproval 16 21 23 In Policy (No Further Action/DNA) 113 95 117 In Policy (DT/FT) 0 3 4 Out of Policy (AD) 2 2 1 In Policy (No Further Action/DNA) 101 81 103 In Policy (DT/FT) 2 2 6 Out of Policy (AD) 12 17 13 No Action / Does Not Apply 85 Divisional / Formal Training 174 Administrative Disapproval 12 In Policy / Does Not Apply 270 In Policy (DT/FT) 1 Out of Policy (AD) 0 In Policy (No Further Action) 256 In Policy (DT/FT) 12 Out of Policy (AD) 3 UD 10 6 5 OIS 0 8 6 HS 1 3 1 CRCH/UBCH 1 0 1 July 22, 2008 to December 31, 2008: 20 incidents were adjudicated. 66 Substantially Involved Officers POSTJULY 22, 2008 ADJUDICATION FINDINGS 18 Tactics Drawing/ Exhibiting Lethal Less Lethal Non Lethal Tactical Debrief 58 Administrative Disapproval 8 In Policy 32 Out of Policy (AD) 0 In Policy 15 Out of Policy (AD) 1 In Policy 1 Out of Policy (AD) 0 In Policy 10 Out of Policy (AD) 0 18 16 005-2007 OIG Annual Reports. 17 UOFRD Database, Tracking System. 18 UOFRD Database, Tracking System.
2 0 0 8 V E RSUS 2005 TO 2 0 0 7 AV E R AGE COMPA R I S O N 1 9 In comparing 2008 CUOF Incidents to the average of 2005 through 2007 CUOF Incidents, the significant variances are in OIS No-Hits and Unintentional Discharges. Categorical Use of Force incidents account for only six percent of reportable uses of force. Categorical Use Of Force 2008 05-07 Avg Variance Hits 31 29 2 No-Hits 11 17 (6) Animal Shootings 17 16 1 Unintentional Discharges 13 7 6 Total Officer Involved Shootings 72 69 3 Law Enforcement Related Injuries (LERI) 9 11 (2) In-Custody Deaths (ICD) 9 10 (1) Carotid Restraint Control Holds (CRCH) 2 3 (1) Headstrikes 8 8 0 K9 Contacts withhospitalization 4 1 3 Total Other CUOF 32 33 (1) TOTAL CUOF INCIDENTS 104 102 2 2 0 0 5 T H ROUGH 2008 GRAPH COMPA R I S O N 2 0 35 30 Annual Incident Comparison 25 20 15 10 5 0 CRCH HS ICD K9 LERI Animal OIS Hit OIS No-Hit UD 2008 2 8 9 4 9 17 31 11 13 2007 2 9 8 1 8 21 33 18 6 2006 4 4 16 2 12 11 26 17 9 2005 3 11 7 0 12 17 29 15 6 C a t e g o r i c a l U s e o f F o r c e S t a t i s t i c s 19 UOFRD Activity Report. 20 UOFRD Activity Report. 19
O f f i c e r I n v o l v e d S h o o t i n g s 20
2 0 0 8 O F F I C E R I N VOLV E D SHOOTINGS 2 1 There were 42 Officer Involved Shootings in 2008. During one of the incidents, a SWAT Officer was killed and another officer was badly injured while trying to effect a citizen rescue. Officers were also injured by gunfire in three other incidents. 2 0 0 8 AT T E M P T M U R D E RS OF OFFICERS FOLLOWED BY O I S 2 2 Officers came under fire and returned fire in 11 incidents. The following are brief synopses of each incident. 1. Officers entered a home to effect a possible citizen rescue and the suspect was lying in wait. 2. Officers were following a possible suspect s vehicle and the suspects stopped the car, got out and shot at the officers. 3. During a foot pursuit, the suspect turned and fired at the officer. 4. During an altercation, the suspect fired a handgun concealed in his jacket at the officers. 5. A suspect exited his residence and fired at officers working a crime scene unrelated to the suspect. 6. At the termination of a pursuit, suspect exited his car and opened fire at the officers. 7. Plainclothes officers were in a vehicle observing an area when a suspect opened fire on the officers. 8. During a pursuit, a suspect fired at officers at three different locations. 9. After forcing entry at a search warrant location, officers were met with gunfire. O f f i c e r I n v o l v e d S h o o t i n g s 10. An off duty officer was in plainclothes and driving when he saw a person throwing gang signs. Suspect then produced a handgun and shot at him. 11. Officers responded to a reported shooting location, the suspect came out of the residence and an OIS occurred. Evidence reflected that the suspect s weapon had been fired at officers. 21 FID 2008 Officer Involved Shooting Report. 22 FID 2008 Officer Involved Shooting Report. 21
