ÌìÃÀÊÓƵ

A month ago, Civil Beat revealed that the Honolulu Police Department has loaded up on Tasers, pepper spray and other types of non-lethal weapons in advance of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit next month.

One big question that arose from that story: Under what circumstances is HPD going to use all this new gear?

Civil Beat asked for, and has been provided, the department’s Use Of Force Guidelines.

The 22-page document is dated Jan. 1, 2003, but has sections that are marked as being updated far more recently — earlier this month, in fact.

Asked to characterize the nature of the changes and if they were made in anticipation of APEC, all HPD spokeswoman Caroline Sluyter would say is that HPD “routinely reviews and updates department policies.”

“The Use of Force policy was recently updated to include changes in technology and tactics that have occurred since the policy was last updated in 2003,” she wrote in an email to Civil Beat. “The policy will guide our officers as they do their jobs now and in the future.”

The document defines reasonable force and unreasonable force, and says factors to be considered include severity of the crime, level of threat and the suspect’s behavior.

It outlines the seven levels of resistance, from “psychological intimidation” (things like “glaring at the officer”) to “passive resistance” (“dead weight” posture) all the way up to aggravated active aggression, which includes assault with a weapon that could kill a police officer.

Similarly, the document lists eight different “force options,” ranging from mere “officer presence” up to deadly force and firearms. Toward the end of that spectrum are Tasers (Level 6) and less-lethal weapons (Level 7).

The department has heavily redacted portions of the document to avoid giving away tactics. Sluyter explained that revealing too much information could help suspects thwart a police officer’s efforts to bring them into custody, and could create a more dangerous situation.

Blacked out are sections describing strike and kick techniques, approved batons and vascular neck restraints (submission hold). So too, curiously, are sections regarding medical treatment and documentation required when those levels of force are deployed.

Also totally redacted is an attachment revealing the HPD’s levels of control. The table tells officers what force options are available to them for each level of a subject’s resistance. For example, if an APEC protester is lying on the sidewalk ignoring verbal police commands, are officers allowed to deploy pepper spray, or are they limited to physical contact?

“The Levels of Control model provides a general guideline for the appropriate responses to different levels of perceived resistance,” the policy states. “Generally the higher the level of resistance, the higher the level of force that is justified.”

When Civil Beat explained the value of that particular page, the HPD released a that shows the seven levels of resistance down the right side. But the officers’ use of force options are still blacked out.

The specifics aren’t clear, at least to the public, but the policy does include some general guidance.

“Officers should generally use the appropriate level of force which can reasonably be expected to succeed in controlling the situation,” the policy states. “Since confrontations occur in environments that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving, officers may use tools and tactics outside the parameters of the model and departmental training.

“However, such applications of force shall meet the standards of reasonableness.”