A recent federal court order has forced the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, CA to place body cameras on it’s correctional officers. An un-named class-action case is ongoing involving disabled inmates and the prison with apparent allegations of routine abuse of disabled inmates by correctional officers. The judge not only ordered body cameras, but also complete video coverage of certain areas of the prison.

Shortly after the ruling came out, local and statewide news outlets such as the Times of San Diego and the Los Angeles Times reported the story. According to their articles, (which do not name the court case or provide a copy of the order) the prison has five months to create policies and get the surveillance system, with body cameras, in place.

Facebook and social media posts involving current and retired officers with experience at the R. J. Donovan Prison are mixed regarding the officers’ feelings about being forced to wear the body cameras.

THE BAD:

There is a stark difference between traditional policing in the community, and policing an inmate population in a prison. The most stark difference is the amount of contact that takes place between officers the those they police. Police officers are supposed to be a “visible presence” in the community, making contact with citizens when they are called, or when they believe a crime has been committed. Police interactions are short and consist mostly of the initial contact and possible followup interviews or courtroom testimony.

Police officers do not involve themselves in the daily living activities of citizens, ensure they eat, have clean clothes on, get to work on time, see the doctor and dentist, receive their mental health treatment, and their living areas are clean and sanitary. Correctional Officers are tasked to remain in constant contact with the inmates they are policing.

Correctional Officers, because they must be completely involved in the lives of inmates have to develop and maintain a high degree of familiarity with inmates. They need to know who the inmates are by name, where they belong, and when they are acting out of character. Correctional Officers, unlike police officers, cannot effectively perform their job functions without developing a relationship, albeit a detached one, with the inmates in their care. The wear of body cameras, in my opinion, might threaten the ability of officers to participate in the social norms required to develop helpful, working relationships with inmates. Socialization includes talking about friends, family, crimes, telling jokes, and helping others work through problems. I find it unlikely that inmates will risk engaging in such behaviors if they think they are on camera.

Body cameras require storage of the video they capture. The non-stop, eight to sixteen hour consistent contact with inmates would require correctional officers to keep the cameras on all the time. This would require a massive infrastructure to accommodate storage. Officers in prisons are approached constantly by inmates, not called to interact with them like police. Correctional Officers cannot know when they might be attacked, when they might use immediate force, or have time to turn on the camera, which leaves the only option constant recording.

Correctional officers deal with confidential informants and materials, and sometimes need to interact with families, medical providers and the like during work hours. The cameras might violate privacy protections for the officers and inmates.

Officers must escort inmates to medical appointments, and often are required to remain in the room during medical exams and procedures. The camera might violate the doctor/patient privacy needs, as well as, HIPPA.

Officers will not be able to discuss confidential matters, conduct investigations, or deal with confidential employment issues unless they are allowed to turn the cameras off; so the policies will be incredibly complex as to the protection of officers personal and professional privacy. Given the need for turning off the cameras, it is likely officers will forget to turn it back on. In such cases, protections must be in place.

Many officers worry that the camera footage will be used by supervisors and administrators to target them for retaliation or harassment. Officers believe that any slip of the tongue, inadvertent comment, or procedural mistake will be used for disciplinary action by administrators and supervisors who don’t like them. This is a valid concern. Nobody is perfect.

THE GOOD:

As apparently intended by the court, wearing body cameras will have a chilling effect on correctional officers who would be abusive toward inmates. There are bad officers, there are abusive officers, there are officers who delight in their own power and in lording over, threatening, and bullying inmates. This is, while disturbing and unfortunate, a fact. It is also a fact that these bad officers are a very small minority in the correctional community. Most good officers become frustrated with their lack of ability to stop fellow officers who abuse, because of fear of a “snitch” stigma, and fear that the bad officer has allies in the upper ranks. Body cameras and increased surveillance will do two things. First, hold questionable officers in check, and second, provide a means of proving correctional officer abuse in order to “weed out” bad officers.