O I S INCIDENT T Y P E 2 3 Description of OIS Type Type I: Suspect verified with firearm and fired at officer or 3 rd party Type II: Suspect verified with firearm but did not fire Type III: Perception of threat shooting firearm in possession Type IV: Perception of threat shooting, no firearm found Type V: Shooting of person armed with weapon other than firearm Type VI: Warning shot O f f i c e r I n v o l v e d S h o o t i n g s 30 20 10 0 9 18 5 14 O I S HITS AND NO-HITS 2 4 40 percent of the OIS Incidents occurred during officer initiated activity (Vehicle/Pedestrian Stops). 21 percent of the OIS Incidents occurred when officers responded to Radio Calls. (Does not include Animal Shootings or Unintentional Discharges) 57 percent occurred between Thursday and Saturday. 62 percent occurred between 1600 and 2400 hours. 10 5 0 Mon 5 26 18 0 4 1 1 3 I II III IV V VI Day Tues 6 Wed 5 Thur 8 Fri 7 Sat 9 OIS Type 2006 2007 2008 Sun 2 4 0001-0400 0401-0800 0801-1200 1201-1600 1601-2000 2001-2400 10 2 3 9 4 10 8 2 1 Hour 11 1 14 22 Five of the OIS incidents occurred while the officer was off duty. These incidents involved: 1. An altercation subsequent to a traffic collision. 2. Suspects who displayed gang signs and then fired at the officer. 3. An attempt to avoid a confrontation. The officer identified himself as law enforcement and the suspects attacked and tried to disarm him. 4. An armed burglar confronting the officer. 5. Intervention after a carjacking suspect pointed a gun at the victim after she fled from the car. 23 FID 2008 Officer Involved Shooting Report. 24 FID 2008 Officer Involved Shooting Report.
O I S HIT RAT I O COMPA R I S O N 2008 Shooting Ratio 25 The hit ratio for all Officer Involved Shootings in 2008 was 36.47 percent. Excluding the extraordinary incidents when 30 or more shots were fired, the hit ratio increased to 47.9 percent. In 11 No-Hit incidents, 37 rounds were fired. 3 31 Hits Hits and No-Hits Graph 26 11 No Hits Annual OIS Hit Ratio Comparison by Percent 28 19 31 30 27 Hits Fatal and Wounded 27 20 Fatal 29 11 Wounded 2005 2006 2007 2008 All OIS No-Hit Average Shots Fired 29 4 2005 2006 2007 2008 2 42 less 30 shots fired per incident 3 58 41 Animal Shootings, Unintentional Discharges, and incidents where a suspect was not the intended target are not included in these numbers. O f f i c e r I n v o l v e d S h o o t i n g s average shots fired per incident 25 FID 2008 Officer Involved Shooting Report. 26 FID 2008 Officer Involved Shooting Report. 27 FID 2008 Officer Involved Shooting Report. 28 Chief s Report 1/12/09. 29 Chief s Report 1/12/09. 23
2 0 0 8 O I S I N C I D E N T BY B U R EAU/DIVISION 3 0 Central and South Bureau account for 76 percent of all OIS within the City of Los Angeles. Number of Incidents by Bureau 15 13 5 4 5 O f f i c e r I n v o l v e d S h o o t i n g s Central Valley South West Outside City Central 2 Hollenbeck 4 Newton Northeast Rampart 3 3 3 Devonshire 0 Foothill 1 Mission 0 North Hollywood 1 Van Nuys 1 West Valley 77th Street Harbor Southeast Southwest Hollywood 1 Pacific 0 West Los Angeles 1 Wilshire Number of Incidents by Area 2 4 4 3 2 2 24 30 FID 2008 Officer Involved Shooting Report.
