Other LanguagesAgency's use-of-force policy is consistent with the AGO model policy:
No
Why agency's use-of force policy departs from the AGO model policy:
The City of West Richland Police Department is committed to the underlying principles of RCW 10.120.020. A significant portion of our use of force policy includes unaltered language from the model policy. There are a few places where changes have been made. These changes have been made where we believe that the model policy has added to the statutory requirements of RCW 10.120.020.
Deviations:
A. De-Escalation
We omitted the core principles under De-Escalation because this is redundant and stated elsewhere in the policy.
We omitted (j) of the model policy as we believe that exhibiting patience lacks definition and that employing the de-escalation tactics as required by statute in the points above (J) illustrates patience on the part of law enforcement.
B. Types of Force
Our department does not use hobble restraints. As such, we replaced hobble restraints with the WRAP system which is being adopted by our department.
Intermediate use of force
There are instances where strikes with an officer’s body are appropriate as intermediate uses of force. Back hand (open handed) stun techniques to the neck and jaw area are accepted practice to distract a subject where an intermediate level force is justified and where there is an imminent threat of assault.
C. Use of Physical Force Shall Be Necessary and for a Lawful Purpose
Core principles are not specifically listed as such but are included throughout the policy.
4.3.1
Conducted Energy Weapons
Standards of use
(h) was omitted as officers must be able to clearly articulate the justification for each individual application and therefore must justify each individual use of the CEW. There may be instances where a person removes probes making the CEW ineffective due to interference rather than ineffectiveness. As such, there may be instances where a CEW have been used three times but was ineffective due to interference or environmental issues. Therefore, additional applications may be appropriate where it can be justified by the officer.
B. Lethal
Firearms
There may be instances where an officer is unaware of whether deadly force is authorized but training and standard procedures provide that the officer view the scene through their firearms optics such as a barricaded subject with hostages and SWAT Operations are required. Thus, the addition of this language.
D. Select Restraint Devices
Spit Guards
There may be situations where an officer must balance the use of a spit hood against the safety of officers and other first responders. Under our policy, officers are required to monitor subjects placed in a spit guard for an elevated level of distress. Additionally, officers are required to remove the spit guard as soon as it is appropriate. Moreover, should a person vomit the spit guard must be removed promptly. These requirements provide for the safety of officers, first responders, and individuals subject to a spit guard.
General deviations:
There are places in our policy where should is used instead of shall. We believe that in these instances where our policy deviates from the model policy the City’s policy is consistent with the requirements of state law and RCW 10.120.020.
________________________________________
Deviations:
A. De-Escalation
We omitted the core principles under De-Escalation because this is redundant and stated elsewhere in the policy.
We omitted (j) of the model policy as we believe that exhibiting patience lacks definition and that employing the de-escalation tactics as required by statute in the points above (J) illustrates patience on the part of law enforcement.
B. Types of Force
Our department does not use hobble restraints. As such, we replaced hobble restraints with the WRAP system which is being adopted by our department.
Intermediate use of force
There are instances where strikes with an officer’s body are appropriate as intermediate uses of force. Back hand (open handed) stun techniques to the neck and jaw area are accepted practice to distract a subject where an intermediate level force is justified and where there is an imminent threat of assault.
C. Use of Physical Force Shall Be Necessary and for a Lawful Purpose
Core principles are not specifically listed as such but are included throughout the policy.
4.3.1
Conducted Energy Weapons
Standards of use
(h) was omitted as officers must be able to clearly articulate the justification for each individual application and therefore must justify each individual use of the CEW. There may be instances where a person removes probes making the CEW ineffective due to interference rather than ineffectiveness. As such, there may be instances where a CEW have been used three times but was ineffective due to interference or environmental issues. Therefore, additional applications may be appropriate where it can be justified by the officer.
B. Lethal
Firearms
There may be instances where an officer is unaware of whether deadly force is authorized but training and standard procedures provide that the officer view the scene through their firearms optics such as a barricaded subject with hostages and SWAT Operations are required. Thus, the addition of this language.
D. Select Restraint Devices
Spit Guards
There may be situations where an officer must balance the use of a spit hood against the safety of officers and other first responders. Under our policy, officers are required to monitor subjects placed in a spit guard for an elevated level of distress. Additionally, officers are required to remove the spit guard as soon as it is appropriate. Moreover, should a person vomit the spit guard must be removed promptly. These requirements provide for the safety of officers, first responders, and individuals subject to a spit guard.
General deviations:
There are places in our policy where should is used instead of shall. We believe that in these instances where our policy deviates from the model policy the City’s policy is consistent with the requirements of state law and RCW 10.120.020.
________________________________________
How agency's use-of-force policy is consistent with RCW 10.120.020:
See above
Date policy last updated: