O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

2019 Use of Force Annual Report HPD

2019 Use of Force Annual Report HPD

  • Entre para ver os comentários

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

2019 Use of Force Annual Report HPD

  1. 1. 1 Rev. 9-2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: USE OF FORCE REPORT This report provides a summary of force incidents by Honolulu Police Department (HPD) officers for 2019. Use of force information officers entered into the department’s Case Reporting System (CRS) is the data source for this report. The key findings are summarized below: • During the year, 2,354 Use of Force incidents were reported and submitted by officers. This is an increase from 2018 when there were 2,070 incidents reported and submitted by officers. • Only a small percentage of police interactions with the public involved the use of force. The department averaged 4.14 force incidents per 1,000 calls for service. This is an increase from 2018 when the department averaged 3.67 force incidents per 1,000 calls for service. • The most common types of incidents that required officers to use force were Simple Assault 13.4% (316), Mental Health, also known as MH-1 13.2% (312), and Miscellaneous Public 6.7% (158) cases. This is similar to the 2018 findings. • During the year, most of the force incidents occurred on Mondays and Saturdays. The time of the day when most incidents occurred was between 2400 hours and 0059 hours. • In 2019, the average age of subjects was 34 years old. The average was the same for 2018. Males accounted for 78% of subjects involved in force incidents. Juvenile subjects ranged in age from 12 to 17 years old and were involved in 6.4% of incidents. Unemployed subjects accounted for 28% of all subjects. At 34.5%, the greatest number of subjects in force incidents were Native Hawaiian Pacific Islanders. Subjects suspected of drug and/or alcohol use at the time of the incident accounted for 58% of all force incidents. This is a decrease from 2018, where 63.1% of all force incidents involved subjects where drug and/or alcohol use was suspected. • In 2019, Physical Confrontation techniques were the most frequent force option used by officers and accounted for 53% of force applications, as compared to 51% in 2018. • There were five subject deaths involving firearms discharged by officers. • There were no subject injuries in 74% of the incidents, as compared to 73% in 2018. • In 2019, there were no officer injuries in 95% of the incidents, as compared to 94% in the previous year.
  2. 2. 2 Rev. 9-2020 GENERAL INFORMATION The Honolulu Police Department’s jurisdiction is the City and County of Honolulu (island of Oahu). The land area is approximately 600 square miles with an estimated resident population of 980,080. The department geographically divides the island into eight police districts. At the end of 2019, the actual personnel strength of the department was 2,292 of which 1,825 were police officers. Calls for Service. In 2019, the department recorded 568,157 calls for service that resulted in a case report. Calls for service are incidents that require the presence of officers and/or come to the attention of officers via the communications center (9-1-1 calls) or are field-initiated. The following provides a general summary of use of force incidents by district.
  3. 3. 3 Rev. 9-2020 USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS Data collection. When any use of force beyond routine handcuffing is used, a use of force report is completed and submitted by the officer who used force, whether injuries occurred or not. Data for this report is based on 2,354 incidents where force was used in 2019 that was documented in the CRS. There were occurrences where multiple reports resulting from the same incident were submitted by each of the officers involved. These reports are counted as a single force incident. Incidents by District. District 1 reported the highest number of use of force incidents (690) during this period. Furthermore, District 1 had the highest number of calls for service in 2019 with 150,896. A summary of force incidents per 1,000 calls for service is provided below. Use of Force Incidents by District Resident Population 2019* Calls for Service** Use of Force Incidents District 1 82,900 150,896 690 District 2 116,900 35,568 173 District 3 166,800 64,810 174 District 4 136,000 49,381 159 District 5 140,900 79,861 321 District 6 26,200 42,886 308 District 7 158,600 67,313 276 District 8 154,700 77,442 253 Total 983,000 568,157 2,354 *Resident population estimates based on 2018 U.S. Census Honolulu County QuickFacts; (2019 data not available, as of March 6, 2020). **Source: Computer Aided Dispatch System. Incident types not included as they are generated by officers and/or dispatchers: 000 (Follow up), 200W (WARN FAM OFF/NEG), 210 (DUI), 297 (WARRANT ARREST), 446 (EXTRADITION VIOLATION), 464 (INITIAL TRO), 535 (TRAFF ARREST/CIT), 653 (TRANSFER), 999 (OFCR IN TROUBLE), C6 (INVESTIGATION), OT, OUT (OUT OF SERVICE), SA (SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT), SV (STALLED VEHICLE), TS (TRAFFIC STOP), TZ (TOW ZONE)
  4. 4. 4 Rev. 9-2020 TYPES OF INCIDENTS Types of incidents. The following is a summary of the type of incidents where force was used. Simple Assault cases accounted for the largest number of force incidents with 13.4% (316). Mental Health cases accounted for the second largest number of incidents at 13.3% (312). Miscellaneous Public cases were the third largest figure, accounting for 6.7% (158) of all force incidents. Incidents by hour of day. The following is a summary of use of force incidents by hour of day and by day of week. The number of incidents was highest between 2400 and 0059 hours, accounting for 6.9% of force incidents. Incidents occurring on Mondays (347) and Saturdays (351) accounted for almost 29.7% of all use of force incidents. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0600 to 0659 0700 to 0759 0800 to 0859 0900 to 0959 1000 to 1059 1100 to 1159 1200 to 1259 1300 to 1359 1400 to 1459 1500 to 1559 1600 to 1659 1700 to 1759 1800 to 1859 1900 to 1959 2000 to 2059 2100 to 2159 2200 to 2259 2300 to 2359 2400 to 0059 0100 to 0159 0200 to 0259 0300 to 0359 0400 to 0459 0500 to 0559 51 63 68 95 72 86 85 73 84 132 110 134 120 115 117 95 134 131 162 138 107 79 59 44 Hours of Day NumberofIncidents Use of Force Incidents by Hour of Day Use of Force Incidents by Day of Week Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Incidents 312 347 342 331 342 329 351 Percentage 13.3% 14.7% 14.5% 14.1% 14.5% 14.0% 14.9%
  5. 5. 5 Rev. 9-2020 SUBJECTS OF FORCE INCIDENTS Subject age. Of the 2,248 incidents where age can be determined, subject’s ages ranged from 12 years old to 91 years old. The most frequent age group was subjects in their twenties (26%) with 27 year olds being the most frequent subjects involved in force incidents. The average age of all subjects was 34 years of age with the median age being 47 years old. Juveniles (ages 12 to 17 years old were subjects in approximately 6.4% (150) of force incidents. 150 113 707 631 317 216 89 21 3 1 106 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 10-17 18-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 UNK Incidents Age Incidents by Subject Age Subject Gender. In the 2,298 reports where gender is reported, 1,790 subjects (78%) were male and 508 (22%) were female. Juvenile males accounted for 7.16% of all male subjects and juvenile females accounted for 6.63% of all female subjects. Subject Employment. The number of subjects who were unemployed at the time of the incident continues to be significant. Even with a large number of blank and unknown entries on the Use of Force Report form in CRS, subjects known to be unemployed at the time of the incident accounted for 650 (28%) of all subjects. This is a decrease from 2018, where unemployed subjects accounted for 37% of all incidents.
  6. 6. 6 Rev. 9-2020 SUBJECTS ORIGIN AND RACE Subject Origin and Race. The origin and race of subjects involved in force incidents were more frequently Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (NHPI), accounting for 34.5% of incidents. This is an increase from 2018 where 31.1% of incidents involved NHPI. NHPI are defined by the Census Bureau as persons having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicate their race as “Native Hawaiian,” “Micronesian,” “Samoan,” or provide other detailed Pacific Islander responses. NHPI was followed by White subjects (23.1%) and Asian subjects (13.4%). When compared with the U.S. Census estimates for Honolulu, there continues to be a significant difference in the number of Use of Force subjects represented in the NHPI category when compared to the general population. Use of Force Incidents by Subject Origin and Race Origin & Race Use of Force Incidents Percent of UOF Incidents by Race WHITE 543 23.1% BLACK 174 7.4% AIAN (American Indian, Alaska Native) 4 0.2% ASIAN 316 13.4% NHPI (Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander) 811 34.5% 2 OR MORE RACES 256 10.9% HISPANIC ORIGIN 51 2.2% UNKNOWN 189 8.0% OTHERS 10 0.4%
  7. 7. 7 Rev. 9-2020 DRUGS AND/OR ALCOHOL USE BY SUBJECT Drug or alcohol use. Fifty-eight percent of all incidents involved subjects that used or were suspected of using drugs and/or alcohol. This is a slight decrease in the reported number of incidents involving subjects that used or were suspected of using drugs and/or alcohol in 2018 (63.1%). Male subjects had a higher (76.4%) frequency of drug and/or alcohol use at the time of the incident than female subjects (22.3%). Incidents where subject used or suspected of using drugs and/or alcohol Gender Incidents Percent of Incidents by gender Percent of all incidents Male 1,044 76.4% 44.4% Female 305 22.3% 13.0% Unk or Multiple Subjects 17 1.2% 0.7% Total 1,366 100.0% 58.0%
  8. 8. 8 Rev. 9-2020 SUBJECT LEVEL OF RESISTANCE The amount of force used should be relative to the level of resistance (the actions taken by a subject to evade an officer's attempts at control). The Honolulu Police Department’s Use of Force Report form categorizes subject resistance into seven levels, listed here from the lowest to highest: psychological intimidation, verbal noncompliance, passive resistance, defensive resistance, active resistance, active aggression, and aggravated active aggression. In examining the highest level of resistance encountered for each incident, defensive resistance was the most frequent level of resistance encountered in 818 (35%) incidents. Active resistance was the second most frequent level with 445 (19%) and active aggression was third with 217 (9%). No resistance was encountered in 396 (17%) incidents. These 396 incidents represent the number of times officers unholstered their weapons (e.g., firearm, conducted energy weapon) as a safety measure when they responded to potentially dangerous situations, however, no subjects were encountered nor weapons discharged. Though a weapon is not used on a subject, unholstering it is considered a display, therefore, counted as a type of force. None Psychological Intimidation Verbal Noncompliance Passive Resistance Defensive Resistance Active Resistance Active Aggression Aggravated Active Aggression Total 396 35 156 207 818 445 217 80 2,354 Subject’s Actions Highest Level of Resistance Encountered by Officer
  9. 9. 9 Rev. 9-2020 BREAKDOWN OF OPTIONS USED IN INCIDENTS REQUIRING FORCE Summarized below is the highest level of force used by officers in each incident. Physical Confrontation techniques were the most frequent force options used by officers, which accounted for 46% of force applications. Deadly Force accounted for 21% of force options used. The act of unholstering the firearm is included in the same category as deadly force. See below for details. Highest Level of Control Use During Incident Type of Force Used by Officers Deadly Force: Firearm Unholstered Versus Discharged at Subject The deadly force figure above does not indicate that firearms were discharged at subjects in 21% of force incidents. Officers often unholster their firearms as a safety measure when responding to potentially dangerous situations such as a burglary in progress or building search for a suspect. Included in the 21% are incidents when firearms are unholstered but not discharged at a subject. Though officers unholstered their firearms in 478 incidents, only in 9 situations did officers resort to discharging their firearms at a subject.
  10. 10. 10 Rev. 9-2020 Officer Response to Subject’s Actions Officer Response SubjectResistance Verbal Command Physical Contact Chemical Agent Physical Confrontation Intermediate Weapon Deadly Force Total Psychological Intimidation 2 10 1 5 1 16 35 Verbal Noncompliance 3 52 10 44 2 44 155 Passive Resistance 3 127 3 59 1 13 206 Defensive Resistance 2 314 18 454 3 27 818 Active Resistance 2 96 16 307 6 17 444 Active Aggression 2 31 20 153 4 7 217 Aggravated Active Aggression 1 3 1 29 3 43 80 Total 15 633 69 1,051 20 167 1,955 Duration of Resistance. Most of the resistance interactions lasted less than 30 seconds (935) or 40%. Of the total, 69% of all incidents lasted a minute or less. Duration of Resistance < 30 Sec 30 Sec to 1 Min 1-2 Min 2-4 Min > 4 Min N/A 935 693 341 201 134 50 40% 29% 14% 9% 6% 2%
  11. 11. 11 Rev. 9-2020 Officer Response in Relation to Subject Age and Gender. In 2019, Physical Confrontation was most effective in incidents involving juveniles, the same was reported for 2018. Consistent with 2018, the application of force options were applied consistently over all age groups with Physical Confrontation techniques (45%) being the most commonly used option. In 2018, it accounted for 44% of all force incidents. Physical Confrontation technique was used more often with male (36%) than female (10%) subjects. The Deadly Force option, which includes unholstering of a firearm, was used in a higher percentage of incidents where male subjects (17%) were involved versus female subjects (3%). Subject injuries. In 2019, 74% of subjects in use of force incidents had no observable injury and reported none when asked. Subjects who had no observable injury but complained of injury accounted for 6% of subjects. There were 471 (21%) subjects who sustained bodily injury, eleven subjects who sustained substantial bodily injury, and seven subjects who sustained serious bodily injury. As reported by officer(s) at the time of the incident, eight subjects died during incidents where force was used in response to a call for service. Officer injuries. In 2019, 95% of incidents occurred without an officer reporting injury. Officers sustained bodily injuries in 108 (5%) incidents. Of the total use of force incidents, one (less than 1%) resulted in substantial bodily injury. There were 17 (1%) officers who complained of injuries without having visible signs of the injuries.