Body cameras will be able to record incidents where officers make mistakes that can result in training opportunities. Officers learn best from their own mistakes, and second best from the mistakes of their partners. The increased surveillance and body cams can give training staff tools to identify training needs and adjust On-the-Job and Classroom training accordingly. On-site supervisors, if video is immediately available, can use it to verify use of force reports and tweak emergency response procedures after incidents to help officers see mistakes close to the time of the events and enhance officer safety in the future.

It has been my experience that inmates file false complaints against officers. There are generally Inmate/Parolee Grievance Forms (CDC-602), and Citizen’s Complaint on Peace Officers (Staff Complaints). Body and surveillance camera footage can be used to prove that officers were not violating procedures.

Body camera footage is also a great tool for showing the public and other law enforcement officers the difficulties inmates pose on a daily basis. Their uncooperative, defiant, and violent behaviors are imagined, but seldom seen by the public and courts. perhaps it is time that the reality of the job were better known to the public, police agencies, and the courts.

Time and again citizens have made complaints against police officers and claimed all kinds of abuse. Their claims are taken up and passed around social media and the news media as if true, until departments release the full footage. It would be a good thing for the CDCR to have the same opportunity to set the record straight.

The ability to defend against frivolous lawsuits could be enhanced by the wearing of body cameras. It is often the case that incident reports are poorly written, and reviewers fail to identify issues that need clarification. As a result, inmates see opportunities to file lawsuits that are based upon the “facts” as determined by poorly written reports alone. The addition of video could do much to enhance the defense of false allegations made in lawsuits.

The body cam footage could be used in the disciplinary process by hearing officers and senior hearing officers. The footage could be used to identify participants in riots, and other incidents, to make inmates more accountable for their actions, and the hearing process more fair.

Overall, I think the benefit of adding the cameras far outweighs the potential disadvantages. Clear and enforceable policies would have to be instituted. Officers would have to be well trained in the use and care of the cameras, and receive detailed policy instruction regarding the body cameras. While the court seems to have imposed what might seem a punishment to the R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility at first bluish, it may just be a great gift in disguise.

Good or Bad? Both. Like everything else in life, there are positives and negatives. It is my opinion that there are more positives than negatives, as long as, the CDCR builds privacy and employment protections into the policy to protect the officers required to wear the cameras.

Recently, there have been several reports of police using firearms and shooting suspects from behind. This may seem a bad thing, but it is not always so. There are several reasons why such a use of force might be not only acceptable, but well within the basics of approved deadly force options.

What is Deadly Force?

Deadly force is the use of any force likely to result in death. In most cases, this is by use of a firearm (gun), however, can be by other means as well.

Non deadly force is a use of force that is not likely to result in death, such as pepper spray, batons, physical force, chemical agents like tear gas, and less lethal projectiles.

The first thing to understand about the use of a firearm is what constitutes a firearm (gun), and what might look like a gun, but is not.

A gun is a weapon that is used to fire a lethal projectile, such as a lead, steel, or copper bullet. These come in different types, sizes and calibers. A launcher is a weapon used to fire less lethal projectiles, such as wood blocks, bean bags, rubber bullets and sponge rounds. These types of projectiles may possibly cause death, but are unlikely to do so.

A launcher is used to fire less lethal projectiles. Sometimes, a firearm can be used to fire less-lethal projectiles such as a shotgun used to fire bean bag rounds. Usually, this kind of shotgun is marked to identify it as a launcher. Often the shotgun will be painted green, safety orange, or some other color to make it easily recognizable as a launcher platform. In this article will deal with the use of a gun fired at a suspect from behind. I will write about launchers at a later time.

The knee jerk reaction of most members of the news media and persons in the general public is that it is always bad to “shoot someone in the back”. A similar term, “stabbed in the back” connotes mean spirited gossip spoken out of earshot of the person spoken about. As a society, Americans have an aversion to anything done “behind the back” as dishonorable and wrong. This, however is not the case in law enforcement use of force.

It is not always wrong or bad to shoot a suspect from behind.

Example: A person standing over a victim on the ground, repeatedly stabbing the victim, is shot from behind by an officer acting to stop the victim from being killed. In such a situation, time is of the essence, so the officer has no extra time to move to the front of the assailant.

