[Santa Clara County] City of Gilroy '#8CANWAIT' Movement

"As a City, we recognize that the application of force is a matter of critical concern both to our community and police officers."

 Blog note: This article refers to a Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report

As a City, we recognize that the application of force is a matter of critical concern both to our community and police officers. As witnessed recently, rogue and criminal behavior by police officers is antithetical to the oath and standards upheld by the Gilroy Police Department. It is important to recognize that our officers are involved in thousands of interactions yearly that are completed peacefully and without having to utilize any force. Often these interactions are uncertain and rapidly evolving; and at times, with individuals with violent tendencies and/or under the influence of mind-altering substances. In these situations, it is impossible to predict outcomes; but, we expect our officers to carry out their duties with the sanctity of life in mind, without prejudice, and applying only the level of force that is reasonable given the totality of the circumstances and facts available to them at the time of the encounter. Our goal is to complete every encounter peacefully.

Our hiring and training standards are governed by the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST). These mandates provide guidelines for officer training to include field training, perishable skills, advanced, and specialized unit training. A link to the Gilroy Police Department's policy addressing these points is included below. This is a best practice policy that the majority of police agencies in the State of California subscribes to.

The Gilroy Police Department's fundamental duty is to serve the community, safeguard lives and property, protect against violence and disorder, and to respect the constitutional rights of all. Again, our goal is to complete every encounter peacefully. As such, our policy on the following topics is as follows:

• Chokeholds and Strangle Holds: NOT approved under our current policy. With a "chokehold," pressure is put on the front of the neck and throat, cutting off air. This is NOT an approved technique and not taught. The Caratoid Control Hold is an approved force option. When applied, an officer applies pressure, rendering the person unconscious and allowing a window of opportunity for the officers to apply handcuffs. Typically, this is applied when other force options are not being effective or not practical given the circumstance or surroundings. Most individuals with no other underlying issues (stimulant psychosis) will regain consciousness within 20-30 seconds.
• Require De-escalation: De-escalation training is an important and comprehensive part of our training. Most of our Use of Force Training has a De-escalation component. Most of our officers have also participated in an 8 or 40 hours Crisis Intervention Training as reported recently in a Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report. In the near future, we will also be adopting a "De-escalation Policy" which will further advance our efforts to complete every encounter peacefully.
• Require a warning before shooting: Providing warnings; when feasible, before the application of force is already part of our policy. And recently it became part of State policy when a new requirement of 835 Penal Code was adopted. This new requirement states: 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.
• Exhausting all alternatives before shooting: The following language is from case law and in our Use of Force Policy: "Officers shall use only that amount of force that reasonably appears necessary given the facts and circumstances perceived by the officer at the time of the event to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose. The reasonableness of force will be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at the time of the incident. Any evaluation of reasonableness must allow for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force that reasonably appears necessary in a particular situation, with limited information and in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving. Given that no policy can realistically predict every possible situation an officer might encounter, officers are entrusted to use well-reasoned discretion in determining the appropriate use of force in each incident. It is also recognized that circumstances may arise in which officers reasonably believe that it would be impractical or ineffective to use any of the tools, weapons or methods provided by the Department. Officers may find it more effective or reasonable to improvise their response to rapidly unfolding conditions that they are confronting. In such circumstances, the use of any improvised device or method must nonetheless be reasonable and utilized only to the degree that reasonably appears necessary to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose. While the ultimate objective of every law enforcement encounter is to avoid or minimize injury, nothing in this policy requires an officer to retreat or be exposed to possible physical injury before applying reasonable force."
• Duty to Intervene: We don't have a "Duty to Intervene" policy, but we do have multiple standards of conduct policies that address the requirement of our officers to report misconduct and excessive use of force. Recently enacted state law will make it an officer's duty to intercede.
• Banning shooting at moving vehicles: The following language is from section 300.4.1 of our policy: "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, unless the officer is able to articulate extenuating circumstances to warrant such action."
• Establish Use of Force Continuum: Because it's impossible for any continuum model to provide for an entire set of circumstances in each very unique situation, the "use of force continuum" is not currently accepted as best practice. We currently have a "force options" model which is widely accepted as the optimal policy alternative and has become the standard across the country. The "force options" model reflects the objective reasonableness standard as its premise, based on the totality of the facts known to the officer given the specific situation.·         Requiring all Use of Force to be reported: This is a requirement per our policy and further captured with the requirements of AB71.

In the face of the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances of this last year and the certainty of challenges yet to come, our Gilroy Police Department remains committed to courageously ensuring the safety of our community through ongoing training, review of best practices, building community, and respect for all.

Patch.com
This press release was produced by the City of Gilroy. The views expressed here are the author's own.
June 5, 2020