2 0 0 8 O I S I N C I D E N TS W EAPONS RECOVERED 3 1 There was no weapon seen in three incidents. All of the incidents involved OIS Type I or II. In four incidents, a gun was seen, but not recovered at the termination of the event. A microphone stand and a battery charger were used to simulate a weapon in two separate incidents. In one incident, a vehicle was used in an attempt to hit the officer. In another incident, the officer was attacked and the suspect attempted to disarm him. 30 25 25 20 15 10 5 0 Weapons Recovered 5 5 4 4 3 Guns Edged Weapons Replica Other Guns/Not Recovered None Types of Guns 20 O f f i c e r I n v o l v e d S h o o t i n g s 2 1 2 Assalt Rifle Shotgun Semi-Auto Pistol Revolver 31 FID 2008 Officer Involved Shooting Report. 25
2 0 0 8 O I S S U S P ECT INFORMAT I O N 3 2 There were 48 suspects involved in the 42 OIS incidents. 27 suspects had prior violent crime arrests. Nine suspects had prior narcotics arrests. Status 23 Four suspects had prior violent crime and narcotics arrests. 16 O f f i c e r I n v o l v e d S h o o t i n g s Six suspects had no prior arrests. Two suspects remain outstanding. Suspect Demographics 94 percent of the suspects were male. 60 percent of the suspects were Hispanic. The youngest suspect was 17 and the oldest was 56. Eight percent of the suspects had prior MEU contacts. 56 percent of the suspects were documented gang members. 21 percent of the suspects were third strike eligible. 52 percent of the suspects were on parole or probation. 24 Age 9 Parole 45 Male 29 Probation None/Unk Gender Race 3 Female 11 15 7 3 1 2 0 2 2 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 Unk Asian Black Hispanic White Unknown 26 32 FID 2008 Officer Involved Shooting Report.
2 0 0 8 G A N G E N F O RCEMENT D E TA I L O I S 3 3 There are approximately 400 gangs and 41,000 documented gang members in the City of Los Angeles. 34 LAPD has 21 Area GED units and 4 Bureau GED units. Each unit averages approximately 10 to 15 officers. 35 Guns were recovered in 100 percent of the incidents. 100 percent of the suspects had prior arrests. 81 percent of the suspects had prior convictions for violent offenses, the other 19 percent had prior convictions for narcotics offenses. OIS Incident by Bureau 6 4 1 0 Central South West Valley OIS Incident by Day 3 3 2 1 1 1 0 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday O f f i c e r I n v o l v e d S h o o t i n g OIS Incident by Hour 6 0 2 3 0001-1200 1201-1600 1601-2000 2001-0000 33 FID 2008 Officer Involved Shooting Report. 34 Department Resources. 35 Department Resources. 27
A n i m a l S h o o t i n g s, C R C H, H S, I C D, K 9, L E R I, U D 28
OTHER CAT EGORICAL USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS 3 6 17 13 8 9 9 2 4 Animal CRCH HS ICD K9 Contact LERI UD A N I M A L S H O OTINGS 3 7 In 2008, the number of Animal Shooting Incidents have been consistent with the average number of shootings in the past three years. One incident involved a mountain lion shooting while the officer was off duty. The other incidents involved vicious dogs. The majority of animal shootings occurred between Wednesday and Friday, making up over 76 percent of all animal shootings. Valley 4 23% West 1 6% Central 2 12% South 10 59% Fri 4 23% Sat 1 6% Sun 1 6% Thur 6 35% Mon 2 12% Tues 0 0% Wed 3 18% A n i m a l S h o o t i n g s, C R C H C A ROTID RESTRAINT CONTROL HOLDS 3 8 There were two CRCH Incidents in 2008, which is consistent with the average for the past three years. Suspects did not obtain any visible injury and were released for booking. One officer sustained minor injuries. 36 UOFRD Database, Tracking System. 37 UOFRD Database, Tracking System. 38 UOFRD Database, Tracking System. 29
H EADSTRIKE 3 9 There were eight Headstrike incidents, which is consistent with the average number of Headstrike incidents in the past three years. 4 HS Incidents by Bureau Six out of the eight Headstrike incidents were inadvertent or accidental. 2 2 0 Central South Valley West Impact Weapons C R C H, H S, I C D 1 2 2 1 1 1 Baton Flashlight Pistol Shotgun Taser Other* *One incident involved an application of deadly force where an officer deliberately kicked a suspect in the head, in defense of life. I N - C U STO DY D EAT H 4 0 There were nine In-Custody Death incidents in 2008, which is consistent with the average for the past three years. Three of the nine incidents remain under investigation, at the time of writing this report. Three of the suspect deaths were attributed to drugs; two to natural causes; three to suicide; and one unknown. Only two of the nine incidents involved non-lethal force, but the deaths were attributed to drugs. 30 39 UOFRD Database, Tracking System. 40 UOFRD Database, Tracking System.
K 9 CONTACTS WITH HOSPITA L I Z AT I O N 4 1 There were four K9 Contact with Hospitalization incidents in 2008. K9 suspect searches have decreased over the past four year period. In 2005 there were 542 searches, 515 in 2006, 470 in 2007, and 429 in 2008. Find Ratio 56.83% 57.09% 62.55% 53.85% In 2008, out of the 429 searches, the K9 found 231 suspects. Out of the 231 finds; the K9 made 52 contacts and only four required hospitalization. 2005 2006 2007 2008 Contact Ratio 19.81% 20.75% 23.13% 22.51% 2005 2006 2007 2008 CUOF (Hospitalization) Ratio 0.00% 0.68% 0.34% 1.73% 2005 2006 2007 2008 L AW ENFORCEMENT R E L AT E D I N J U RY INVESTIGAT I O N S 4 2 In 2008, the number of LERI Incidents has been consistent with the average number of LERIs over the past three years. Three incidents involved officers conducting a take down subsequent to a foot pursuit. Four incidents involved suspects armed with an edged weapon and a less lethal projectile device was used. One incident involved a suspect struck in the face during arrest, causing injury. LERI by Bureau Central South Valley West 0 1 3 4 K 9 C o n t a c t, L E R I One incident involved a suspect with pre-existing medical problems whose arm was broken during handcuffing. Out of City 1 41 UOFRD Database, Tracking System. 42 UOFRD Database, Tracking System. 31
U N I N T E N T I O N A L D I S C H A RGES 4 3 There were 13 Unintentional Discharges in 2008, which is higher than the average from the previous three years. Officer Rank Gun Type Sergeant 2 Shotgun 1 Detective 1 S/W Revolver 2 U n i n t e n t i o n a l D i s c h a r g e Police Officer 3 Police Officer 2 Recruit/Police Officer 1 Officer Age 25-30 31-35 36-40 1 41-45 1 46-50 2 > 50 1 Duty Status 3 3 4 4 4 Glock Semi Beretta Semi 1 Length of Employment 0-5 years 6-10 2 11-15 2 16-20 1 21-25 2 > 25 1 Activity Type 5 9 7 6 6 7 Off Duty On Duty Cleaning/Dry Fire Inadvertent Trigger Press 32 43 UOFRD Database, Tracking System.
