RCMP Quarterly Report On Conducted Energy Weapons: 2008-01-01 to 2008-03-31

• Executive Summary
• Conducted Energy Weapon
• Deployments
• Effectiveness
• Occurrence Type
• Subject Behaviour
• Subject Injuries
• Presence of Alcohol and /or other Substances
• Response to previous quarter’s recommendations
• Recommendations
• Appendix “A” Regular Members on Strength
• Appendix “B” CEW procurement and disposal during the reporting period
• Appendix “C” Number of regular members trained on the CEW
• Appendix “D” Presence of Alcohol and/or other Substances by Subject Behaviour
• Appendix “E” Divisional Map

Executive Summary

This report on the RCMP’s use of the conducted energy weapon (CEW) covers the period January 1, 2008 to March 31, 2008 (“the reporting period”) and provides details on deployment type, effectiveness, occurrence type, perceived subject behaviour, subject injuries and reported presence of alcohol and/or other substances. In a majority of cases, the CEW proved to be an effective intervention option in addressing subject behaviour. There were situations where the CEW was ineffective, due to factors such as: weapon malfunction; heavy or loose clothing worn by the subject; or ineffective probe deployments.

The statistical information for this report was derived from the data contained in the RCMP’s CEW database.

This report indicates the following:

• As of March 31, 2008 there were 17,533 regular members employed with the RCMP and 12,399 total members trained/re-certified on the CEW from 2001 to March 31, 2008.
• There were 304 CEW deployments on 298 subjects during the reporting period.
• 266 (87.5%) of these deployments were effective in controlling the subjects’ behaviour.
• Incidents of causing a disturbance, assaults and domestic disputes accounted for 159 (50%) of all occurrence types in which a CEW was deployed.
• Responses to mental health or suicidal subjects accounted for 37(12%) of all deployments.
• In 52 incidents (17.4%) members deployed the CEW even though they reported facing a threat of death or grievous bodily harm.
• Alcohol and/or use of other substances was suspected/confirmed in 252 incidents (82.9%).
• Of the 304 CEW deployments, no injuries were sustained in 258 (86%), minor primary injuries were sustained in 41 (14%) , and 2 (1%) received outpatient treatment.
• CEW deployments decreased from the previous CEW quarterly report period to this quarter by 33 (9%).

The following is recommended:

• Incorporate a more accurate method of recording the location of incidents in the reporting process.

Conducted Energy Weapon - Deployments

The activation or cycling of the CEW is possible in two different modes, namely:

• Push stun mode: pressing or pushing an activated CEW onto an individual’s body, allowing electrical energy to be transferred to that individual;
• Probe mode: deploying an activated CEW by discharging two electrical probes, equipped with small barbs that hook onto a person's clothing or skin, allowing electrical energy to be transferred to that person.

Usage of a CEW is articulated in Operational Manual Policy (OM) Part 17. The “usage” of a CEW as an intervention option is explained in OM 17.7.2.4 and occurs when:

• The CEW Challenge is issued. The CEW Challenge is the declaration by a member before using the CEW: “Police, stop or you will be hit with 50,000 volts of electricity!”; or
• The CEW is presented. Presence is when the CEW is drawn from its holster and restores control in a situation by presence alone, whether or not the CEW Challenge is given; or
• The CEW is activated. Activation occurs when the safety is released on the CEW and/or the CEW is cycled in push stun or probe mode.

After each CEW usage, members are required by policy to notify their supervisor as soon as practicable and to complete the Form 3996 (CEW Usage Report) prior to the end of their shift. Form 3996 documents the details concerning the use of the CEW in a given incident.

To address the issue of proper completion of form 3996, the National Use of Force Section provided all RCMP divisions with a template describing the information required to complete the form properly and reinforced the circumstances under which the report is required. Any outstanding reports are tracked nationally and updated as they are successfully uploaded to the data base.

The National Use of Force Section continues to enhance and emphasize full and accurate CEW reporting.

