the motion i will be making later is to authorize the chief of police to develop a proposal to put forward a pilot program. that is another key change. it is not to walk out in the entire department. it is a small, a pilot program that would be evaluated by this commission down the road. we of work with the offices of citizen complaint to put this together. there would report back to the commission about the best option for san francisco. the question is the best way to go forward. it is not just about tasers/ president mazzucco: dr. marshall? vice president marshall: just a point of clarification. you are proposing a possible change in this proposal as written.

i hear you are going to make the proposal after hearing from -- you are just previewing your proposal? i just wanted to make sure. >> i am asking for commission -- for permission to go back and look at legal options, including the -- to look at less lethal options, including the taser. i want to have community involvement. among stakeholders to be part of that. i think it will take me 30 days to come back with a specific weapon. it could take between six and 12 months to come back with a plan for that weapon. all i am asking for is commission to go back and research the feasibility of

looking for a less lethal weapon, including the implementation for the taser. [applause] i have brought commander dan mahoney. he is going to guide the department presentation, what the issues are we are dealing with, and our goals for the remainder of the evening. we are going to have a real-live scenario played out in front of everyone here. i want to utter what the president said. ftc the real-live scenario, this is not about mental illness. i am working very hard with commissioner chan on the cit program, the memphis program. the will be a component of the mental health issues we have in the city. this is separate from the use of less lethal, including the taser. we are a century city. we are not supposed to purchase

products from arizona. we will have a thoughtful, methodical approach as to what we bring back to the commission. i want as much public input as possible. i want public involvement. i am going to pick some public stakeholders to be involved in the training process and come back and report to the commission of transparent this department has been. commissioner dejesus, did we talk about the actual dgo? commissioner dejesus: my understanding is this is not amending the dgo. chief godown: we are not amending the dgo tonight. i do not want to act like a bunch of lawyers, but tonight is authorizing a proposal for the youth of -- use of tasers or a similar weapon. commissioner dejesus: i was at a

meeting last night and won the thing that you told the community members there -- it would be more than your advisory committee. it would be sticklers. chief godown: that is still the understanding. i will come back to the commission in 30 days as to what particular less legal option we are looking at. then we will go out and do the research as far as training and everything is concerned. commander mahoney is going to start the presentation with a real-live scenario we do with on a daily basis. we handle scenarios like the one you are going to see hundreds, if not thousands, of times a year. this is a controlled environment. stay in your seats. the floor is yours. >> thank you, chief. good evening, members of the commission, chief, members of the audience. i am from the office of the chief of staff. i come before you almost one year to the day to request

approval to equip ourselves with a conductive energy device. it was a pilot program developed and presented to commissioner approval. we would like to put on a short reply exercise to demonstrate real life situations which may call for an increase in use of force. this is unfortunately a common occurrence in san francisco, officers responding to a domestic dispute. can i have my role players, please? >> computer display? >> yes. what you will be hearing first is a simulated broadcast from communications, two officers responding to a fight. they need to stay here.

[sound of dialing] >> hello? this is san francisco 911. do you have an emergency? what is going on? [crying] what did your husband do? where is your husband now? [crying] outside of the house? [crying] he is outside the room? and what is your -- are you hurt in any way? where are you heard? -- hurt?

[crying] does your husband have any weapons? >> no. >> no weapons? how did he hit you? was it best sex -- it fists? >> yes. >> how many kids do you halfve? >> two. >> are your children ok? >> yes. >> the officers are responding to the scene. [yelling and fighting] >> what are you doing here? this is my house. >> ballplayers, stop, please.

the officers had responded. their first role is to try to calm everybody down. please continue. >> what is your name? >> get out of my house. >> what is your name? >> get out of my house. you do not have a right to be here. >> tell us what is going on? >> get out of my house. >> we are here to help. >> get out of my house. i am done talking to you. get out of my house. >> put the knife down. >> get out of my house. >> put the knife down. >> get out of my house. >> that's enough. >> role players, thank you. what you have just witnessed is an encounter when some level of force must be used. use of pepper spray or the baton requires the officer to get close to the violent suspect, meaning they are put in harm's

way. presently, the only other choice is firearm. we believe in giving the officer in an extra tool which will mitigate injury to all. your vote today will dictate our future response to this type of incident. one year ago, we presented medical studies, industry opinions, think tank assessments, and real life incidents. will continue to show best practices of ced uses and how this tool will benefit not only the community we serve, but our officers themselves. it conducted energy device is used tactically to concur -- to gain control of a person whose behavior requires forced to comply with lawful orders from the officer. the use of a fist, flashlight, or baton would result in a high likelihood of trauma. the use of a firearm involves a high probability of death or disability. the conducted energy device may

mitigate that result. it can prevent the escalation of force. this is not a replacement of a firearm, but another tool. we in the department represent the competing balance between inshore and safety of our officers and the safety of the individual try to do harm. we believe the ced can do both. we are looking at this issue globally. this is not about any single ancillary are competing issue. it is about officers having every available tool to protect the public and themselves from those who wish to do harm, for whatever reason. there are those who wish to intertwine the issue with those suffering from mental illness. the presence or absence of the ced in the wake birthplaces crisis intervention training. -- in no way it replaces a crisis intervention training. will we use it on someone who is in an altered mental state to

the alcohol and drug consumption? probably yes. will we use it on someone who just wishes to create malfeasance upon society? probably yes. national police associations such as the iacp have endorsed use of these devices. the same holds true for the national alliance for mental illness, who have a white paper endorsing the use of ced. we heard that a recently conducted a five-year study on officer-involved shootings showed need for a tool that could overcome the threat of violence from an individual in close proximity. the study showed that out of 15 officer-involved shootings, 14 occurred within 15 feet of the officer. five involved a suspect using guided weapons or physical force. a further review of recent officer-involved shootings that

occurred after the study was concluded was undertaken. in 2009-2010, there were six shootings that occurred in the perimeter. that was within 15 feet with a suspect using a non-firearm. historically, other agencies experienced a decrease in officer-involved shootings following the issuance of ceds. that is a likely outcome in san francisco, which is our overarching goal. other agencies reported a decrease in workers' compensation claims and dollars spent for qualified injured workers. we hope to achieve that same goal. officers in 2010 filed 81 assault claims and were placed on disability leave, more than 1000 cumulative days, the equivalent of losing the service of seven full-time officers. every worker counts.

the pilot project we envision would focus on the following. identification of a product and vendor. identification of a funding source. a comprehensive policy. a detailed training syllabus. community outreach and education prior to issuance. a product must have the following components. most importantly, a recording capability. there are devices out there that when you take them out of their holster, the camera goes on that records audio and video that can be analyzed by trainers and policy officers were later purposes. second, it must have an automatic shutoff. we do not want an officer in a heightened state of stress to keep their finger on the trigger of such a device and accidentally give more of a charge than they intend to do. we have to have some type of automatic shut off, so that if the officer wants to give a secondary charge, he must make a conscious decision to remove his

finger from the trigger and replace it again. in has to be on the opposite side of the firearm, and not with a cross-draw style holster. all of that is done to promote appropriate use. the policy we envision about control and oversight requirements -- a limited number of discharges. automatic document to review by a supervisor for each event. automatic review by the training division. automatic notification of each event to occ. a yearly audit on the number of events and their outcomes. last year, we heard from ms. kelly evans from the aclu. although she did not endorse a request, we would like to read a short excerpt from her letter dated march 4, 2010. >we strongly believe that sfpd

should begin with a trial basis. this would allow the department and commission to evaluate each deployment closely, and make decisions based on actual use of the weapon. participating officers in any pilot project should have strong positive relationships with the community and a demonstrated history of good judgment and judicious use of force. that data should be made available to the community and closely addressed. should any turning our policy changes be made? there should be imminent physical harm to the officer, a subject, or third party. it should never be used by passive resisters were there is not an imminent risk. if at any point that are

authorized, they should come with stringent training and strict limitations. the should be agreed upon and established. the department concurs with these recommendations from the aclu. >> i want to make sure everybody understood what you saw there. this is a scenario played out in a real-life situation many times in this city and across the country. for those of you that pay close attention, one officer and had a weapon in one hand. in a perfect scenario, if there is mental illness, we have the

possibility of calling the new team we have. that are going to be able to come out and handle the situation. too often in this city, we have a dynamic situation such as you saw, where we cannot call a time out. these officers have to make a life and death situation and assessment and make that decision. if the commission votes no, allow me to go out and research the feasibility of other hot less lethal options. the officer would have no other option but to shoot that man. it is as simple as that. i am asking for one additional tool in the toolbox to keep that from happening. in some instances, verbal commands would have worked. in a controlled environment, things could have been different. when that gentleman takes one step toward that officer, he has

the option to shoot them. i am looking for the tool that would be prohibited that from occurring. >> i would like to introduce dr. chuck wexler, from the research board. he provided an outstanding report for our agency. he will address those best practices tonight. >> it is great to be back in san francisco. i say that sincerely. i love coming here. i came all the way here to talk with you. last time i was here, there were 3 feet of snow in washington and i was talking to you from my home.

i admire the way the commission is taking this seriously, is reviewing all the evidence. i admire the way the police department is sticking with this issue. the reason i am here is because in our study of the san francisco police department we recommended the use of ced's. we looked at the department. we looked at all of the options that were available. we talked to people. we talked to citizens and we talked to police officers. we watched what was going on in the country. the san francisco police department does not use a lot of force, comparatively speaking. this department uses a lot of restraint. we recommended the use of this. we have been around for over 35

years. we are an independent nonprofit. we do a lot of work for the department of justice. i have the network for 17 years. i worked in the boston police department. i have a ph.d. from mit. i have been studying these issues. we've been asked by the department of justice to look of this. in 2005, we are asked to develop guidelines for their use. that was about six years ago. we develop the guidelines. we brought in all sorts of experts. those guidelines came out and are used by most police departments in the country. six years later, in 2011, we brought over 150 people to philadelphia, including the aclu and representatives from police departments across the country, canadians, british. we looked at the evidence.