N o n - C a t e g o r i c a l U s e o f F o r c e 33
2008 Non-Categorical Use Of Force Incidents Year End Report C O N T E N T Pg 35 Non-Categorical Use of Force Incident Classifications 36 Adjudication Process and Findings 37-38 2006-2008 Statistical Comparisons by Bureaus 39 Occurrence by Time, Day, & Officer s Source of Activity 40 Suspect Activity or Conditions Associated w/ NCUOF 41 Force Options Used 42 LAPD Officers Involved in NCUOF Incidents 43 Injuries to Officers During NCUOF 44 Injuries to Subjects During NCUOF 34
NON-CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE CLASSIFICATIONS The term Non-Categorical is not defined in the Consent Decree, but is incorporated in the written use of force policy contained in LAPD Manual Volume 1/240.10. The vast majority of use of force incidents within the LAPD are categorized as NCUOF incidents and investigated by Department supervisory personnel within the individual field commands. An event where an LAPD officer uses reportable, non-lethal force on a person (herein referred to as subject) is documented in a formal NCUOF Report. For the purposes of conducting NCUOF investigations, incidents are initially classified by the investigating supervisor as either Level I or Level II. An incident would be investigated as a Level I when: 1. An allegation of unauthorized force is made regarding the force used by a Department employee; or, 2. The force used results in a serious injury, such as a broken bone dislocation, an injury requiring sutures, etc., that does not rise to the level of a CUOF; or, 3. The injuries to the subject upon whom force was used are inconsistent with the amount or type of force reported by the involved Department employee; or, 4. Accounts of the incident provided by witnesses and/or the subject of the use of force substantially conflict with the involved employee s account. Level I NCUOF investigations require additional investigative efforts including the completion of an Incident Overview and the tape-recording of the subject on whom the force was used and all other non Department employees. All other reportable NCUOF incidents that do not meet Level Icriteria are reported as Level II incidents. The following are not reportable as NCUOF incidents: The use of a C-grip, firm grip, or joint lock to compel a person to comply with an employee s direction, which does not result in an injury or complained of injury; The use of force reasonable to overcome passive resistance due to physical disability, mental illness, intoxication, or muscle rigidity of a person; Under any circumstances, the discharge of a less-lethal projectile weapon that does not contact a person; or, Force used by an organized squad in a crowd control situation, or a riotous situation when the crowd exhibits hostile behavior and does not respond to verbal directions from Department employees. N o n - C a t e g o r i c a l U s e o f F o r c e I n c i d e n t s 35
ADJUDICATION PROCESS N o n - C a t e g o r i c a l U s e o f F o r c e I n c i d e n t s All NCUOF incidents are reviewed by the officer s chain-of-command to ensure compliance with the law, the Department s use of force policy, as well as, adherence to tactical standards and training. All NCUOF incidents are reviewed by individual commanding officers where a finding for the force used and tactics employed by the officer are evaluated. Each officer who uses force during a NCUOF incident is given separate findings for the force and tactics. These findings are bifurcated to better evaluate the actions of the officer leading up to and during the incident (tactics) and the reasonableness of the actual force options used by that officer. The Department s Chief of Staff, through the UOFRD is the final authority in reviewing and adjudicating NCUOF incidents. The force used by an officer during a NCUOF incident is adjudicated as either: In Policy/No Action, In Policy/Non-Disciplinary Action,and Out of Policy/Administrative Disapproval. A NCUOF foundin Policy/No Actionindicates the force used by the officers was within policy and standards. The force used by an officer is considered In Policy/Non-Disciplinary Actionwhen the force used was within policy, but the officer s future performance would benefit from some additional supervisory action such as training. A determination of Out of Policyindicates that the force used by the officer violated the Department s use of force policy. FINAL ADJUDICATION 44 YEAR NCUOF INCIDENT FINDINGS FOR TACTICS TOTAL OFFICERS IN POLICY / NO ACTION IN POLICY / NON-DISCIPLINARY ACTION OUT OF POLICY 2008 1074 872 201 1 2007 1887 1578 300 9 2006 1840 1556 277 7 TOTALS 4801 4006 778 17 YEAR TOTAL OFFICERS NCUOF INCIDENT FINDINGS FOR FORCE USED IN POLICY / NO ACTION IN POLICY / NON-DISCIPLINARY ACTION OUT OF POLICY 2008 1021 962 58 1 2007 1816 1719 93 2 2006 1802 1714 82 6 TOTAL 4639 4395 233 9 Less than one half of one percent of NCUOF incidents in 2006 and 2007 were found Out of Policy/Administrative Disapproval. Officers received findings of Non-Disciplinary Action in 15 percent of UOFRD incidents in 2006 and 2007 for Tactics, and in five percent of incidents for the actual force types used. 36 44 Teams II UOFS.
