Good afternoon.
My name is Chris Lawrence and I'm an instructor at the Ontario Police College. For the past 12 years my duties have included training Ontario police officers on how to gain lawful control of resistive, aggressive, assaultive subjects.
I'd like to begin by quoting one of Sir Robert Peel's nine principles of policing, which states:
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
I'd like to point out that we are all in this together, and we should not lose sight of that. I don't think it should be looked at as a police versus public issue. As I said, we're all in this together--very much so.
Cases involving sudden death following a struggle precipitated by unusual or bizarre behaviour first appeared in the medical literature in Dr. Willis' Oxford Casebook in 1650. Since that time, reports in the medical literature were entered in 1832, 1849, 1867, 1939, 1944, and 1960. These reports did not involve the police, and they were essentially patients who would be recognized today as experiencing mental illness. The reports of these deaths subsided in the 1960s around the time that anti-psychotic medications became available. These types of deaths began to reappear in the medical literature in 1985 in southeastern Florida, and they were tied to cocaine consumption. Early modern reports began to use the term “excited delirium” in 1985. It was a term coined by Dr. Charles Wetli--a physician, not a police officer. That term was again used in 1993 and in 1995.
Critics point out that excited delirium is not a recognized medical diagnosis, and they're correct. It is a term used by police officers to efficiently convey a set of circumstances, much like the use of the term “domestic”. If I were to tell another officer that I need help with a “domestic”, that officer understands what I need when I call for assistance. I wouldn't have to use a lot of information to convey the needs that would be required. When the term “excited delirium” is used, another trained officer would understand that in all likelihood I'm dealing with a male, at least partially clad, who is acting in a bizarre manner, that a struggle may be involved, and the subject may be very strong, sweating, etc. “Excited delirium” is also a term that some physicians are becoming familiar with.
Deaths associated with these types of events have been related to a variety of causes over the years: prone positioning, a theory for which the scientific validity has been questioned; pepper spray, a theory that very few adhere to any longer; neck restraints--a recent Canadian Police Research Centre review did address this issue, I think it was last year--and today we're discussing conducted energy devices or weapons. Despite the mechanism of restraint being changed, people continue to die suddenly and unexpectedly.
Beginning in 1999, I began to examine these events in greater detail. I found a host of potential medical issues that seemed to be buried within the medical literature. The potential causes of death included arrhythmia caused by both substance abuse and by properly taken prescribed medications at therapeutic levels, cardiomyopathy or an enlargement of the heart, hypothermia, catecholamine rush, rhabdomyolysis, electrolite imbalances, metabolic and lactic acidosis, and indeed there's some suggestion that there may be a genetic component to this problem. As a partial completion for my master's degree, I examined 29 of these sudden deaths in the province of Ontario between 1988 and 2004. One involved the conducted energy weapon.
Recently I examined some records from Ontario's Special Investigations Unit that are publicly available online, and I discovered that they've classified 109 deaths that occurred in custody between 2001 and 2007. After examining the synopsis of these events and adding the data that I gleaned from my earlier investigation, it appears there may be 40 events between 1998 and 2007 in a population of 12 million people. Of these 40 events, five involved a conducted energy weapon.
While the present common thread appears to be conducted energy weapon use, these types of deaths occurred long before conducted energy weapons were deployed in Ontario and continue to occur when conducted energy weapons are not used. Deaths of this nature have been reported since before policing began. They continue to occur in medical settings.
Recent research on conducted energy weapons has been inconclusive with respect to studies using the swine model. Pigs are used as human surrogates in medical research. There are limits to applicability. Despite the controversy, there is an ongoing Canadian effort to synthesize current research information and report on that later this year to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
I believe we can do better than that. There exists in Canada the ability to study this problem in real time in the real world, completely independent of industry. Preliminary work has started. Current barriers include lack of funding and the capacity or opportunity to analyze that data. Much work has already been accomplished. Unfortunately, the information is not getting to the public very well. While controversy is reported, significant inaccuracies exist. Communication on the science and research efforts relating to this problem needs to improve. Members of the public would benefit from hearing this type of information.
An additional barrier to our understanding of these events, which I would submit for your consideration, comes from the popular media--what's been termed the “CSI effect”, if you will. There is a confidence--indeed, an expectation--that an autopsy will find everything. It may not. Further, once a crime has been ruled out, the ability to thoroughly investigate the incident is significantly diminished. Often the necessary authority to secure search warrants that would allow the investigation to continue ends. The result can be a family left with unanswered questions and an investigation that can no longer provide them.
Another point that must be considered is the role of law enforcement agencies and the public expectation of their capacity. Police services provide exactly that: police service. Few are funded to such an extent that scientific research is being done within the organization. Statistics are being requested when reporting on them has never been required before. The information is available, but a mere push of a button will not bring it up. On this issue, Peel stated “the basic mission for which...police exist is to prevent crime and disorder”. Sir Robert Peel mentioned nothing about research. Further, current expert opinion is that these types of deaths may be a complex, multifactorial medical crisis difficult for expert physicians to manage. Yet police officers armed with a first aid certificate are being asked to handle these events.
As a public citizen, I see today that there has been a devolution of public trust in the men and women who police our communities. In a country whose icons, recognized internationally, include a police officer, in a country with a reputation for being a peacekeeper, this is indeed unfortunate. Among Peel's admonishments was that “the ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions”.
I believe answers to our questions exist, and I believe they are discoverable, and in some instances in the near future, if barriers are removed. In other cases, the answers will come more slowly, but I believe they will come. Police agencies are trying to do what they think is correct and in the best interest of the public. The police are aware that, again, as Peel stated, “the degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force”.
CEWs were deployed in the interest of police and public safety. As stated within the principles of the national use-of-force framework, police and public safety are intertwined and co-dependent: one cannot exist without the other. “Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.” Again, these are principles going back to 1829.
There are cases in which police officers have acted in an exemplary manner. I can think of one particular case in which the subject was never touched, was allowed to calm down and have his concerns addressed, and was convinced to go willingly to the hospital. The circumstances suddenly changed. An unprecipitated altercation ensued, and the subject suddenly and unexpectedly died. Despite the best efforts of very well-trained police officers, some people have died without the involvement of conducted energy weapons.
Peel also said that “police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law”. Policing has always been a difficult task. The complexities of an officer's career expand as our social demands grow and our society's complexity broadens. What remains unalterable is our service to the law.
The deaths that have brought this problem to your attention have occurred for hundreds of years, and will continue, I believe, with or without the availability of conducted energy weapons.
There exists in Canada a research acumen and capability that may be able to answer some of these questions. I would seek the support necessary to get answers, and then to make an informed decision, rather than have it decided by something less.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important matter, and I'll do my best to answer your questions at the conclusion of the presentation.
I'd also like to point out for the record that I have no current funding relationships with Taser. I did at one point purchase Taser stocks on the open market as part of a retirement portfolio, and when it became apparent to me that my work might have an impact on the integrity of that relationship, I disposed of the stocks on my own volition without anybody telling me to do so, despite the fact that some people assured me that they saw no conflict of interest. So I have no relationship with Taser. I've never worked for them, I've never been to Scottsdale, and I've never done any training for them. I just want to make that clear.
I'll answer any questions you have when the time is suitable.