Example: An officer finds him or herself behind an active shooter at a school and has a clear shot to stop the attack. The officer must act immediately to save the lives of children and school staff.

Example: A convicted felon is attempting to escape the secured perimeter of a high security prison and is facing away from the officer in the armed tower who must use a firearm to stop the escape.

In every instance above, officers were faced with a situation that pitted them against a decision to use deadly force to stop the immediate threat of death or great bodily injury of defenseless victims, or stop escaping felons who are known to pose a violent and extreme risk to the public. In each case, it is understandable that the officer had no time to get in front of the suspect. It is also notable that had the officer not acted immediately, the officer would also be subject to personal, professional, and civil liability for failure to act immediately.

So the next time a news story makes hay of an officer shooting a suspect from behind, try to remember that doing so is not always wrong. It is often best to reserve judgement for the experts and the legal system.

Having been involved in law enforcement for many years, and having testified as a Use of Force expert in Federal and California Superior Courts,I have been watching the developments of the George Floyd incident with a critical eye to the force used against Mr. Floyd. I have discussed the case with peers, and have formed my own opinion, based solely upon admittedly incomplete information.

In saying there is incomplete information, I am admitting I believe that the press in the United States is known to misunderstand and sometimes misrepresent events depending upon the position, political affiliation, or prejudices of the reporter. Because of this, I seek information from multiple news sources and try to extract the personal opinions of reporters from facts generally agreed upon by all witnesses.

As far as I can tell, all sources agree on the following:

The Floyd incident began with police officers being called to a location regarding counterfeit money. Mr. Floyd may have been under the influence of an unknown substance. Mr. Floyd indicated he did not want to be placed in a police car. He was forced to the ground by officers and held there by Officer Chauvin for several minutes. During the time the officer was holding Mr. Floyd on the ground, the officer was holding Mr. Floyd in place using his knee on the suspect’s neck. During this time, Mr. Floyd died. The allegations against the officers involved are that Officer Chauvin contributed to the death of Mr. Floyd by holding his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for an unreasonable length of time, and the cover officers failed to intervene to stop improper application of force.

Force can be used by officers to effect a lawful purpose. For instance, Officers can use reasonable force to subdue an attacker, overcome resistance, effect custody (arrest, detain, and place restraints),and gain compliance with a lawful order.

Reasonable force is best determined by deciding if any other officer who is objective, trained, and competent would find the application of that force to be necessary and lawful given similar facts and circumstances. In other words, would any of 100 or more other trained, objective and competent officers have done the same thing given the same exact situation? If so, then the officer was reasonable.

In this case, the initial application of force appears (only based upon my understanding of events as reported, and not official evidence) to have been appropriate. The officers had cause to be at the scene (they were responding to a citizen’s request for police service), and they had cause to believe Mr. Floyd had committed a crime. The application of restraints was appropriate as Mr. Floyd was being placed under arrest. When Mr. Floyd initially resisted placement in a police car, force was used to overcome the resistance and Mr. Floyd was eventually placed on the ground. It would appear that to this point, force was appropriate. It is after Mr. Floyd reached the ground that the officer(s) actions became inappropriate, in my opinion.

Once Mr. Floyd was on the ground, there were several options available to the officers that would not necessitate a knee applied to the neck for several minutes. The most reasonable and easiest approach could have been to simply sit him up and have him cross his legs, yet remain on the ground. In this sitting position, it is unlikely that Mr. Floyd would have a chance of escape or evasion as long as an officer stood close behind him ready to stop him from standing. Such a position allows the suspect to breathe and gives officers an ability to lessen the need for the application of force.

