1 Oceanside Justice Coalition Revised July 2020 OCEANSIDE JUSTICE PACKAGE 2020 The following recommendations set in the Oceanside Justice Package 2020 request that the City of Oceanside : 1) Modify OPD's policies and procedures to satisfy the 8 Can't Wait Model - OPD's current policies and procedures as advertised on OPD's social media platforms and website on June 5th, 2020, are not sufficient to satisfy the policy standards set by the 8 Can't Wait campaign. 2) Establish an independent, transparent, and funded Citizens Review Board to oversee incidents of police misconduct and use of excessive force - As recommended by the San Diego County Grand Jury on May 25th, 2016, and supported data. 3) Create a Race and Equity Commission for Oceanside - The City of Oceanside acknowledges that the history of discrimination in the United States of America continues to affect the privilege and/o r lack of opportunity for people in the City. - The City of Oceanside acknowledges that equity occurs when differences such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, economic status, sexual orientation/gender identification, veteran status, marital status, lan guage, age, disability, etc. do not determine a person’s economic, social, or political ac c ess. 2 Oceanside Justice Coalition Revised July 2020 Oceanside Justice Coalition Analysis and Re commendations to the Oceanside Police Department , City Manager, and City Council July 2020 8 Can't Wait Campaign's Recommended Policy and Procedures on the Ban of Chokeholds and Strangleholds Oceanside Police Department’s Current Policy and Procedures on the Ban of Chokeholds and Strangleholds “Ban Chokeholds and Strangleholds Neck holds are prohibited. Law enforcement officers shall not use chokeholds, strangleholds, lateral vascular neck restraints, carotid restraints, chest compressions, or any other tactics that restrict oxygen or blood flow to the head or neck. This is a complete ban on this use of force, regardless of the situation.” “Volume I, Section 501.05 Use of Force Prohibited. The use of force is not authorized under the following circumstances: a) The use of the arm - bar restraint, or any other hold that intentionally brings pressure against the trachea or windpipe of a person. b) The use of t he Carotid Restraint. c) For purposes of punishment. d) For purposes of obtaining a confession, admission, or similar statement or assistance. e) If it exceeds a level of intensity reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose for which it is approved. f) If it c ontinues beyond the point where resistance or aggressive action has been overcome, or where further force is no longer reasonably necessary. g) If used to accomplish a purpose beyond the authority of the involved member.” O ceanside Justice Coalition Analysis: OPD's language is unclear and ambiguous. I f the holds listed under items (a) and (b) are completely banned, then why do items (c) - (g) outline particular situations and/or conditions in which use of chokeholds are also not acceptable? It imp lies that there are some situations and/or conditions that the holds are acceptable, as long as (c) - (g) don’t apply. This creates ambiguity and provides exceptions to the rule. These exceptions further the problem as they can be used as interpretive elem ents to justify the use of such force. Therefore, if this is a complete ban, as recommended by 8 Can’t Wait, then the policy should be clear and definitive. OPD's policy should be unambiguous to the public similar to the language listed above in the 8 Ca n’t Wait Model, which clearly states it is a complete ban on this use of force, regardless of the situation. 3 Oceanside Justice Coalition Revised July 2020 8 Can't Wait Campaign's Requirement of De - escalation Oceanside Police Department’s Requirement of De - escalation: AB - 392 Prior to using physical, non - deadly and/or deadly force, all law enforcement officers must use proper de - escalation techniques to decrease the likelihood that law enforcement officers will resort to force and to increase the likelihood of cooperation betwe en law enforcement officers and members of the public [SFPD Policy, NOPD Policy] Law enforcement officers shall employ effective communication techniques to engage with individuals who are not compliant with orders by establishing rapport, using the appro priate voice intonation, asking questions , and providing advice to defuse conflict and achieve voluntary compliance before resorting to force options [ SFPD Policy ]. i. Where feasible, all law enforcement officers must determine whether an individual’s failure to comply with an order is the result of one of the following factors [Seattle PD Policy]: (Medical conditions, mental impairment, developmental disability, physica l limitation, language barrier, drug interaction, behavioral crisis, and other factors beyond the individuals control). ii. After evaluating whether the individual’s failure to comply with an order is based on one of the factor’s listed above, the law enforce ment officer must then determine whether physical force and what level of physical force, is necessary and appropriate to resolve the situation in a safe manner. iii. Under no circumstances may a law enforcement officer use force on an individual for insolence , or for running away where the individual does not pose a current, active, and immediate threat to the safety of bystanders, other law enforcement officers, or the primary law enforcement officer. [Settlement Agreement between the U.S. DOJ and Cleveland P D] i. UOF conducted with respect for human