Conducted Energy Weapon - Deployments

Table 1 reports CEW deployments by division on a monthly basis for the reporting period.
Table 2 outlines the types of deployments divisionally.
Chart 1 shows the total breakdown of deployments nationally.

Table 1 - Deployment by Division

Month	Division
	B	D	E	F	G	H	J	K	L	M	V	Total
Jan	6	16	81	44	10	13	7	52	0	4	5	238
Feb	1	2	10	5	1	0	5	7	0	0	0	31
Mar	3	6	12	4	0	1	0	6	0	0	3	35
Total:	10	24	103	53	11	14	12	65	0	4	8	304

 

Table 2 - Types of Deployment by Division

Division	Deployment Type
	Presence/Challenge Only	Push Stun	Probe	Both Push Stun & Probe	Total
B	4	3	3	0	10
D	4	13	7	0	24
E	42	29	23	9	103
F	31	14	8	0	53
G	9	0	2	0	11
H	8	2	4	0	14
J	5	0	6	1	12
K	27	12	20	6	65
L	0	0	0	0	0
M	1	1	2	0	4
V	4	1	3	0	8
Total:	135	75	78	16	304

 

Chart 1

Deployment Type

click to enlarge

Conducted Energy Weapons - Effectiveness

Table 3 reports on the overall effectiveness of the CEW. For the purposes of this analysis “effectiveness” means that deployment of the CEW resulted in control of the subject’s behaviour.
Chart 2 provides a further breakdown of how effective CEW use was in relation to the type of subject behaviour encountered.
Chart 3 represents the analysis on the instances when the CEW was ineffective after deployment.

Table 3 - Overall Effectiveness of the CEW

Effectiveness	Overall Effectiveness
	Count	Percent
Effective	266	87.5%
Not Effective	38	12.5%
Total	304	100.0%

 

Chart 2

Deployment Effectiveness

Deployment Type

 

click to enlarge

Chart 3

Impediments to Effective Outcomes

click to enlarge

Conducted Energy Weapon - Occurrence Type

Chart 4 outlines the occurrence type of the actual call for service in which a CEW was deployed. There are 15 different occurrence types to describe the call for service which a member could either become involved in, or be dispatched to attend. Although the circumstances and situational factors may change during an occurrence, the initial occurrence type is the category that members are instructed to select for their report.

(Note: The “Other” category includes incidents for which there is no occurrence type such as Mischief, Break and Enter and Threats.)

Chart 4

Occurence Type

click to enlarge

Analysis of this quarter’s data indicated inconsistency because “Cell Block” was the term used to describe the occurrence type for reporting purposes, while “Cell Block” more appropriately describes a location of an occurrence rather than an occurrence type. For this reason, in order to remain consistent, all available information within each report was analyzed to identify an appropriate occurrence type from the 15 occurrence types listed in Chart 4. In order to collect more specific information on occurrence locations, “Cell Block” will be considered a location type and tracked separately in future reports.

Conducted Energy Weapon - Subject Behaviour

Chart 5 outlines the reported behaviour of individuals subject to CEW deployment.

The CEW database does not currently have a specific data field for recording subject behaviour. Information from the summary narratives on completed Forms 3996 was used to determine subject behaviour. The identification of behaviour will be included in the Subject Behaviour Officer Response (SB/OR) reporting form currently being developed.

The review of the incidents where the CEW was used on subjects displaying passive resistant behavior determined that subjects refused to comply with verbal commands. The member’s response to utilize CEW was based on a risk assessment which resulted in a perceived threat. With the exception of one accidental discharge, all of these incidents involved the member unholstering and displaying the CEW. There were no push stun or probe mode deployments of the CEW on passive resistant subjects.

Chart 5

Subject Behaviour

click to enlarge

*Note: In the incident where the CEW was deployed on a cooperative subject the weapon was not used in either push stun or probe mode. The incident involved an elevated perceived threat by the responding officer. The matter has undergone several reviews and was found to be in compliance with CEW policy.