NCUOF INCIDENTS BY YEAR & LEVEL 45 YEAR NCUOF INCIDENTS LEVEL I / LEVEL II 2008 1557 148 / 1409 2007 1699 180 / 1519 2006 1692 197 / 1495 Overall NCUOF incidents declined eight percent Department-wide between 2006 and 2008 with Level I incidents declining 25 percent. NCUOF INCIDENTS BY GEOGRAPHIC BUREAU 46 BUREAU 2008 2007 2006 CENTRAL 491 (31.5%) 469 (27.6%) 419 (24.7%) SOUTH 461 (29.6%) 502 (29.5%) 529 (31.3%) VALLEY 328 (21.1%) 386 (22.7%) 408 (24.1%) WEST 245 (15.7%) 308 (18.1%) 298 (17.6%) OUTSIDE 32 34 38 TOTAL 1557 1699 1692 N o n - C a t e g o r i c a l U s e o f F o r c e I n c i d e n t s 45 Teams II UOFS. 46 Teams II UOFS. 37
GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS BY BUREAU 47 N o n - C a t e g o r i c a l U s e o f F o r c e I n c i d e n t s FREQUENCY OF NCUOF In the past three years, LAPD officers have made over 870,000 contacts per year, but less than one percent of contacts result in a UOF incident. In 2008, the Department investigated 1,557 NCUOF incidents, comprising only 0.16 percent of the contacts. Most NCUOF incidents occur during the course of an arrest, but the vast majority of arrests do not involve force. The frequency of force used in 2008 declined when compared to 2006 or 2007. PERCENTAGE OF ARRESTS INVOLVING NCUOF INCIDENTS 48 YEAR TOTAL ARRESTS NCUOF INCIDENTS PERCENTAGE 2008 169,337 1557 0.92 2007 168,795 1699 1.01 2006 170,455 1692 0.99 38 47 Teams II UOFS. 48 ITD, Database.
F o r c e I n c i d e n t s OCCURRENCES BY TIME, DAY AND OFFICER S SOURCE OF ACTIVITY In 2008, a NCUOF incident was mostly likely to occur on Friday, Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 6PM and Midnight when officer(s) were either conducting selfinitiated, observational activities or responding to a radio call. Less than one percent of involved officers were off-duty at the time of the NCUOF incident. N o n - C a t e g o r i c a l U s e o f 39
SUSPECT ACTIVITY OR CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED N o n - C a t e g o r i c a l U s e o f F o r c e I n c i d e n t s In 2008, just over half of all NCUOF incidents (799 of 1554) took place when a police officer responded to a disturbance. In nearly a quarter of all NCUOF incidents (356), an assault on an officer was a factor. Alcohol was involved in 447 incidents (29 percent) (including vehicular DUI); some other drug usage was involved in 247 incidents. 231 NCUOF incidents occurred subsequent to a foot pursuit and at the conclusion of 39 vehicle pursuits. In comparison, according to Contacts between Police and the Public (2002), published by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 21 percent of use of force incidents involved disturbances. Also, the BJS study (Ibid) documented that 24 percent of the subjects involved in a use of force incident argued with, cursed at, or insulted the officer. The International Association of Chiefs of Police in 2001 published their report, Police Use of Force in America. The report indicated that intoxication from drugs and/or alcohol was also a big predictor of use of force incidents. The next chart and graph depicts the most common subject activities or conditions which were present prior to NCUOF incidents during 2008. There are a total of 16 conditions that can be captured in TEAMS II. For each incident, there may have been more than one condition that existed. For example, officers may have responded to a family dispute involving a person with a mental illness, who had been consuming alcohol. Each condition would be reported separately and the cumulative number of conditions will be more than the number of NCUOF incidents. SUBJECT CONDITIONS OR ASSOCIATED ACTIVITY AT NCUOF INCIDENTS 2008 49 CONDITION/ACTIVITY NO. TIMES OBSERVED % OF ALL NCUOF INCIDENTS Disturbance 799 51.3% Alcohol 396 25.4% Assault on Officer 356 22.9% Crime in Progress 263 16.9% Other Drugs 247 15.8% Mental Illness 226 14.5% Gang Member 213 13.7% Family Dispute 195 12.5% 40 49 TEAMS II UOFS.