rights, dignity and sanctity of human life. ii. Deadly force used only when necessary in defense of human life. Evaluate each situation and use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible iii. Decision to use force evaluated carefully and thoroughly iv. Decision to use force made based on totality of circumstances known or perceived by officer at the time without benefit of hindsight v. Recognition that individuals with physical, mental health, de velopmental or intellectual disabilities may affect their ability to understand or comply with officers’ commands vi. Use objectively reasonable force to effect arrest, prevent escape or overcome resistance O ceanside Justice Coalition Analysis: OPD's policy does not provide a description or explanation of its definition of de - escalation. T he 8 Can't Wait model clearly establishes the practices that are involved with de - escalation. The 8 Can't Wait Model provides a succinct list of de - escalation tacti cs that an officer should employ before resorting to force , 4 Oceanside Justice Coalition Revised July 2020 which enforce s accountability and efficient reporting. B y utilizing the 8 Can't Wait model , an officer will have to report whether or not they employed the listed de - escalation techniques before r esorting to violence. Therefore, OPD should adopt a version of the yello w highlighted paragraph of the 8 Can't Wait model for the purposes of establishing exactly what de - escalation entails and the expectations that an officer should uphold before resorting to f orce. A second issue is that OPD's policy omits any form of language that suff ices to meet the last paragraph in the 8 Can't Wait model ( green highlighted ) OPD policy lacks the green highlighted paragraph which further demonstrates OPD’s ambiguity by having specific language that prohibi ts use of force under particular situations and/or conditions The primary objective of utilizing de - escalation tactics and adopting the 8 Can't Wait model is to avert use of force incidents in preventable situations. Thus, the use of force on an individual who is perceived by an officer as being di srespectful and/or who does not pose a threat should never be tolerated because it is a preventative situation that can be mitigated by employing the de - escalation tactics list ed in the 8 Can't Wait model. B y adopting the green highlighted language , OPD will have a clear stance on when use of force is prohibited. Hence, use of force should only be utilized after the listed de - escalation tactics have been employed. 5 Oceanside Justice Coalition Revised July 2020 8 Can’t Wait Campaign’s R equirement of Warning Before Shooting Oceanside Police Department’s Current Requirement of Warning Before Shooting The law enforcement officer shall issue a verbal warning, when feasible, and have a reasonable basis for believing that the warning was heard and understood by the individual to whom the warning is directed prior to using deadly force against the individual. Section 515.01 When a Police Officer May Use Deadly Force. When the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for the following reasons: a. To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person b. To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the offi cer reasonably believes the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. c. When feasible the officer shall, prior to the use of deadly force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace office r and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the suspect is aware of those facts. d. Officers shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to themselves , if the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person. Oceanside Justice Coalition Analysis : OPD's policy provides exceptions not found in the 8 Can't Wait model to the requirement of warning before shooting OPD's policy utilizes the blue highlighted exception, "unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the suspect is aware of t hose facts." The 8 Can’t Wait model does not have any such exception to the requirement of warning before shooting. OPD’s inclusion of the language of exceptions (“unless the officer...”) allows various elements of interpretations of what an officer deems o bjectively reasonable grounds. This would allow officers the opportunity and discretion to always state and claim that it was objectively reasonable that a suspect was aware that deadly force might be used on them. The requirement of officer s to document h ow they ca me to the conclu sion of the individual ’s awareness is not explicit, leaving ambiguity, and furthers the problem of interpretation to justify the use of deadly force Transparency is critical in officer related shooting incidents . When such incidents should occur, t he “unless the officer...” portions in the OPD poli cy highly increase the probability of non - transparency , inevitably leading to dis trust issues with the community. Moreover, the “unless the officer...” portions in the OPD policy allow for exactly the kind of individual officer discretion, and broad coverage under the law, that the 8 Can’t Wait model was structured to eliminate Therefore, OPD's current policy will not suffice the 8 Can't Wait model on this matter unless the blue highli ghted portions of the OPD policy are removed. 