RCMP commissioner William Elliott's remarks on changes to taser policy

RCMP commissioner William Elliott made the following remarks before the House of Commons standing committee on public safety and national security today (February 12) on the force's use of tasers:

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today, and to provide you with an update on the progress the RCMP has made in relation to its policies, practices, training and reporting requirements relating to Conducted Energy Weapons, or CEWS as we call them.

The RCMP continues to believe that the CEW is a useful tool when it is used in appropriate circumstances by well trained officers and that it contributes to the safety of the public and our police officers. Our obligation, of course, is to ensure our officers are in fact well trained, that our policies are appropriate and that they are followed.

Since the receipt of the report on CEWs by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in June of last year, the RCMP has made a number of improvements to our CEW policies, training, practices and reporting requirements. We believe that the improvements we have made respond to the recommendations made in the Standing Committee’s report. I would like to speak more specifically about each of those recommendations addressed to the RCMP and our subsequent actions.

The first recommendation was that the RCMP classify the CEW as an impact weapon “so that its use can be authorized only in situations where the subject is displaying assaultive behaviour or posing a threat of death or grievous bodily harm...”.

The RCMP has modified and updated its Incident Management Intervention Model or “IMIM” to bring it more into line with the model adopted by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. The term “impact weapon” does not appear on our new IMIM. The alignment of the RCMP’s IMIM with that of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Use of Force Framework contributes to a common vocabulary and common approaches to use of force by police agencies across Canada. This supports enhanced integrated efforts with partner agencies including integrated enforcement units like our Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBETS) and Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams (INSETS). It also supports joint force operations.

On June 18, 2008, all members of the RCMP were instructed that the CEW “must only be used where it is necessary to do so in circumstances Of threats to officer or public safety”. This requirement has subsequently been written into our formal policy.

The fact that deploying the CEW involves risk was also re-enforced at that time and in subsequent communication and in our CEW policy.

The Standing Committee report also called for more independent research to give a clearer indication of potential risk to subjects of CEW deployments. The RCMP fully supports this. I would like to refer to three such studies.

Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center completed a nationwide independent Taser ® study and released its findings in late 2007. It was the first injury epidemiology study to review Taser deployments and to assess the overall risk and severity of injuries in real world conditions, according to Dr. William Bozeman, the lead investigator and an emergency medicine specialist. In Dr. Bozeman’s own words, “the injury rate is low and most injuries appear to be minor. These results support the safety of the devices.”

Dr. Bozeman released, just last month, the results of another three-year review of CEW uses by six U.S. law enforcement agencies. Out of 1,201 criminal suspects who were subdued by a CEW, 99.75 per cent suffered either no injuries at all or only mild injuries such as scrapes and bruises. Dr. Bozeman does caution that police and medical personnel should be aware of the potential for injury, and look for evidence of injury following a CEW application. But he says “these weapons appear to be very safe, especially when compared to other options police have for subduing violent or combative suspects.” the study is published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, a peer-reviewed scientific journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The third study I would like to mention is a special National Institute of Justice interim report, entitled “Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption”, released in June of last year. It should be noted that this particular study referred to the device commonly called the “Taser ®” as a Conducted Energy Device, or CED. The study concluded, “although exposure to CED is not risk free, there is no conclusive medical evidence within the state of current research that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death from the direct effects of ced exposure. Field experience with CED use indicates that exposure is safe in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, law enforcement need not refrain from deploying CEDs, provided the devices are used in accordance with accepted national guidelines. The potential for moderate or severe injury related to CED exposure is low.”

We would be happy to provide the committee with copies of these papers. The RCMP continues to follow and to support independent research, as well as enhanced data collection and analysis.

Our own experiences also re-enforce the benefits of CEWS in appropriate circumstances. Let me give you one recent example.