  12. 12. 12 Rev. 9-2020 Use of Batons. In 2019, there were nine incidents reported in the Case Reporting System (CRS) where a baton was used. Six incidents involved the display of the baton. There were three baton strikes and no jabs. In 2018, there were eight incidents where the baton was used. Five incidents involving displaying the baton, three incidents involving baton strikes, and no jabs. Use of Vascular Neck Restraint. There were eleven incidents where the vascular neck restraint (VNR) was used as compared to nine incidents in 2018. Use of Chemical Agents. There were 73 reports on the use of chemical agents. Of those reported, all were oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray incidents. Of those incidents, 18 incidents were display only and 55 officers reported discharging the spray. In 2018, there were 93 reports on the use of chemical agents, all OC spray incidents. Of those incidents, 20 incidents were display only and 73 officers reported discharging the spray. Conducted Electrical Weapon Use. In 2019, there were 58 incidents in which the conducted electrical weapon (CEW) was used. Of those incidents, 40 were display and 18 were probe deployments. In comparison for 2018, the CRS reported 53 incidents where the CEW was used. Of those, 42 were display only incidents, 11 probe deployments, and no drive stuns. Use of Firearms. Use or display of firearms, including handguns, shotguns, and rifles were reported in 488 force incidents in 2019. Of the total number of cases involving firearms, nine incidents involved a discharge of the weapon(s). In 2018, there were 407 incidents, including 11 incidents where firearms were discharged. Tables on the following pages summarize some of the observations in this section.
  13. 13. 13 Rev. 9-2020 Type of Control Used Within Each Force Option (based on highest level of force used)* Verbal Command Asking Setting Context Ordering Giving Options Confirmation Other Total 12 0 15 0 0 0 27 Physical Contact Touch Escort Lt Pressure Pt Lt Joint Lock Other Total 446 110 13 35 55 659 Chemical Agent Chemical Agent Displayed Only Chemical Agent Used Total 18 55 73 Physical Confrontation (Includes Conducted Energy Weapon) Hand/Arm Strike Foot/Leg Strike Head Lock Joint Lock Physical Strength Technique Other Total 118 45 25 140 627 115 1,070 Display Only Probes Drive Stun Conducted Energy Weapon Total 40 18 0 58 Intermediate Weapon Display Baton Only Baton Strike Baton Jab Vascular Neck Restraint Stun Weapon (less-lethal, impact, specialty) Other Total 6 3 0 11 0 0 20 Deadly Force Displayed/Unholstered Weapon Fired Weapon Other Total 478 9 1 488 *Note: Information was retrieved from CRS and filtered based on (i) force start dates between 1/1/2019 to 12/31/2019, and (ii) submitted as approved reports. Confirmed with PSO.
  14. 14. 14 Rev. 9-2020 Type of Force Used by Subject Age <18 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ Not Specified Total None 1 0 3 2 3 0 8 17 Verbal Command 1 11 8 5 1 1 0 27 Physical Contact 40 236 179 94 52 39 19 659 Chemical Agent 4 25 18 7 6 3 10 73 Physical Confrontation 79 375 299 134 108 41 34 1,070 Intermediate Weapon 1 8 6 3 0 2 0 20 Deadly Force 25 165 116 72 46 29 35 488 Total 151 820 629 317 216 115 106 2,354 Type of Force Used by Subject Gender Subject Gender None Verbal Command Physical Contact Chemical Agent Physical Confrontation Intermediate Weapon Deadly Force Total Male 10 (1%) 21 (1%) 451 (20%) 55 (4%) 838 (36%) 17 (1%) 398 (17%) 1,790 Female 1 (1%) 6 (1%) 202 (9%) 11 (1%) 218 (10%) 3 (1%) 67 (3%) 508 Not Specified 6 (1%) 0 (0%) 6 (1%) 7 (1%) 14 (1%) 0 (0%) 23 (1%) 56 Total 17 (0.7%) 27 (1.1%) 659 (28.0%) 73 (3.1%) 1,070 (45.5%) 20 (0.8%) 488 (20.7%) 2,354
  15. 15. 15 Rev. 9-2020 Subject Injuries by Type of Force Used Type of Force None Complaint of Injury Bodily Injury Substantial Bodily Injury Serious Bodily Injury Death Total None 16 1 0 0 0 0 17 Verbal Command 25 0 2 0 0 0 27 Physical Contact 516 39 100 1 0 3 661 Chemical Agent 41 7 25 0 0 0 73 Physical Confrontation 662 79 317 8 4 0 1,070 Intermediate Weapon 10 4 6 0 0 0 20 Deadly Force 447 10 21 2 3 5 488 Total 1,717 140 471 11 7 8 2,354 % of Force Used 73.0% 5.9% 20.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% *Note: Information was retrieved from CRS and filtered based on (i) force start dates between 1/1/2019 to 12/31/2019, and (ii) submitted as approved reports. Officer Injuries by Type of Force Used Type of Force None Complaint of Injury Bodily Injury Substantial Bodily Injury Serious Bodily Injury Death Total None 16 0 1 0 0 0 17 Verbal Command 27 0 0 0 0 0 27 Physical Contact 639 9 10 0 1 0 659 Chemical Agent 71 0 2 0 0 0 73 Physical Confrontation 976 8 85 1 0 0 1,070 Intermediate Weapon 18 0 2 0 0 0 20 Deadly Force 480 0 8 0 0 0 488 Total 2,227 17 108 1 1 0 2,354 % of Force Used 94.6% 0.7% 4.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0% *Note: Information was retrieved from CRS and filtered based on (i) force start dates between 1/1/2019 to 12/31/2019, and (ii) submitted as approved reports.