6 Oceanside Justice Coalition Revised July 2020 8 Can’t Wait’s Recommendation of Exhausting All Means Before Shooting Oceanside Police Department’s Current Policy on Exhausting All Means Before Shooting Require officers to exhaust all other alternatives, including non - force and less lethal options, prior to resorting to deadly force. To further the aim of minimal reliance on force, all law enforcement officers must carry on their person at all times at least one less - lethal weapon. [Seattle P D policy] Volume I, Section 120.04 Use of Force An officer's use of force shall be in accordance with law and established Department procedures. The officer shall not use more force t han is reasonable under the circumstances. Volume I, Section 501.01 It is general policy of the Department that police officers and others acting under the authority of the Department are authorized to use only that degree of force which, b ased on the totality of the circumstances, is appears reasonably necessary to accomplish a legitimate and legal purpose. The use of any force is governed by the Department’s policy and procedure as it relates to a specific force option. The use of deadly force is authorized only when exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Department Firearms and Shooting Policy The use of the police baton is authorized only when exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Department Baton Policy. AB - 392 i. UOF conducted with respect for human rights, dignity and sanctity of human life ii. Deadly force used only when necessary in defense of human life. Evaluate each situation and use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and f easible iii. Decision to use force evaluated carefully and thoroughly iv. Decision to use force made based on totality of circumstances known or perceived by officer at the time without benefit of hindsight v. Recognition that individuals with physical, mental health, developmental or intellectual disabilities may affect their ability to understand or comply with officers’ commands vi. Use objectively reasonable force to effect arrest, prevent escape or overcome resistance Oceanside Justice Coalition Analysis : OPD's policy does not state in any manner for the purposes of exhausting all other alternatives, “ all law enforcement officers must carry on their person at all times at least one less - lethal weapon." [Seattle PD policy]. 7 Oceanside Justice Coalition Revised July 2020 The 8 Can't Wait model utilizes deliberate vocabulary such as, "must," "all," and "at all times," when establishing the requirement that officers carry on their person at least one less - lethal weapon. There have been cases where an officer only had their gun on their person, an d no less lethal option was available for them to use. If their firearm is the only weapon on them, officers can state they were justified in using it. Thus, it is unlikely that an officer would effectively be able to exhaust all other alternatives, unless they were always expected and required to "carry on their person at all times at least one less - lethal weapon." Therefore, OPD needs to adopt the requirement that "all law enforcement officers must carry on their person at all times at least one less - leth al weapon." Without the addition of similar vocabulary inserted into the OPD policy, it will fail to suffice the 8 Can't Wait model. 8 Can’t Wait Campaign’s Duty to Intervene Oceanside Police Department’s Duty to Intervene All law enforcement officers must intervene when they reasonably believe that a law enforcement officer is using or is about to use unnecessary or excessive force in violation of this mission and must report the incident to a supervisor. Failure to report incidents involving the use of unnecessary or excessive force will result in disciplinary action. [SFPD Policy] Additional Duties: i. All members shall render and, if necessary, call for medical assistance and other aid to anyone in police custody who the members know, or has reason to know, is injured, and to anyone who complains of injury. ii. The Police Department recognizes that through early intervention it may be possible to avoid the use of excessive force and prevent harm to the community. In this effo rt, the Department will implement early intervention systems to identify members who are at risk for engaging in the use of excessive force and/ or other misconduct and to provide those members with retraining and appropriate behavioral interventions, re - a ssignments or other appropriate consequences to eliminate that risk. Volume I, Section 115.02 Duty to Report Misconduct i. Members, who become aware of possible misconduct by another member, shall immediately notify a supervisor. Any member who observes seri ous misconduct shall take appropriate action to cause the misconduct to immediately cease. The fact that a supervisor is present and not taking immediate action to stop the misconduct does not relieve other members present from this obligation. Experience, rank or tenure are not factors in knowing the difference between right and wrong, and do not provide an excuse for failing to take appropriate action. Although supervisors are responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct, all department members are responsible for preventing, in so far as they are able, and reporting misconduct. The responsibility to report misconduct begins the moment the person becomes a member of the Oceanside Police Department. Oceanside Justice Coalition Analysis : OPD's p olicy does not define the standard of "serious misconduct" or "appropriate action," it does not provide disciplinary measures for failure to intervene or report misconduct, and it is lenient in reporting standards. 8 Oceanside Justice Coalition Revised July 2020 The use of “serious" and “appropriate ac tion” without defining the standards provides officers with an interpretive approach. There is a significant amount of leeway and flexibility as to when and how they may choose to intervene to stop misconduct they are witnessing. T he term “serious” is very subjective and permits the opportunity for an officer to claim the misconduct wasn’t “serious” as a defense for failing to act. The 8 Can't Wait model states that officer intervention is necessary when an officer reasonably believes another officer is usi ng or about to use unnecessary or excessive force. Thus, it is based on a reasonable standard. Officers understand this standard because it is the same standard utilized for stopping and briefly detaining a person on the streets, which is conducted on a ro utinely basis. OPD's policy also fails to state what procedures are deemed "appropriate action." Complying police departments of the 8 Can't Wait model, have used the following language to describe intervention procedures, "an officer shall immediately t ake reasonable action to attempt to mi tigate such use of force. This may include verbal intervention or, if appropriate, physical intervention." OPD's policy does not comply with the 8 Can't Wait model because it fails to provide disciplinary actions for failure to intervene or report misconduct. The duty and responsibility to intervene and report misconduct carries little weight , if any at all, if the duty and responsibility is not supported by disciplinary actions for failure to do so. An officer involved in any such incident that fails to intervene or report misconduct is negligent in practice and a contributor to injury. In personal injury law, the elements of negligence are duty, breach of duty, actual and proximate cause, and damages. Thus, an officer's failure to intervene and/ or report m isconduct meets these elements I t is only appropriate that an officer is reprimanded for their negligence. Complying departments of the 8 Can't Wait model, have used the following standards in dis ci pl inary measures, "Failure to report incidents of excessive or unnecessary force will result in disciplinary action, up to termination" and/or "failure to act may potentially expose an officer to criminal charges and/or civil liability." OPD's reporting standards provides too much flexibility. Hence, all members who witness misconduct or possible misconduct of another member shall immediately notify a supervisor in writing. One member shall not report misconduct or possible misconduct for other s; each member shall be individually obligated to make their own report to a supervisor. In addition, m aking all members obligated to report the misconduct prevent s any member from claiming they thought or assumed someone else reported the misconduct (this rationale is often used as justification for why they failed to say anything ) Lastly, all misconduct or possible misconduct conduct shall be reported to a supervisor in writing within 24 hours of the incident OPD currently does not provide this timefra me in their written policy. Without these obligations in place , the current OPD policy allows the possibility to notify a supervisor with the possibility of no documentation ever resulting. Thus, every notification as well as reports should be in writing. Therefore, OPD cannot state that the department's current polices meet the standards of the 8 Can't Wait model until it modifies the standards for duty to intervene and enumerate intervening procedures. OPD policy also needs to provide disciplinary actions for failure to intervene and/or report misconduct and obligate all witnessing members to provide written notifications and reports of misconduct to supervisors within a required timeframe such as 24 hours. 9 Oceanside Justice Coalition Revised July 2020 8 Can’t Wait Campaign’s Ban Shooting from Moving Vehicles Oceanside Police Department’s Ban Shooting from Moving Vehicles i. Officers shall not discharge a firearm at or into a moving vehicle unless the occupants of the vehicle are using deadly force, other than the vehicle itself, agains t the officer or another person, and such action is necessary for self - defense or to protect the other person; shall not intentionally place themselves in the path of, or reach inside, a moving vehicle; and shall attempt to move out of the path of a moving vehicle. ii. Moving into or remaining in the path of a moving vehicle, whether deliberate or Inadvertent, SHALL NOT be justification for discharging a firearm at the vehicle or any of its occupants. An officer in the path of an approaching vehicle shall attempt to move to a position of safety rather than discharging a firearm at the vehicle or any of the occupants of the vehicle. [Philadelphia PD Policy] iii. Officers should not shoot at any part of a vehicle in an attempt to disable the vehicle. iv. Officers shall not discharge a firearm from his or her moving vehicle. Shooting accurately from a moving vehicle is extremely difficult and therefore, unlikely to successfully stop a threat of another person. [SFPD Policy] Volume I, Section 515.03 An officer should not discharge a firearm at or from a moving vehicle except as reasonably necessary for self defense or defense of another when the suspect has used deadly force or when the officer meets the criteria as set forth in paragraph 515.01(b). Volume I, Section 515.01 When a Police Officer May Use Deadly Force. When the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for the following reasons: a. To defend against an imminent threat of de ath