S.D. Police Get Option to Fire Warning Shots

The San Diego Police Department has revised its procedures to permit officers to fire warning shots, and to lift a requirement that police keep a log to note all cases in which they use physical force.

Other changes adopted by the department include no longer investigating certain citizen complaints, providing training bags at substations for patrol officers to practice their baton-swinging techniques, and testing collapsible batons for possible use by investigators.

The changes, some of which have drawn objections from civil libertarians, were among the 102 recommendations adopted by the department from the 119 submitted by an 85-member task force. The task force was formed by Police Chief Bill Kolender to study officer safety issues after the March 31 shooting death of one officer and wounding of another.

Citing concerns that the proposals would jeopardize officers’ lives, police officials had refused to discuss all but a handful of the recommendations. But Friday, the department released 114 of the recommendations in response to a request filed by The Times under the California Public Records Act.

Most of the adopted proposals involve new training procedures and the purchase of new equipment, such as high-powered spotlights, smaller Mace canisters and four-inch revolvers instead of the standard six-inch length.

Other recommendations, however, pose troublesome concerns for civil libertarians.

“The underlying assumption is that police have been too passive, too placid, too reluctant to be forceful,” said Greg Marshall, legal director for the San Diego chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. “That is a real questionable hypothesis . . . We get plenty of calls from people that indicate the police were overreacting and using excessive force.”

Alex Landon, executive director of Defenders Inc., said the effectiveness of the new policy changes depends on how police officers perceive them.

“If it will help the psyche of officers to feel more comfortable, more safe and more at ease, then that’s not such a bad thing,” Landon said. “On the other hand, if it is looked at as an invitation to abandon the training and restraint that has been built into training, then it could be a bad thing. I guess time will tell.”

Landon and Marshall said they find the elimination of the “Use of Force” log most disturbing. In the past, patrol officers were required to record any events that resulted in the use of physical force in a book in the duty lieutenant’s office.

Rice said patrol officers “resented” having to duplicate the information since it was included in their incident reports.

However, Marshall said making police officers write down each incident of force “reinforced the fact that use of force is unusual, it is out of the ordinary and it is something to be taken seriously.”

Critics question the Police Department’s decision to reverse its ban on warning shots.

Police Cmdr. Mike Rice, who managed the task force, said that the department decided to give officers the option of firing warning shots because they face increasing violence and more guns on the streets.

“If an officer feels he can stop an event from occurring without shooting to kill, then he can use a warning shot if he can justify that later on,” Rice said. “Those are the kind of things that when you are there you have to make that decision.”

Landon said: “From the standpoint that it would allow . . . an alternative from taking a revolver out to kill and be used to gain someone’s attention, (it) may be a very positive thing. On the other hand, I hope . . . that (police) would not be pulling their revolver out more often.”

Using Judgment

Another recommendation encourages officers to use their own judgment ahead of police manuals when deciding how much physical force is needed to apprehend criminals. Police instructions list various levels of force appropriate for overcoming resistance.

“What we discovered is our officers misinterpreted that,” Rice said. “They thought they had to (use force) in chronological order . . . that they can’t use one level of force until they used another . . . . The object is to do what your training tells you to do, without worrying what a piece of paper tells you. If someone pulls a gun on you, you don’t have to worry about pulling Mace. You immediately go to your gun.”

The task force spent five months discussing reasons why police in San Diego suffer the highest per capita mortality rate among departments in 41 large U.S. cities. Nine San Diego officers have been shot and killed in the line of duty since 1977.

Handling Complaints

Other task force recommendations adopted by the department include:

- Police will no longer investigate complaints or calls stemming from information gathered second- or third-hand. Officers complained that the department spent too much time seriously investigating every complaint, including those from people who contacted police after driving by a scene or obtaining information from acquaintances. “We’ll answer inquiries and if it turns out something was wrong, then we’ll launch a formal investigation,” Rice said.

- The department’s ride-along policy will be revised to permit captains at area stations to run thorough background checks on residents who request to observe officers working on their beats. Rice said that several officers testified that they felt that criminals were using the department’s liberal ride-along policy to gather information on how police work. The task force was unable to find any specific cases.

- Background investigations also will be conducted on non-sworn police employees before they are hired.

- Officers who are involved in shootings will be assigned a fellow officer to lend support. “That is a very traumatic time for them,” Rice said. “We decided to put somebody with them . . . not to ask questions or investigate but someone as a sounding board to help the guy out.”

Three of the recommendations called for the department to exercise extreme caution in releasing details of the task force proposals to the media. As a result, police officials initially discussed only 13 of the 119 recommendations.

“We’re not trying to stonewall the public, but we’re saying very clearly that we will not disclose any information that in our opinion . . . would create a risk for our officers,” Deputy Chief Norm Stamper said last month in justifying the department’s refusal to release the recommendations.

Public Record

Police officials changed their minds, Stamper said, after the city attorney ruled on a request by The Times that government section code 6257 of the state Public Records Act required release of the information. Stamper said the city attorney advised the police department to use a strict interpretation of the Public Records Act when deciding which recommendation to withhold from the public.

As a result, the Police Department has decided not to talk about five recommendations that contain specific information regarding “police security procedures,” according to a press release.

Ty Reid, president of the San Diego Police Officers Assn., said he doubted that many officers would be upset over the publication of the recommendations because the department press release discussed the proposals in general terms and did not go into specifics.

Two major recommendations--putting patrol officers on four-day, 10-hour work weeks and changing the color of patrol cars from white to black and white--are still being considered.