the situation let's assume it's a relatively minor offense is it possible that that minor offense can grow in its scope of investigation. and it's actually quite common for that to happen correct yes an officer makes a traffic stop for speeding or something like that smells drugs in the car searches the car finds a large amount of drugs finds guns etc. so what starts out as a relatively minor incident a traffic ticket can turn into a felony arrest. and that again happens quite regular. so when an officer would be back up a certain you would agree that being a police officer's pretty dangerous profession. there are here dangers with. i've never had to get in

a fight with anybody in my life in my job but in your job it's probably more probable that. now. talking about the use of force when an officer approaches a motor vehicle is that considered to be one of the most dangerous. initiations of contact. between an officer and a citizen. i don't have the. exact statistics on it is certainly encountering. domestic response and also have a sense of awareness for officers but it's certainly something. certainly raises awareness. for their safety and that's because. that's that suspects sort of space officer doesn't know what's in the car or in the apartment during

a domestic situation you're walking into someone else's territory and speak right. and so there could be guns there could be knives there could be any number of instruments that could bring harm to a police officer is that intentional now obviously there are tens of thousands of traffic stops and there's not not every traffic stop turns violent i'm not suggesting that but that does happen regularly read that traffic stops turn. again. so when we're talking about the use of force policy under 5 dash 3 a 1 point one the last sentence that wasn't read before is the force you should be consistent with current m.p. training. agreed. now there is a difference between a policy change. so

there are certain times where policy with respect to the use of force may specifically change to prohibit a particular. or use of force. so thinking about in the old days officers used. to make their punches more effective. the policy changed and prohibited that act. and then there's a difference between say the evolution of defensive tactics. agree with that i mean the. tactics training you received in 1909 is much different than the defensive tactics training now. and i believe it was maybe 15 years ago that the minneapolis police department started moving towards more body weight control of this jujitsu training as opposed to physically striking people to gain from.

training. about 151015 years ago. and that was sort of highlighting the evolution as you kind of described it in your direct examination of policing since you've become a police officer. evolve. and when something changes per policy. anymore. no more agreed. agree but if the policy if training for example evolves into a best practice it doesn't prevent an officer from learning a technique earlier. just may not be the best practices.

when you say that they're learning something but if it's if it's not in alignment with their policy then that would not be prohibited if it was correctly let me let me try to explain why so if an officer was trained in a particular handcuffing technique and then they go to their defensive tactics training and they say this is a better way to handcuff a suspect it's not a policy change it's just the best practice change and they can still use the way they did it. it would have to be something that. would have to not just officers say i want to do it this way you need something you have to be authorized to or are training. so we could talk about that kind of thing with the training the use of force defensive tactics training. that would be the better place to talk better people to talk to about that yes.

or are. now when we're talking about active aggression and active resistance sometimes those 2 things are happening simultaneously. now we were talking about again the graham versus conner case and how that is incorporated into the minneapolis police department policy i'm showing you exhibit $217.00 now it should be up in front of you. what we're basically talking about was a united states supreme court decision that that outlined the objectively

reasonable use of force right and graham versus conner is not limited to those 3 factors that you were read before the grand versus conner analysis for those are kind of listed but ultimately it's not an all inclusive list of considerations for the reasonableness of the force. and in fact what the policy reads is that the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the 2020 vision of hindsight. so we're looking at it in the instant and the moment based upon the object of standard right. now and also the policy also includes that the calculus of

reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split 2nd judgments in circumstances that are. uncertain and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. and that's because when officers go to a situation kind of like what we talked about before what can be very initially very minor can grow into something major agreed. now we. sure you give it to mary. you read a part of 5 dash 3 or 4 which is threatening the use of force and deescalation i

want to talk to you a little bit about deescalation. have you heard the term sometimes you have to escalate to deescalate we've heard that phrase ok so in here you talk about the policy talks about. that officer shall consider verbal announcing their intent to use force including displaying an authorized weapon as a threat of force. so sometimes an officer has to take out his gun say that's a use of force in that instance it is and if you don't listen to me you know i'm going to use force pretty clear indication that force could be use of a gun pointing. but other things such as chemical irritants or tasers it's not limited to just the fire. and so sometimes you have what an officer has to do is command the press they have to take control of the situation.

