Laserfiche WebLink
Carotid Restraint <br />Medical evidence supports the carotid control hold as safer compared to other control techniques or <br />the use of impact weapons, and research does not support categorizing a properly applied vascular <br />neck restraint as lethal force. However, there is considerable confusion among the public between <br />respiratory and vascular restraints and in several jurisdictions, one or both techniques have been either <br />entirely prohibited, criminalized, or limited to when deadly force is authorized. Accordingly, Lexipol's <br />best practice policy has been recently amended to clearly define the carotid control hold and to limit <br />the technique to instances where deadly force is authorized. The section is removed from states where <br />the technique is criminalized. (The manual mandates officers to follow the law and therefore does not <br />specifically delineate crimes in policies.) Finally, Lexipol also guides agencies to customize content if <br />the technique is prohibited by the agency or where the agency lacks the resources to train individual <br />officers in this technique. <br />De -Escalation <br />While there is no Supreme Court holding requiring de-escalation, the legal landscape is varied and <br />unsettled; some lower courts have considered de-escalation as a factor in determining whether <br />the force used was objectively reasonable. In practice, most police officers recognize they should <br />use de-escalation tactics in situations where they can be safely and effectively applied. Some <br />departments have adopted policies or procedures directing officers to use non-violent strategies <br />and techniques to decrease the intensity of the situation and decrease the need for force when <br />circumstances permit. <br />Lexipol has traditionally addressed de-escalation in its policies covering the incidents where <br />the techniques are most commonly effective—civil commitments, crisis intervention incidents, <br />conducted energy device deployments (e.g., TASER®) and civil disputes. In addition, Lexipol's <br />Use of Force policy guided officers to consider whether there are other reasonable options <br />when determining whether to even apply force. In July 2020, Lexipol decided to emphasize de- <br />escalation with a requirement and specific examples. The Use of Force Policy now includes <br />a standalone section on de-escalation that requires officers to consider and use non-violent <br />strategies and techniques to decrease the intensity of a situation when time and circumstances <br />permit. These techniques should be used to improve communication with the goal of increasing <br />voluntary compliance. These tactics include crisis intervention techniques, requesting appropriate <br />backup, and alternative strategies to reduce the need for force. <br />Exhausting All Reasonable Alternatives Before Deadly Force <br />A common concept in police reform efforts is the need to require officers to exhaust all <br />alternatives before resorting to deadly force. In practice, this is an unrealistic expectation that <br />fails to account for the split-second decisions officers may have to make and rapidly evolving <br />incidents. There is no general law that every alternative must be exhausted before using deadly <br />