or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person; b. To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. c. When feasible, the officer shall, prior to the use of deadly force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has ob jectively reasonable grounds to believe the suspect is aware of those facts. d. Officers shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to themselves, if the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bo dily injury to the officer or another person. Oceanside Justice Coalition Analysis : OPD's policy terminology and language to describe its procedures in dealing with moving vehicles is problematic OPD needs to modify the following in Volume I, Section 5 15.03 : - “ should” to “shall ” and remove “ reasonably” from “reasonably necessary for self - defense ...” - “ or defense of another when the suspect has used deadly force....” to “or defense of another when the suspect is actively using deadly force.” These modificati ons prevent use of deadly force against a person who previously used deadly force, which is a significant distinction from a suspect who is actually using deadly force at present time. 10 Oceanside Justice Coalition Revised July 2020 To adhere to the 8 Can't Wait model, OPD needs to add the following to its policy, “moving into or remaining in the path of a moving vehicle, whether deliberate or inadvertent, shall not be justification for discharging a firearm at the vehicle or any of i ts occupants. An officer in the path of an approaching vehicle shall attempt to move to a position of safety rather than discharging a firearm at the vehicle or any of the occupants of the vehicle.” In addition, OPD needs to add , “Officers shall not disch arge a firearm from his or her moving vehicle. Shooting accurately from a moving vehicle is extremely difficult and therefore, unlikely to successfully stop a threat from another person and unnecessarily increases the risk of injury or death to unintended targets.” Lastly, OPD needs to insert the following sentence, “An officer shall not shoot at any part of a vehicle in an attempt to disable the vehicle." Therefore, OPD needs to modify and add the policies and procedures stated above in order to suffice th e polic i es and procedures advocated by the 8 Can't Wait model. 11 Oceanside Justice Coalition Revised July 2020 8 Can’t Wait Campaign’s Use Of Force Continuum 8 Can’t Wait Campaign’s Use Of Force Continuum Establish a force continuum that restricts the most severe types of force to the most extreme situations and creates clear policy restrictions on the use of each policy weapon and tactic. LEVELS OF FORCE. Officers shall strive to use the minimum am ount of force to accomplish a lawful purpose, including levels of force lower than the level of threat. Officers shall not, under any circumstances, use a level of force higher than the level of threat. i. L ow Level Force. The level of control necessary to interact with a subject who is or displaying passive resistance or active resistance. This level of force has a low probability of causing injury and includes physical controls such as control holds and other weaponless techniques. ii. Intermediate For ce. This level of force poses a foreseeable risk of significant injury or harm, but is unlikely to cause death. Intermediate force will only be authorized when officers are confronted with active or assaultive aggression and an immediate threat to the safe ty of officers or others. Certain force options such as OC spray, impact projectiles, and baton strikes are intermediate force likely to result in significant injury. iii. Deadly Force. Any use of force substantially likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, including but not limited to the discharge of a firearm, the use of an impact weapon under some circumstances, other techniques or equipment, and certain interventions to stop a subject's vehicle. [SFPD Policy] Volume I, Section 501.01 It is g eneral policy of the Department that police officers and others acting under the authority of the Department a re authorized to use only that degree of force which, based on the totality of the circumstances, is appears reasonably necessary to accomplish a legitimate and legal purpose. The use of any force is governed by the Department’s policy and procedure as it relates to a specific force option. The use of deadly force is authorized only when exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Department Firearms and Shooting Policy. The use of the police baton is authorized only when exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Department Baton Policy. Volume I, Section 501.05 Use of Force Prohibited. The use of force i s not authorized under the following circumstances: a. The use of the arm - bar restraint, or any other hold that intentionally brings pressure against the trachea or windpipe of a person. b. The use of the Carotid Restraint. c. For purposes of punishment. d. For purposes of obtaining a confession, admission, or similar statement or assistance. e. If it exceeds a level of intensity reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose for which it is approved. f. If it continues beyond the point where resistance or aggressive action has been overcome, or where further force is no longer reasonably necessary. g. If used to accomplish a purpose beyond the authority of the involved member. Oceanside Justice Coalition Analysis : OPD's use of force continuum does no t describe the difference between low level force, intermediate force, and deadly force. Thus, it fails to clearly state and enumera t e when each use of force shall