and sometimes that's not particularly attractive is. could you share. the use of force is not something that people like to watch. would you agree that the use of force is not an attractive notion. i would say that use of force is something that. most officers would rather not use. and you described in your direct examination how the single greatest way that the minneapolis police department could be judged is based upon how the public perceives its use of force. so it has a tendency to garner

a lot of attention again. so much so that citizens have become more prone to record observed interactions with police is something that you didn't have to deal with back in 1990 right. so essentially what this policy 5 dash 3 or 4 in terms of threatening the use of force. it's contained within these deescalation counts right so sometimes you have to display a weapon to gain command so that you can deescalate. it was now when we're talking about is it fair to say that pretty much every single one of these use of force policies contain some phrase it's reasonable or if practical there's limitations on the use of force is their relations and their and situation by situation. and then again if we go back and look at

the language of the graham versus conner and the policy that's contained by minneapolis police department it's. the use of force has no precise objective singular rule it's different in every case. the for example in the deescalation policy 5 dash 3 or 4 be one deescalation is advisable when it is safe and feasible correct yes and sometimes deescalation again includes the use of force. the use of force can be deescalation packed. into a thing of your example of displaying your your your weapon and so i don't have

a lot of knowledge of. physical force being used to actually deescalate the situation but a very. very verbal a more with that ok so again if we were to talk to the use of force or defensive tactics. overall they would be the best source of that. overall. but the purpose of the escalation agreed is to attempt to slow down or stabilize the situations where that more time options and resources become available to the office. basically slow down everybody kind of calm down let's try to relax. but it's a lot more the process of deescalation is not just trying to talk somebody out of

doing something there are actions that are important there may be reactions that are important and they and the deescalation policy includes some examples of the right yes. such as placing barriers between an uncooperative subject and an officer . sometimes those barriers are another officer. containing a threat i mean that's one of the examples in the in policy i containing a frat acting include physically restraining someone so that they don't upset another person. or cause another person to have a violent reaction towards them or office. moving from a position that exposes officers to potential threats to a safer position. so kind of retreating in certain circumstances and. reducing exposure to

a potential threat using distance cover or conceal. so hiding behind a squad car. avoiding physical confrontation that's a that's probably a pretty big one. and using verbal techniques to calm an agitated subject or promote rational decision making it's kind of down towards the act. and last week calling additional resource. is. not. about.

exhibit 2 fairly. which is the emergency medical response to the degree that the policy requires minneapolis police employees to request emergency medical service as soon as practical. if a person comes into contact having an acute medical crisis and any delay in treatment aggravate the. medical crisis yes so sometimes officers will call for. thinking it's a major issue when suddenly it becomes apparent they can step up or request a quicker response from him. and that is something that an officer can do to

ensure the medical treatment. that they have or the person at their contact. i'm. sorry it's been a long week to ensure the. medical condition of the suspect help with that. right getting in a mess there as quickly as possible yes. no we didn't talk a little we didn't talk about the maximal restraint technique you're familiar with the policy surrounding not. sure you it's been in the news exhibit 2 to 5. can you describe what the maximal restraint technique is the cons are the maximal restraint technique is has often been referred to as

hobble and that is a. it's a method if officers are dealing with a typically a combative or aggressive person in order to protect them or even property it's placing. basically attaching a. record of the ladies to the waist to 6 so that the person the individual does not have free movement of the relays so it securing them again for use it by their ankles. if you're prone bringing that up to your waist in securing it. the maximal restraint technique or the hobble though if it's used a supervisor has to respond to the scene you cannot transport anyone prone in that position due to the risk of. breathing and so but that is the

concert that would be my understanding of the m r t the maximum restraint technique so you talk a little bit in terms of the use of force how officers are kind of reevaluating their use of force from time to time we should be restraint and so if officers decide to use the maximal restraint technique and then decide hey we know or and then later decide not to use it that is kind of adjusting that use of force. i would counsel with with some some clarity and. i don't know if that way what i mean by that is. if you were to have a person. up to prone on their stomach on the ground pavement and you had 2 officers let's say securing their legs to the back of the waist.

