RCMP Quarterly Report On Conducted Energy Weapons: 2008-04-01 to 2008-06-30

• Executive Summary
• Conducted Energy Weapon
• Deployments
• Effectiveness
• Occurrence Type
• Subject Behaviour
• Subject Injuries
• Perceived Presence of Alcohol and /or other Substances
• 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” Perceived 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 April 1, 2008 to June 30, 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 June 30, 2008 there were 17949 regular members employed with the RCMP and 5844 members certified to use the CEW.
• There were 328 CEW deployments on 316 subjects during the reporting period.
• 279 (85.1%) of these deployments were effective in controlling the subjects’ behaviour.
• Presence alone (ie: not deployed in stun or probe mode) accounted for 156 (47.6%) of deployments.
• Incidents of causing a disturbance, assaults and domestic disputes accounted for 161 (49%) of all occurrence types in which a CEW was deployed.
• Responses to mental health or suicidal subjects accounted for 49 (15%) of all deployments.
• In 102 incidents (31%) 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 279 incidents (85.1%).
• Out of the 328 total deployments 96% of the individuals sustained no injury other than the immediate effect of the CEW, such as a slight burn or probe mark.
• All of the CEW usages reviewed for this report were found to be consistent with RCMP policy.

Top of Page

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

Top of Page

Table 2 - Types of Deployment by Division

Chart 1

Deployment Type

click to enlarge

Top of Page

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 of 49 instances when the CEW was ineffective after deployment.

Table 3 - Overall Effectiveness of the CEW

Chart 2

Deployment Effectiveness

Deployment Type

click to enlarge

Chart 3

Impediments to Effective Outcomes

click to enlarge

Top of Page

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 used to describe a call for service which a member either observes or is 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.

Chart 4

Occurence Type

click to enlarge

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

Conducted Energy Weapon - Subject Behaviour

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

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 piloted.

All incidents reported in this period where it was reported that a CEW was utilized on a subject displaying passive resistant behavior have been reviewed.  It was confirmed that the members’ decision to utilize the CEW in each of these cases was based on a perceived threat.  All of these incidents involved the unholstering and displaying the CEW by the member.  There were no push stun or probe mode deployments of the CEW on passive resistant subjects.

Chart 5

Subject Behaviour

click to enlarge

Top of Page

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 of the 328 CEW deployments, no injuries were sustained in 259 (79%), minor primary injuries were sustained in 57 (17%), and 12 (4%) received outpatient treatment. Of the 12 incidents reporting outpatient treatment 5 were to assist in the removal of probes or to have pre-existing/self inflicted injuries treated. The remainder were precautionary or in response to deceptive behaviour on the part of the subjects. All of the subjects who received outpatient treatment were medically cleared to be in police custody.

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

Top of Page

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

Table 4 reports the perceived presence of alcohol or other substances in the subject.  Nationally, the presence of alcohol or other substances was reported in 279 incidents or 85.1% of this period’s CEW deployments.  The 14.9 % 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 shows the correlation between observed subject behaviour and the presence of alcohol or other substances.

Table 4 - Perceived Presence of Alcohol and/or other Substances

Chart 8

Perceived Presence of Alcohol and/or other
Substances by Subject Behaviour

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

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

Top of Page

APPENDIX "A"

Total number of regular members employed during the reporting period.

(* Note: The uses of provincial abbreviations in this report are meant to denote RCMP-related numbers and do not represent provincial law enforcement statistics.)

Top of Page

Appendix "B"

Top of Page

Appendix "C"

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

Top of Page

Appendix "D"

Perceived 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

To read Adobe Acrobat (PDF) files, you may need to download and install the free Adobe Reader available from Adobe Systems Incorporated.