be applied and the use of force options appropriate for each level. T he 8 Can't Wait model clearly states and enumerates the different levels of force from low to deadly as well as describes what force options are available for each level. In contrast, OPD's policy does not provide a continuum of force from low to deadly, so it is unclear how OP D distinguishes clear policy restrictions on the use of each policy weapon and tactic. To eliminate this confusion and ambiguity, the 8 Can't Wait model details 12 Oceanside Justice Coalition Revised July 2020 its continuum an enumerated structure, which e stablishes a clear understanding of the different force options that are available to an officer depending on the level force that is necessary to employ. Therefore, OPD's policy lacks clear policy restrictions on the use of each policy weapon and tactic. In order, for OPD's policy to meet the standards set by the 8 Can't Wait model it needs to clearly state and enumerate when each use of force shall be applied and the use of force options appropriate for each level. 13 Oceanside Justice Coalition Revised July 2020 8 Can’t Wait Campaign’s Require Comprehensive Reporting Oceanside Police Department’s Require Comprehensive Reporting Require officers to report each time they force or threaten to use force against civilians. Comprehensive reporting includes requiring officers to report whenever they point a firearm at someone, in addition to other types of force. When an officer points any firearm at a person, it shall be considered a reportable use of force. Such use of force must be reasonable under the objective facts and circumstances. [SFPD Policy] i. To promote transparency and accountability of actions involving the use of force against civilians, law enforcement officers shall report any use of force involving physical controls when the subject is injured, complains of injury in the presence of officers, or com plains of pain that persists beyond the use of a physical control hold. Shall also report any use of force involving the use of personal body weapons, chemical agents, impact weapons, ECWs (i.e. Tasers). Vehicle interventions, K - 9 bites, and firearm. ii. An officer shall notify his or her supervisor immediately or as soon as practical of any reportable use of force. A supervisor shall be notified if an officer receives an allegation of excessive force. iii. A supervisor shall conduct a use of force evalua tion in all cases involving a reportable use of force. PROCEDURE: OFFICER'S RESPONSIBILITY Any reportable use of force shall be documented in detail in an incident report, supplemental incident report, or statement form. Officers shall complete use of f orce reports fully and truthfully. Descriptions shall be in clear, precise and plain language and shall be as specific as possible. When the officer using force is preparing the incident report, the officer shall include the following i nformation: i. The subject's action allegedly necessitating the use of force, including any threat presented by the subject; ii. Efforts to de - escalate prior to the use of force; and Volume III, Section 801.01 Duty to D ocument All Police Incidents. Members are required to document all police incidents on the appropriate report form. This applies to incidents resulting from citizen calls for service and to incidents resulting from the officer's personal observation. Volume III, Section 840 Use of Force Reporting. When physical force is used, it shall be reported. Volume III, Section 840.01 Any use of physical f orce (including a police canine bite or vehicle pursuit) must be reported to a supervisor and the officer will include in their Arrest or Officer’s Report the fact that physical force was used. NOTE: Some of the specifics in the Use of Force reports may include: - A clear, detailed description of the incident, including any application of weapons or restraints - The identity of all individuals involved in the incident - The specific reasons for the application of force - Witness statements - Description of injuries 14 Oceanside Justice Coalition Revised July 2020 if not, why not ; i ii. Any warning given and if not, why not; iv. The type of f orce used; v. Injury sustained by the subject ; vi. Injury sustained by the officer or another person; vii. Information regarding medical assessment or evaluation, including whether the subject refused; viii. The supervisor's name, rank, star number and the time notified. Each law enforcement officer must submit a report without coaching or assistance from other law enforcement officers present during the incident. Oceanside Justice Coalition Analysis : O PD's policy fails to include that it shall be considered a reportable use of force if an officer points any firearm at a person OPD's policy also fails to enumerate and provide the definitive information that an officer shall include in their incident report. OPD's policy makes no mention that an ytime an officer points any firearm at a person, it shall be considered a r eportable use of force. Complian t police departments with the 8 Can't Wait model have utilized the following language , "Any use of force or show of force by a member of the departme nt shall be documented completely and accurately in an appropriate use of force report [Escondido PD Policy] ." Because OPD's policy does not make this signifi c a n t level of reporting a requirement , it clearly does not meet the 8 Can't wait Model. I n additi on, OPD's policy fails to enumerate and provide the definitive information that an officer shall include in their incident report. Specifically the following information must be included , "if there was a warning given and if not, why not," "the supervisor's name, rank, star number, and the time notified," and "each law enforcement officer must submit a report without coaching or assistance from other law enforcement officers present during the incident." Therefore, in order for OPD's policy to be comprehensive at the standard set by the 8 Can't Wait model, OPD needs to include the requirement that whenever an officer points a firearm at a person it shall be documented in a report. Moreover , OPD reporting procedures also need to be clear and enumerated with the following specific information detailed above. 