we said, "where are we today?" we were asked by the department of justice to do a study. that is here. it looked at what is the impact that ced's are having an departments that use them and do not use them. if you will allow me, i am going to review the findings. this is from the national department of justice study, independent of the manufacturer. perf compared the experience is over seven years of law enforcement agencies that use conductive energy devices with agencies that do not use ced's, reviewing thousands of incidents. the study was supported by the national institute of justice research arm of the u.s. department of justice. the study showed that use of

ced's is associated with a 70% reduction in the chances of an officer being injured, compared to agencies that do not use them. the odds of a suspect being injured are reduced by more than 40%. all in all, we found considerably strong effects in increasing the safety of officers and suspect's. not only are they associated with greater safety, but also within agencies, and in some cases the actual use by an officer is associated with a higher level of safety compared to incidents in which offers a ruse used other kinds of less lethal weapons, such as batons. because the can be fired from a distance, allowing police officers to keep their distance from resisting suspects minimize

the struggles that can cause injuries. while no device is foolproof, we find that when used properly the concern is a useful addition to the use of force and police departments. the can help officers make arrests with less risk of injury to of those arrested and to the officers. but thorough training is required to ensure that use of force and devices is used only when necessary. these decisions about whether to use force and what kind of forced to use are extremely difficult, given the variety of circumstances faced by police officers on the street, and the fact that officers sometimes have only a second, as you saw

in that scenario, to direct a situation and make a decision. the 52 gunman's we issued in 2005, a number of departments have adopted. these guidelines are about tightening restrictions, about making sure that are only used in certain circumstances, making sure a device is only used for five seconds and then stopped and evaluated. where there have been problems is when people have gone outside of these guidelines. if you have tight guidelines, that will further strengthen what you're trying to use. let me give you some examples. for example, the guidelines provided should only be used against people who were actively resisting police or were a threat to themselves. this is very important when you are dealing with someone who is suicidal, when you are called by its parent worried about their

son. all of a sudden, the last thing the officers want to do issue that person. that is the last thing the parents want to do. when a police officer has to use deadly force, it is one of the most difficult decisions. what you are considering is giving a police officer options. you are not giving up accountability or oversight. that is very important. some of the discussion seemed to get lost that if you give officers another option, somehow there will not be accountability. there has to be oversight and training. they should not be used against passive suspects. no more than one officer at a time should activate it. you have to restrict them.

you have to say that what the san francisco police department and commission are considering now is a thoughtful way to approach this. take a pilot program. take an area. train people effectively. have oversight. you are not giving up your accountability. evaluate how it works. the san francisco police department is one of the few major police departments in the country that does not use this. you go to departments around the country. in places like phoenix, charlotte -- the use of deadly force decreased dramatically. new guidelines, training -- to give citizens options. restrict their use and the latest medical research -- we

have six years of and permission about this. police departments would not be using this today if they thought it was going to cause more harm than good. i have worked in northern ireland. northern ireland is very restrictive on use of force. they debated, just like you are here. the debate for a long time until finally the allowed them to be used. one of the first circumstances where there were used was when a parent called up about their child, who was acting very irrationally. police officers were confronted with a knife. they used the ced. the mother was very happy and became the biggest proponent for their use. i think it is time to really try this out, pilot it, evaluate it. our organization is not looking for any funding. we feel an obligation to the san francisco police department to help. we would be willing to help assist and develop a pilot

study. thank you very much. president mazzucco: thank you. >> will questions until the end. >> our next speaker is sheriff mike hennessey, who will speak about the other law enforcement agency in san francisco, which is equipped with a ced. >> good evening, commissioners. i and the sheriff. i know some of you have heard me when i made this presentation before, so i will try to be as brief as i can. the san francisco sheriff's department has used taser devices since 2002, so for approximately eight years. we have very restrictive conditions under which we can use them, but we do use them. in eight years, we have discharged the taser 14 times. we have taken it to the scene as

a possibility of using it 69 times. in the vast majority of instances where we have taken the taser, it has not been used. we were able to bring the situation under control. in many instances, the display of the taser and the fact that the taser has a laser beam which presents a red dot where you pointed, and the person can see there is a red dot on them, is enough to deter the person and get them to comply. the petition reps refer to it as "red got compliance." people are intimidated by the taser, appropriately, know that if they are shot by it it will hurt. more times than not in our experience, the person complies with the sheriff's order at that point rather than be shocked.