FORCE OPTIONS USED In 2008, some type of physical force accounted for 88.3 percent of all force options used during NCUOF incidents. The most commonly used force option device, OC spray, accounted for 4.7 percent of incidents, followed by the TASER with 3.9 percent of incidents. When a force option device was deployed, OC Spray was used 40 percent of the time, followed by Taser (34 percent), Baton (20 percent) and Beanbag Shotgun (6 percent). The following chart lists the frequency of each force options used in 2008. Some of the 1,557 NCUOF incidents involved more than one type of force option. For example, in a single NCUOF incident, the involved officers may have used a chemical agent, a baton strike, and finally a take down and physical force to control a subject. Each force option used was counted separately and included in the below chart. 185 Force Options Used 2008 50 107 219 32 TASER Baton OC Spray Beanbag Shotgun Devices 492 Strikes, Kicks & Punches 1238 Joint Locks & Firm Grip 1337 Physical Force & Body Weight Physical Force Techniques 775 257 Takedowns Other (Nonspecified) The most recent National Institute of Justice (NIJ) report entitled, Use of Force by Police Overview of National and Local Data (1999), included a study of six urban law enforcement agencies 51. NIJ found that a push or a grab was the most prevalent force option used by officers, accounting for 42 percent of the options of force used. LAPD statistics from 2008, indicated that physical force and body weight accounted for 32 percent and joint locks and firm grip accounted for 31 percent of force types used by officers. N o n - C a t e g o r i c a l U s e o f F o r c e I n c i d e n t s 50 Teams II UOFS. 51 Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC Police Department, Colorado Springs, CO Police Department, Dallas, TX Police Department, St. Petersburg, FL Police Department, San Diego, CA Police Department and San Diego County, CA Sheriff s Department. 41
LAPD OFFICERS INVOLVED IN NCUOF INCIDENTS 44 percent of officers involved in a NCUOF incident had between one and five years of service with the Department, followed by 26 percent who had between five and ten years of service. N o n - C a t e g o r i c a l U s e o f F o r c e I n c i d e n t s Male officers accounted for 88.4 percent of officers involved in a NCUOF incident in 2008, a slightly higher percentage than their overall representation in the Department (81.3 percent). 70.7 percent of officers involved in a NCUOF incident in 2008 were assigned to Uniformed Patrol, followed by 11.9 percent assigned to Gang Impact Teams or Bureau Gang Enforcement Details. 91 percent of officers involved in a NCUOF were in uniform, 4.3 percent were in plainclothes and 2.8 percent were in an undercover capacity. Officers assigned to uniformed task force assignments (i.e., Safer City Initiative units in Central, Mission and Southwest Areas, OVB Task Force and Office of Operations Crime Reduction and Enforcement of Warrants Task Force) accounted for 7.7 percent of NCUOF incidents in 2008. 42
INJURY TO OFFICERS Visible injuries suffered by officers during NCUOF incidents were similar in type as those suffered by subjects (i.e. contusions and abrasions) but not in frequency. The following chart details the four categories used to capture injuries to officers during NCUOF incidents. Visible injuries include contusions and bruises, lacerations, punctures, and scratches and abrasions. Officers may have more than one visible injury (i.e. a contusion and an abrasion), which would each be counted separately in TEAMS II. INJURIES SUSTAINED BY OFFICERS 52 2008 2007 2006 OFFICER INJURY NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Visible Injury 575 17.3 587 17.2 560 16.8 No Injury 2606 78.5 2694 79.0 2633 79.2 Complained of Pain 116 3.4 116 3.4 118 3.5 Fractures 20 0.6 10 0.2 12 0.3 TOTALS 3317 3407 3323 N o n - C a t e g o r i c a l U s e o f F o r c e I n c i d e n t s 52 TEAMS II UOFS. 43