Did other officers at the incident scene have a duty to intervene when it should have been reasonably apparent that Officer Chauvin was violating policy and possibly causing an injury that could have led to the death of Mr. Floyd? The simple answer, although filled with nuances, is yes. If the officers knew there was a violation, yes. If the officers knew Mr. Floyd was in danger of losing his life, or receiving great bodily injury, yes. The operative issue in my view (again, given little information) is that the cover officers at the scene had to have known that there was a violation. The apparent fact that the other officers did not intervene, might indicate that they had seen such a restraint technique, that is a knee applied to the neck of a restrained suspect, in the past often enough that they did not consider it a problem. It is also possible the cover officers knew there was a violation occurring, but chose not to intervene due to peer pressure, not wanting to seem like a “snitch”, or because they feared reprisals from other officers. It is also possible that the cover officers were not closely watching the actions of Officer Chauvin because they were watching the gathering crowd and bystanders to provide cover to the arresting officer. Regardless the reason, there should have been some intervention when Mr. Floyd began saying he could not breathe.

The final point I would make on this topic is that when an officer places a citizen in restraints, that officer assumes responsibility for the health and safety of the restrained person. That means that if the person complains of any physical discomfort, the officer has the responsibility to give at least some attention to the complaint. For instance a complaint of handcuffs being too tight should always cause the officer who placed the restraints to make a physical inspection of the restraints as soon as safety and security concerns allow for it. If a restrained person complains that they cannot breathe, the officer has the duty to evaluate the person’s physical position, ensure the subject has a clear airway, and is not in a position that could lead to positional asphyxiation. It is my opinion that Officer Chauvin, having improperly placed his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck, should have removed his knee when the complaint was made, and rolled Mr. Floyd to his side, or optimally, placed him in a sitting position.

In discussing this incident with other law enforcement professionals with experience in policing and corrections, I did not find any who believed that Officer Chauvin’s actions were appropriate or reasonable regarding his holding a knee to Mr. Floyd’s neck. A check of law enforcement related groups on social media revealed the same result. There were no officers, active or retired, who thought that Officer Chauvin was appropriate in his application of force, specifically keeping his knee on a subject’s neck for several minutes and until the subject expired.

So, was the use of force by Officer Chauvin reasonable? Many objective, trained, and competent past and present officers would not have done what Officer Chauvin did, and they did not consider as having been necessary to accomplish a lawful purpose. Therefore, I believe the force while initially reasonable transitioned to unnecessary and excessive. Unfortunately, and tragically, a man is dead because officers failed to follow proper procedure, accept responsibility for the life and health of a man they placed in restraints, and act reasonably when the subject indicated he was in distress.

The take away for all officers reading this is simple. YOU have the responsibility to protect the health and safety of any person who is restrained and in your care. That includes giving attention to any complaints of injury or discomfort. Your failure to do so can result in severe and lasting consequences.

It is afternoon, and I am dropping off my mail in the administration building of Kern Valley State Prison.  Since I came off the line in 2006, I have held a job in the Administration building.  Every afternoon I take the stack of things that have to be mailed and put them in the various mailboxes on the other side of the building.  As I was returning to my office one afternoon I saw two young officers leaving the prison at the end of their shifts. 

“Did you have a good day?” I asked them.

As one nodded in agreement the other said, “Just another day in the war zone.”

 I don’t know why, but it hit me like a brick.  After all the years I have been in and around the line and couldn’t put into words what it has been like for me a random, young officer put the last 25 years of my working life into words.

I was so stunned all I could do was pretend to give supportive and sage advice, “Don’t take it home guys, just leave it here until tomorrow.” 

“Never.” They replied as they walked away. 

We all three knew it was a lie. It was a comforting lie, though. Saying that we never take the war zone home helps us pretend that the war is over at quitting time, but it isn’t, and we know it.  The simple words the officer spoke were the most honest I have heard in many years.  We work in a war zone.  Anybody who thinks this job, especially in the maximum-security prisons, is not a daily, voluntary trek into an active combat zone is either woefully unaware of their surroundings, or never worked the line.  Like the military, we get up in the morning and put on our uniform, and body armor.  We report in and check out all the equipment we will need for the day.  Keys, Cuffs, Chemical Grenades, Baton, Pepper Spray, Radio, Personal Alarm and the like.  We report to our operational area and receive our briefing.  We relieve the last post and assume the duties.  We check our guns, count our rounds, inventory and check all our systems, and then we start the business of trying to survive the horrors we are bound to face, courtesy of the inmate population. 