Last December two of our members were dispatched to a house and they subsequently reported the following:

A call was received from a father whose son was wielding a knife. As our members arrived at the house, they were informed that the son had taken some pills and was also armed with a shotgun and an axe. As our officers drove closer to the house they saw an individual coming out with an axe in his hand, walking toward their police car. The young man raised the axe with both hands and slammed it down on the hood of the police car. The officers shouted at the man to drop the axe, but he did not comply. One constable drew his Conducted Energy Weapon, while the other drew his pistol to provide lethal force over watch. The father of the individual tried to intervene, but the son pushed him aside and then swung the axe at him. The CEW was deployed on the son who immediately dropped the axe and fell to the ground, allowing our officers to gain physical control, handcuff the individual and place him in the police car. The father wept in fear that his son had come to harm, but the son told him he was ok.

If these two members had arrived at this scene without the benefit of CEW training and the presence of a CEW, we believe the son would almost certainly have been killed.

This may have been both a lawful and a necessary act but it would have left a young man dead, his family grieving and our officers having to deal with the trauma of having ended a young man’s life.

The Standing Committee’s report’s second recommendation was that the RCMP revise its policy to provide clear guidelines for use and restrictions for multiple discharges of the CEW. The RCMP’s revised CEW policy restricts the use of CEWs and specifically warns of the hazards of multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW.

Training was the focus of the third recommendation in the committee report, to stress the potential risks that use of the weapon may entail. The RCMP’s revised CEW policy underscores that there are risks associated with the deployment of the device and emphasizes that those risks include the risk of death, particularly for acutely agitated individuals.

Recommendation 4 was that the RCMP require CEW re-certification of its officers authorized to use the weapon at least every two years. In fact, the RCMP’s requirements exceed those recommended by the committee. We now require re-certification every year.

Improvements to training regarding mental health and addiction issues were contained in the report’s fifth recommendation, particularly where these issues coincided with CEW deployments. The RCMP’s national learning and development group has access to CEW incident reports and to the RCMP’s CEW databank to assist in the ongoing assessment of the relevance and adequacy of the RCMP’s training and training standards and to help ensure that modifications are made as necessary. This same group is helping to develop additional scenarios for IMIM training, including to raise awareness of populations who may be at greater risk when a CEW is deployed.

The RCMP’s policies regarding arrest and prisoner care cover evaluation and assessment of a prisoner’s requirements for medical services. Our operational policy section benefits from the perspectives of professional medical organizations such as the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA). This is particularly important in our ongoing efforts to identify and adopt best practices.

The RCMP pays ongoing attention to conferences, reports and research findings to stay current with developments in this field.

The committee’s sixth recommendation was that the RCMP, wherever possible, obtain assistance from psychiatric support staff when an intervention is expected to involve a person suffering from mental illness or drug addiction. We agree but it must be recognized that often police must respond immediately to emergency situations and cannot pre-arrange such support even where it is available. Furthermore, police may not be aware they are dealing with someone in need of psychiatric support until after circumstances have required the use of force.

Nevertheless, we have advised the Commanding Officers in all of our divisions to develop or update protocols in their jurisdictions with local medical emergency personnel for assistance to be provided when it is necessary and practical to do so. At the national level, organizations such as the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians and the Canadian Mental Health Association are working with the RCMP to identify areas of concern and establish best practices.

The last recommendation in the committee’s report that was addressed to the RCMP was recommendation number 12, which listed certain kinds of information that the committee believed should be included in an annual report by the RCMP. The RCMP has committed to detailed quarterly and annual reporting on CEW usage by members of the force. To date two such quarterly reports have been released. Subsequent quarterly reports and our first annual report are in preparation and should be released shortly. All of the information recommended by the committee for inclusion is and will be included in our quarterly and annual reports. The RCMP has also launched a national project entitled “Subject Behaviour Officer Response Reporting” or “SBOR”. This will require RCMP officers to account for all use of force. The “SBOR” has been designed in collaboration with both internal and external stakeholders. This improved reporting will provide information on specific incidents and on trends across the RCMP. It will help our officers articulate in greater detail the circumstances of incidents in which they used force. Our objective is to increase accountability. This reporting should also assist ongoing improvements to policies and training.

In conclusion, let me again thank the committee for having us here today and for your ongoing interest in the important issues relating to the RCMP’s use of CEWS.

My colleagues and I would be happy to respond to any questions.

Thank you.

William J.S. Elliott Commissioner