  16. 16. 16 Rev. 9-2020 RECOMMNDATIONS The following recommendations are based on the call for police reform facing law enforcement agencies across the nation. Although Hawaii has a more diversified demographic make-up in regards to ethnicities, there still may be a need to track officers’ use of force to identify issues of implicit or explicit bias. Also, a review of the Justice in Policing Act draft identifies disproportionate minority contact as one of the key issues in developing their proposed reporting mandates. The purpose of these recommendations are two-fold: to identify employees who may be bias in their application of use of force and to anticipate reporting mandates to maintain federal funding requirements. Toward these ends, the department will explore the feasibility of implementing the following: • Ensure that the source material data contain specific fields that can capture and provide a breakdown of the number of incidents by the race, age, and gender of the officers involved in relation to the subject on whom force is used. • Ensure that the source material data contain data to capture incidents when canines are deployed as a force response. This will also be included in the update of the policy on Use of Force. • Implementation of IAPro Blue Team upon completion of the new Report Management System (RMS). The Blue Team feature will be able to extract and compile Use of Force data and compose an early intervention dashboard to be used in conjunction with the Employee Early Recognition System policy. • Integration of officer race information into IAPro from a human resources database. This will give the system the ability to provide racial comparisons between officers and subjects. The information may identify patterns or trends in an officer’s use of force. This process will be crucial to supporting the ability to provide officers’ demographics in upcoming reports.
  17. 17. 17 Rev. 9-2020 The following recommendation is being made to help improve reporting accuracies and streamline data collecting practices. It has been determined that reporting discrepancies between statistics obtained from the Professional Standards Office (PSO) and the RMS (via the Case Report System) were due to each division maintaining their own separate databases. • Implementation of IAPro Blue Team upon completion of the RMS. The data collection (documenting) of use of force into the database will be at the user-level. Regardless of purpose, the extracting of data will be from the original source. The PSO and ITD will need to work with IAPro in the development of the reporting format to ensure all data they need for their specific purpose is captured, including statistics for mandated reporting. The following recommendations are to include data on other force options not previously documented and to further define the types of Deadly Force used. The statistics contained in the Annual Use of Force Report severely misrepresents Deadly Force reporting as it includes unholstering of a firearm even when a subject is not encountered (i.e.: state of readiness, building searches, etc.). • Delineate circumstances where a firearm was used into specific categories (i.e.: discharge of a firearm, brandish of a firearm, other technique, etc.). The Deadly Force categories would be represented in the Annual Use of Force Report in a table or pie chart. • Revise the Use of Force report form and data collection to distinguish incidents that do not involve the presence of a subject or the weapon being used to compel a subject. As an example, an officer performing a building search, but no subject is encountered. • The PSO investigates all reports of officer involved shootings, therefore, the accuracy of firearm discharges in the Annual Use of Force Report shall be reconciled with the PSO prior to publishing. This would ensure that the reporting of statistics include all officer-involved shootings. • Capturing data and reporting on the use of the Vascular Neck Restraint (VNR) as a deadly force option. An update to department’s policy on Use of Force will reflect this reporting change. • Documenting and reporting the deployment of a canine as a force option.
  18. 18. 18 Rev. 9-2020 The following recommendations are intended to improve accuracy and quality of data that is documented on the Use of Force form. • Officers and supervisors should receive more training on how to fill out the Use of Force form as well as why properly completing the form is important (e.g., improving training, policy, and responsiveness to areas of corrections). • Measures or procedures to improve the accountability of supervisors and/or others who are directly responsible for reviewing and ensuring Use of Force forms are properly and thoroughly completed.

×