Conducted Energy Weapon - Subject Injuries

Chart 6 reports the types of injuries sustained by individuals who were exposed to CEW deployment(s).

Injuries associated with CEW usage are categorized as follows:

• No injury
• Minor primary injury - includes the immediate effects of CEW usage, such as slight burns, probe marks or slight bruising and cuts due to falls or physical struggles with police.
• Outpatient injury - any instance where a subject received medical attention and was not admitted to a health care facility.
• Inpatient injury - any instance where an injury related to the use of a CEW resulted in the subject being admitted to a health care facility.
• Death proximal to CEW usage - death occurring after the deployment of the CEW.

Chart 6 indicates that out of the 304 total deployments 99% of the individuals sustained no injury other than the immediate effect of the CEW, such as a slight burn or probe mark. Many of the reported injuries were attributed to minor cuts as a result of subjects falling after a CEW had been deployed.

Two individuals were reported as receiving outpatient care in this period. One incident involved removing a probe that was embedded in the subject’s neck and the second was to have probe marks attended to by medical personnel based on the arresting member’s decision.

Chart 7 shows the correlation between subject injuries and their reported behaviour.

Chart 6

Reported Injuries Associated with CEW Usage

click to enlarge

Chart 7

Injuries Associated with Subject Behaviour

Subject Behaviour

click to enlarge

Conducted Energy Weapon - Presence of Alcohol and/or other Substances

Table 4 reports the presence of alcohol or other substances suspected or known to be present in the subject. Nationally, the presence of alcohol or other substances was reported in 252 incidents or 82.9% of this period's CEW deployments. The 17.1 % reported as “No” does not mean alcohol or other substances were not present, but rather that they were not detected by the reporting member in his/her interaction with the subject. Chart 8 correlates the observed subject behaviour with the presence of alcohol or other substances.

Table 4 - Presence of Alcohol and/or other Substances

Present	Alcohol or Substance Noted
	Count	Percentage
Yes	252	82.9%
No	52	17.1%
Total:	304	100%

Chart 8

Presence of Alcohol and/or other Substances by Subject Behaviour

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

 

click to enlarge

(Note: See Appendix "D" for table).

Responses to the recommendations in the CEW Quarterly Report 2007-10 to 2007-12

The previous quarterly report concluded with the three recommendations listed below. The responses to each recommendation are also noted.

It is recommended that:

1. Scenario training involving cell block altercations be developed.
   Approximately 10 % of all CEW deployments are identified as occurring in a cell block, yet there are currently no cell block scenarios in the RCMP's training material. It is recommended that cell block altercation scenarios be developed for inclusion in the course training standard and lesson plans for all levels of CEW instruction.
   
   

   Action Taken. Cell block training scenarios are currently being incorporated into two new course training standards for the new Incident Management Intervention Model (IM/IM). Specifically, the one-time mandatory e-learning course and the yearly mandatory table top video scenario course each include a cell block scenario in their respective course training standards. Training on the new IM/IM is scheduled to begin April 2009.

2. There be a requirement for subject behaviour reporting.
   Information on subject behaviour had to be gathered manually from the summary portion of the usage form for all 337 reports submitted to the database. The development of the Subject Behaviour Officer Response (SB/OR) reporting process should address this issue. As an interim measure, a communique was forwarded to all RCMP Divisions instructing members to report subject behaviour in the summary portion of Form 3996.
   
   

   Action Taken. The Subject Behaviour Officer Response (SB/OR) reporting pilot will commence in January 2009. This pilot project will involve one detachment from each division, for a total of 14 sites and approximately 492 regular members. Following the pilot project, which is scheduled to last two to three months, any required modifications will be made to the reporting process. Once these modifications are complete, SB/OR will be implemented throughout the RCMP.

3. Policy and training relating to CEW deployment in incidents involving a threat of death or grievous bodily harm be reviewed.
   Several reports noted members deployed the CEW in incidents involving a threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Current training instructs members that the appropriate intervention option when faced with a threat of death or grievous bodily harm is lethal force.
   