INJURIES TO SUBJECTS N o n - C a t e g o r i c a l U s e o f F o r c e I n c i d e n t s The following chart details the four categories used to capture injuries to subjects during NCUOF incidents. Visible injuries include contusions and bruises, lacerations, punctures, scratches and abrasions. Subjects may have more than one visible injury (i.e., a contusion and an abrasion), which would each be counted separately in TEAMS II. Injuries to subjects that result in hospitalization are not captured in this report since all hospitalizations resulting from use of force incidents are considered a CUOF and investigated by FID. Injuries, such as dislocations or lacerations requiring sutures, which do not result in hospitalization but are treated prior to the subject being booked into jail are captured in this report under the Visible Injury or Fractures field and are investigated as Level I NCUOF incidents. INJURIES SUSTAINED BY SUBJECTS 53 2008 2007 2006 SUBJECT INJURY NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Visible Injury 1559 60.4 1695 66.9 1614 64.7 No Injury 562 21.7 299 11.8 333 13.3 Complained of Pain 420 16.2 497 19.6 498 19.9 Fractures 40 1.5 42 1.6 47 1.8 TOTALS 2581 2533 2492 NIJ survey (Ibid) found that the most common injuries suffered by a subject were bruises or abrasions, which accounted for 48 percent of all subject injuries. That is consistent with LAPD findings, which indicated that contusions or bruises and scratches or abrasions accounted for 65 percent of visible injuries suffered by subjects in 2008. Teams II data from 2007 and 2006 is also surprisingly consistent year to year with 64 percent and 63 percent, respectively. Overall, the injuries that incurred during NCUOF incidents are relatively minor with the majority of subjects (83 percent) being treated and released for booking at a Jail dispensary or a contract hospital. 44 53 TEAMS II UOFS.
USE OF FORCE REVIEW DIVISION Published December 02, 2009 Contact Information: Jim McDonnell, First Assistant Chief Office of Chief of Staff 100 West First Street, Suite 1077 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-486-8740 Use of Force Review Division 100 West First Street, Suite 257D, Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-486-5950 Use of Force Review Division Captain Scott Sargent 213-486-5950 Administrative Section Lieutenant Jeff Wenninger Lieutenant Greg Yacoubian 213-486-5960 Categorical Review Section Lieutenant Brian Pratt 213-486-5960 Non-Categorical Review Section Lieutenant Brian Gilman 213-486-5970 Tactics Review Section Sergeant Derek O Donnell 213-486-5980 About the Division The Los Angeles Police Department, Use of Force Review Division is comprised of the following sections: Administration Section, Categorical Review Section, Non-Categorical Review Section and Tactics Review Section. UOFRD reports directly to the Office of the Chief of Staff and is responsible for providing administrative support for the review and adjudication of all Categorical and Non-Categorical Use of Force incidents. Use of Force Review Division coordinates and schedules the Use of Force Review Boards for Categorical Use of Force incidents and provides staff support to the Board members. Use of Force Review Division also coordinates and schedules K9 Contact Review Boards for incidents in which a member of the public is bitten by a Department canine and requires hospitalization. Use of Force Review Division maintains and updates Categorical and Non-Categorical Use of Force databases and prepares statistical information pertaining to use of force incidents. Additionally, the Tactics Review Section provides Department-wide use of force training, oversees the Department s General Training Update and Tactical Debrief process, as well as, publishes the quarterly Tac Ops newsletter and maintains the UOFRD website(lan). 45
Categorical Use of Force 2008 Year End Report Non Categorical Use of Force Use of Force 46 www.lapdonline.org