Denver’s police watchdog on Wednesday commended the police department’s proposed use-of-force policy for its changing philosophy but criticized its “significant shortcomings,” including a failure to offer specifics on chokeholds, pistol-whipping and Taser use.
In a letter to the police chief, independent monitor Nick Mitchell said he found key provisions of the policy to be “vague and poorly defined, including its overall standard for when force may be used.”
Mitchell also wrote that the policy’s overall use-of-force standard is less restrictive than those used by other large cities, and that other provisions do not align with national best practices.
The policy does not meet emerging recommendations on police use for force, Mitchell said. For example, it does not specify how and when Tasers may be used or how use of force will be reported and investigated, the letter said. The draft policy also does not address chokeholds, which are restricted under Colorado state law.
“Without more information about the DPD’s plans to address these and other critical issues, the opportunity for meaningful and informed public feedback is limited,” Mitchell wrote in the letter.
When Police Chief Robert White announced in 2016 that he was rewriting the department’s use-of-force policy, Mitchell and the Citizens Oversight Board asked to be involved in drafting it. Other community groups also asked for input and specifically requested that Mitchell’s office be included.
The Citizens Oversight Board is appointed by the mayor, and the city’s charter says it should be involved in developing policy in the city’s law enforcement agencies. The monitor’s office is overseen by the board.
However, White insisted that he and his staff would create a draft and then allow for public comment.
During a Tuesday night public meeting about the proposed policy, a number of people urged the chief to start over and to seek more community involvement. People at that meeting also criticized the report for having vague language that they did not understand.
Mitchell’s letter again asked for inclusion of his office, rank-and-file police officers and community groups, saying it would boost the legitimacy of the policy.
“Most importantly, I believe it would also help to enhance trust in the DPD and thus improve the safety of officers and the public in the future,” he wrote.
On Wednesday, White issued a statement through the department’s public information office saying, “Chief White values the input from the community and the independent monitor, and is planning to carry out his stated plan for seeking recommendations through community forums and e-mail submissions. Once all the feedback and ideas are received, Chief White will take them under serious consideration and continue working towards a policy that produces the best and safest possible outcomes for both residents and officers.”
Mitchell’s letter includes 76 footnotes, referencing use-of-force policies in other cities, including Seattle, Cleveland and Miami. He also said he based many of his recommendations off of reports from President Barack Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing and a recent report endorsed by 11 law enforcement groups that outlines best practices for use-of-force policies.
Mitchell’s letter criticizes the department’s repeated use of “reasonable and necessary” force, saying those words were used in the existing use-of-force policy and are poorly defined in the proposed new one.
“Using the phrase ‘reasonable and necessary’ to define the phrase ‘reasonable and necessary’ is circular — and not really a definition at all, particularly when other departments have provided far clearer explanations,” Mitchell wrote.
There are some practices prohibited in other cities that would be allowed in Denver, including pistol-whipping suspects or using lethal force against someone to protect property, Mitchell’s letter said.
Mitchell also found areas that would be confusing for officers and would leave their actions open to their own interpretations.
For example, he cited a section on using aerosol and gas munitions. In the draft policy, it says officers would be allowed to use them when they clearly can articulate the need for them.
Mitchell wrote: “Yet, there may be situations where an officer believes that (he or she) can ‘clearly articulate the need for deployment’ of aerosol and gas munitions but where deployment is not ‘reasonable and necessary’ — the test for any use of force under the draft policy. The draft policy provides little guidance for addressing this potential ambiguity.”