   Action Taken. All of this quarter's CEW usage reports which reported subject behaviour involving a threat of death or grievous bodily harm were reviewed for compliance with existing policy and training standards. No policy anomalies or gaps in training were noted. However, it was clear that improvement to members' risk assessments in a select few cases is required. The implementation of the enhanced IM/IM training in April, 2009 will assist in improving all members' abilities in terms of risk assessments.

Recommendations for this Quarter

1. Incorporate a more accurate method of recording the location of incidents in the reporting process.
   As a result of reviewing this quarter's reports we have identified that cell block related incidents are not being reported in a manner that is consistent. In future reports the location of the incident will be reported on as a separate parameter and outlined within a reference chart. This action will improve reporting quality, which in turn addresses recommendations identified by organizations such as the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP and the Standing House Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Further instructions on compliance with reporting will be conveyed to the divisional use of force coordinators based on the information gathered from this period. Implementation of SB/OR will further enhance RCMP reporting and use of force accountability.

APPENDIX "A"

Total number of regular members employed during the reporting period.

RCMP REGULAR MEMBERS ON STRENGTH AS AT 2008-03-31
Division	Total of RMs (2008-01-01 - 2008-03-31)
A	239
B	555
C	986
D	952
E	5853
F	1125
G	175
H	1008
J	876
K	2418
L	131
M	122
N	1527
O	1209
DEPOT	243
V	114
Total:	17533

Appendix "B"

Division	CEW Procured per Division -  January to March 2008
	M26	X26	Total:
A	1	0	1
B	0	5	5
C	0	0	0
D	0	158	158
E	0	50	50
F	0	21	21
G	0	0	0
H	0	1	1
J	0	5	5
K	0	37	37
L	0	2	2
M	0	0	0
NHQ	0	3	3
O	0	11	11
V	0	2	2
DEPOT	0	4	4
Total:	1	299	300

Division	CEW Disposed per Division -  January to March 2008
	M26	X26	Total:
D	0	2	2
E	1	1	2
H	0	1	1
K	0	1	1
DEPOT	0	1	1
Total:	1	6	7

Appendix "C"

Region	Number of Members Trained on the CEW User Course (000028) between 2001 to March 31, 2008
	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	March 31, 2008	Total:
Pacific	121	190	871	541	348	315	640	98	3124
North West	6	330	1247	762	577	238	443	123	3726
NHQ	47	47	173	88	26	40	3	4	428
Central	8	53	216	124	54	52	24	30	561
Atlantic	7	89	395	383	252	252	170	135	1683
Total:	189	709	2902	1898	1257	897	1280	390	9522

Region	Number of Members Recertified on the CEW * (000279) between 2001 to March 31, 2008
	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	March 31, 2008	Total:
Pacific	0	14	74	3	29	31	0	38	189
North West	0	38	26	18	22	36	0	228	368
NHQ	0	11	12	14	4	10	0	2	53
Central	0	2	17	17	2	11	0	30	79
Atlantic	0	2	30	17	20	27	0	58	154
Total:	0	67	159	69	77	115	0	356	843

*Includes Both User and Instructors, as there is no Instructor's Recertification Course at present.

Region	Number of Instructors Trained on the CEW Instructors Course (000029) between 2001 to March 31, 2008
	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	March 31, 2008	Total:
Pacific	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	24	394	232	0	650
North West	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	35	323	570	18	946
NHQ	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	8	46	4	1	59
Central	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	15	46	27	1	89
Atlantic	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	16	129	145	0	290
Total:	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	98	938	978	20	2034

Total	12399

 

Appendix "D"

Presence of Alcohol and/or other Substances by Subject Behaviour

Appendix "E"

Divisions

Prepared By:
National Use of Force Unit, Use of Force & Operational Programs Section,
National Criminal Operations Branch, Community, Contract & Aboriginal Police Services