We are riot control, ambulance service, peacekeepers, and could be easily compared to an occupying force of a small town. We don’t live in the town, but we patrol it and try to keep the residents from killing us, and each other, until we are relieved.  The difference is, there aren’t any nice and appreciative residents in our town.  The townsfolk, every one of them, would happily see us dead or dying. 

During our eight to sixteen hours in the war zone we witness violence, death, loss, suffering, and depravity that is unimaginable to most people.  We do not have the luxury of stopping to puke or pausing to cry.  We do not have the luxury of time to deal with our feelings and gain perspective. 

When we are operating in the war zone we must immediately respond, we have to isolate, contain, and control every incident.  Every inmate is a threat and every critical incident is potentially fatal to officers and inmates.  Every moment must be regarded as precious time we must use to keep things in control, interdict drugs, gangs, weapons, prostitution, vice, rape, and murder.  We do not get to pause and discuss our feelings. 

When we see, and respond to terrible things, the administration does not stop all programs while special grief and stress counseling is provided.  Such a thing is not afforded to us and, honestly, most of  us would reject it if it were.  Such careful attention to psychiatric injury and emotional health only happens after major incidents in the community.  We have post trauma counselors, but they are not professional therapists.  They are prison staff trying to keep us together until we seek our own private, professional help.  We love and appreciate them but they only stop the bleeding for a short time in the psychological sense.  We drive on.  We clean up the blood, carry out the dead, and report back to our post for the next mission.  We do our duty. 

We bear witness to evil daily and memorialize it in reports.  It is one thing to experience a traumatic or stressful event, it is another to force oneself to remember every detail, still fresh in one’s mind, then create a well written, clear, precise, accurate report that will possibly be used in a courtroom.  Things most people are well advised to try to forget, we must try to remember.  We will testify to these things in a court of law.  We must look when others would turn away because we must bear witness in the interest of justice.  These things go home with us.  These things stay in our minds day in and day out.  We remember them in our sleep, when we are walking with our kids at Disneyland, when we say our vows, when we take communion, when we contemplate suicide, when we have a drink, and when we hear a bump in the night.  We keep them in our heads and they become permanent.  We live a war zone until we retire, die, or quit.  But the war zone also lives in us.

Like veterans returning from war we suffer post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in alarming numbers. Some studies say about one third of all correctional officers, about thirty one percent, have experienced traumas in the workplace significant enough to warrant a diagnosis of PTSD.  The National Comorbidity Survey indicates that the prevalence of PTSD in the general United States population is 3.5 percent. This would indicate that the general population is subject to PTSD almost ten times less often that Correctional Officers. A National Institutes of Health study that can be found in the winter, 2009, issue of the National Institute of Health “Medicine Plus” magazine stated that the occurrence of PTSD  is,  “as many as 10 percent of Gulf War (Desert Storm) veterans.” The report also indicated that eleven percent of veterans of the war in Afghanistan and twenty percent of Iraqi war veterans suffer from PTSD.  PTSD diagnoses are less common in all these groups of veterans than are found associated with Correctional Officers, thirty one percent of whom have PTSD.

These percentages seem to baffle the mental health community, but they do not surprise me at all considering that prison officers remain in the war zone for decades. I am not trying to minimalize the contribution of the veterans I reference here.  I hate it that they were injured serving their country. I am, however, saying that the officers holding the line are doing so at great peril to their physical and mental health.  They do so in a war zone, and the war zone is real.  Many like me do it for well over twenty years.  They have two weeks paid vacation annually as compared to military members at 30 days’ vacation per year.  And it has to be enough.

The war zone is as it should be.  It is isolated, contained, and controlled by my family in green.  It does not spill out into the streets of our cities.  We keep the war zone behind the walls and in our heads.  It effects our families and friends, but they do not see or truly understand it. And so we carry our burden through our career, retirement, and then to the grave.  We cannot forget.  We are trained not to. Remembering the unthinkable has become habitual.