15 Oceanside Justice Coalition Revised July 2020 OPD's N eed for a Citizens Review Board as R ecommended by the San Diego County Grand Jury on May 25th, 2016 and S upported D ata The Executive Summary of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing states, “Trust between law enforcement agencies and the people they protect and serve is essential in a democracy. It is key to the stability of our communities, the integrity of our criminal justice system, and the safe and effective delivery of policing services.” In this same respect, police oversight will benefit the individual complainant as well as the entire community by promoting transparency, augmenting accountability, and developing trust with the community. On May 25, 2016 the San Diego County Grand Jury recommended that the City of Oceanside, " establish an independent citizen commissions for oversight of police behavior and determine the specific commission model with c ommunity input to ensure acceptance, independence, and accountability. " The Oceanside Police and Fire Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council on policy matters pertaining to safety, police, and fire, and other areas wherein the matter of public safety may be of concern. Thus, the present commission does not provide oversight of police behavior or evaluate use of force or misconduct complaints against officers. According to OPD's Use of Force Data from 2013 - 2017, there was an average of 130 Use of Force incidents during those 5 - years. However, there were only 22 complaints reported and 0 complaints were sustained. It is possible that out of 653 Use of Force incidents reported between 2013 - 2017 there could have been many more complaints made if the community trusted how police misconduct was evaluated. Hence, i t is highly unlikely an d questionable that out of 653 Use of Force incidents reported there was no police misconduct or excessive use of force in any of those incidents that would lead to disciplinary actions. On November 15, 2018, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is a bi - partisan agency established by Congress in 1957 published the report Police Use of Force: An Examination of Modern Policing Practices According to the findings in the report, " Repeated and highly publicized incidents of police use of force against persons of color and people with disabilities, combined with a lack of accurate data, lack of transparency about policies and practices in place governing use of force, and lack of accountability for noncompliance foster a perception that police use of force in communities of color and the disability community is unchecked, unlawful, and unsafe. " Similar to millions of people across the nation, many of Oceanside's residents share this perception that police use of force in communities of color and the disability community is unchecked, unlawful, and unsafe It is a naïve notion for city officials to believe Oceanside is not one police misconduct video away from intense public pressure and immense disap proval of local law enforcement. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Police Use of Force: An Examination of Modern Policing Practices report states , "Accurate and comprehensive data regarding police uses of force is generally not available to police departments or the American public. No comprehensive national database exists that captures rates of police use of force. The best available evidence reflects high rates of use of force nationally, and increased likelihood of police use of force against people of color, people with disabilities , LGBT people, people with mental health concerns, people with low incomes, and those at the intersections of these groups." Based on the Officer - Involved Shooting Review published in August of 2019 by the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, which analyzed officer - involved shootings from 1993 - 2017, Oceanside was the location of 27 officer - involved shootings. Only the City of San Diego, which has a drastically larger population than Oceanside, had more incidents. Escondido ranked third with 21 officer - involved shootings, followed by El Cajon with 20 incidents, and then Vista with 19. Cities like Del Mar, Rancho Sante Fe, Solona Beach, Bonsall, or Romona only had 1 or 2 incidents. Between 1993 - 2017, OPD was involved in 19 of the 27 officer - involv ed shootings in Oceanside. That data shows that officer - involved shootings in Oceanside can and will occur. Thus, the data demonstrates that an officer - involved shooting occurs at least once a year in Oceanside. 16 Oceanside Justice Coalition Revised July 2020 According to the May 2020 SANDAG report Fo rty Years of Crime in the San Diego Region , Oceanside has the third largest population in San Diego County as of 2019 with 178,021 residents Based on t he March 2020 S ANDAG report Arrests 2018: Law Enforcement Response to Cri