in a way are still imploring employing what that technique is about anyway so. so that there can be some variances to that sure if that excess it does so let's assume that you've got 2 officers pulling the legs forward essentially employing that version so to speak of the maximum restraint but then they release and they say we're not gonna we're not going to hobble this person we're not going to employ m.r. t. you're going from a decision to employ that technique backwards down the continuum in terms of the use of force would you agree with that. it is. because these these types of uses of force can be problematic in terms of there's a high risk to them so meaning that. if you're going to take that initiative to

do that alternative version 1st place. you want to get a hold of a supervisor because something could happen trips of that person and so i'm not a supporter i'm not asking in terms of the policy i'm asking in terms of sort of the the use of force and the critical decision making. you described how the use of force you have to go through this critical decision making model how much force am i going to us and sometimes you have to back off the use of force agreed yes and sometimes you have to go forward with the use of force meaning it was even more force. and it's and this constant reevaluation agreed yes and so when you have officers who make a decision that the the facts and circumstances would warrant us the hobbled of our eyes but then later decide not to employ that device that is that critical decision making model in action yes and it would be

a reduction in the use of force and may still require supervisors to be on scene policy wise but it is a reduction in the use of force agreed and. talking specifically the events of may 25th i'm talking general in general yes. but you would agree that ultimately the all of the minneapolis police department policies relevant to the use of force emergency medical response emergency medical treatment all of these policies are by their very language are situationally. they all say if the circumstances allow if time permits if it's safe they have a qualifier to the. exhibit

231. which is at the at the bottom of exhibit $231.00 is the crisis intervention. policy. and the 2nd page includes the definition. could you read the entire definition of what a crisis is. yes an event or situation where an individual safety and health are threatened by behavioral health challenges to include mental illness developmental disability substance use or overwhelming stressors. a crisis can involve an individual's perception or experience of an event or situation as an intolerable difficulty that exceeds the individual's current

resources and coping mechanisms and may include unusual stress in his or her life that renders him or her unable to function as he or she normally would the crisis may but not necessarily result in an upward trajectory or intensity culminating in thoughts or acts possibly dangerous to himself or herself and others . so generally speaking again not relevant to the may 25th of 2020 incident get there a minute. we talk about general police response sometimes the police may respond to something and the person they're dealing with is not in a crisis agreed. but other people may be perceiving what is happening and it could become a crisis to that person. varies

sure people who observe would you say that people who observe police interactions with people especially the more physical or use of force types that's a could turn into a crisis for an observer. system is calling for speculation so in terms of the definition of crisis a crisis me involve an individual's perception or experience of an event or situation as in an intolerable difficulty that exceeds that individual's current resources and coping mechanisms. that doesn't necessarily mean that you are response person with whom you are. arresting or having contact with is going to be the person who will experience the crisis agreed.

and. you're saying that the person who's witnessing the situation with the officers that situation may cause them to be tracked. right and the crisis may but not necessarily result in an upward trajectory or intensity culminating in thoughts or acts that are possibly dangerous him or her or others. and just this is the person who's watching right it could. so people are watching with something that they appear to believe or they believe is wrong or contrary to police policy that may cause them to get upset and that level of upset or that level of volatility make grow throughout the course of the interaction. with them. it could because ultimately part of the training that minneapolis police

officers have to go through is how to deal with crowds who observe police interactions right. crowds that may be upset with police interaction right in there there are classes through the training academy there are classes through in service specifically dealing with how to deal with crowd control right yes. and all of this is to revert in part back to that the escalation process as well yes so part of it as a crowd it grows or becomes more upset part of it is to try to deescalate which can involve trying to avoid a physical constant confrontation right is a good trying to. stay safe concealed and covered it is not yelling back at somebody not engaging in them with them for years and sometimes.

when an officer tries to deescalate the situation and someone is so upset right sometimes they don't hear what the officer tells them do you agree with that. that calls for speculation. is it possible generally speaking that someone's own crisis may prevent them from hearing what an officer is telling. you you testified that you've watched the body care act is.

going to show you don't know. mr swisher this is exhibit 1008. 10 2nd proxima reeve 2nd clip alexander king's. body one camera it's already in your copy of. you are just telling us. i'm going to show you on your screen a short clip of a video to see if this would be contained in the what you've watched and.

you would agree that that appears to be taken from one of the officers body cameras may 25th 2020 at approximately 202533 seconds yes in again watching it with. you at this point did you see what appeared to be someone a reflection in the back of a squad car their. comfort did it down ok it might just be because the brevity of the video but yeah it's unfortunate you look in the upper left hand corner of the bumper of a squad. of course or the circle of 4 i'm sorry is that the kurds or the sailors to watch or. for that.