Letter to Commissioner Duheme regarding Police Intevention Techniques

June 20, 2023

 

Commissioner Mike Duheme

RCMP National Headquarters

73 Leikin Drive

Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2

 

Dear Commissioner,

I am writing to you today on behalf of the Management Advisory Board (MAB) for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to outline an area we think is of critical importance.

The Mandate Letter and Neck Restraints, Tear Gas and Rubber Bullets

In the mandate letters to both the RCMP Commissioner and the Minister of Public Safety, the federal government signaled the RCMP to prohibit the “use of neck restraints in any circumstance, along with a prohibition of the use of tear gas and rubber bullets for crowd control [...].”

We recognize the aspirational nature of mandate letters and wanted to take the time to advise you, the Commissioner, as well as Public Safety Canada and the Minister of Public Safety before any formal action is taken to further implement these items through, for example, a Ministerial directive.

We recognize that the Minister, as the responsible democratic authority, can assume responsibility for the policy that guides even RCMP operational matters, but believe that this must be done in a manner that is both transparent and informed by evidence.

We requested and received full briefings by both the RCMP and Public Safety Canada on the issues raised by the mandate letter in order to proceed in an evidence-based manner. The MAB learned about the RCMP’s use of less than lethal police intervention techniques, de-escalation, and crisis intervention at various MAB meetings in 2022 and, most recently, at the MAB’s in-person meeting on May 5, 2023, which included an operational demonstration of the Carotid Control Technique (CCT) - including on two (2) MAB members. 

The Differences between Chokeholds and Carotid Control Techniques

The RCMP does not train nor condone its officers using chokeholds or respiratory restraints that cut off a person’s airways. In November 2022, the RCMP formalized its decision not to use Chokeholds through its operational policy (OM – ch.17.2) on CCT. We believe that this is appropriate both because of the danger of chokeholds and because of the fact that they are often not immediately effective in stopping a person who presents a danger to others.

The RCMP does train on the use of the CCT. The CCT is a commonly taught move in several forms of martial arts, including Brazilian Ju-Jitsu. The CCT is different from a chokehold because it involves placing lateral pressure on the carotid arteries in a way that impedes flow of blood to the brain, and can cause a person to lose consciousness.

The CCT when applied properly and pursuant to training, does not restrict breathing as a chokehold would. CCT applies pressure to both sides of a person’s neck and may cause a brief period of unconsciousness allowing a police officer to safely place an individual in handcuffs. Current RCMP training and policy limits the use of the CCT to application by members who have received RCMP-approved training in its use, as well as at times when a subject is causing grievous bodily harm or death, or when the member believes, on reasonable grounds, that the subject will imminently cause grievous bodily harm or death, as determined by their assessment of the totality of the circumstances.

As of 2021, all RCMP members need to recertify annually on the policy regarding the application and use of the CCT, and recertify in person on the application and use of CCT once every three (3) years. Members are required to report whenever they use the CCT, and after the use of all intervention options.

The CCT was used by the RCMP 25 times in 2020, 14 times in 2021, and approximately 14 times in 2022. In 20% of instances, the use of CCT resulted in a person losing consciousness. The CCT injury rate is 77% lower than other physical control hard techniques and is the lowest compared to all other intervention options, with the exception of OC spray. The fact that in most cases a person becomes subdued, and therefore not dangerous, before losing consciousness can be seen as a measure of the effectiveness of the method.

In our view, the RCMP has taken an appropriate evidence-based approach to this serious subject that affects public and officer safety as well as public trust and confidence in policing. The RCMP supplied information for a study by Bozeman et al published in the (2022) Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine titled ‘Safety of Vascular Neck Restraint Applied by Law Enforcement Officers’^{Footnote 1}. The study by 11 independent academics concluded that the use of the CCT, performed by trained law enforcement officers, was both safe and effective (see attached Annex A). The study, based on 944 field uses, by three (3) agencies including the RCMP“ […] revealed no fatalities or significant injuries, and analysis suggests that the risk of these is not higher than 0.4%” and that the effectiveness of the technique“ […] in allowing apprehension and arrest is estimated to be 92.6%, demonstrating its value in high-risk police encounters.” Two (2) deaths did occur but were related to cocaine toxicity. Nine (9) subjects reported 12 injuries but all were classified as mild injuries, with most related to grappling during the intervention. There were also no deaths or other than mild injuries when the technique was used on 85,918 officers or trainees as part of training.

The MAB has also conducted its own research, including into Ontario’s decision in 1992 to prohibit the use of CCT techniques after the death of a person as a result of acute asphyxia and laryngeal trauma during an arrest. The cause of death identified at the autopsy was asphyxia due to compression of the neck. Evidence was heard at a subsequent inquest that the officer was “trying to choke” the deceased. The impact on the victim was consistent with a chokehold rather than the CCT. Chokeholds and respiratory restraints are not taught, trained, or endorsed by the RCMP. There is no evidence that Ontario’s prohibition on the CCT has influenced the frequency of deaths or serious injuries to subjects and/or officers over the last 30 years in Ontario. For example, it is possible that the CCT could have been used instead of more injurious intervention options.

Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets and Sponge Rounds

The RCMP does not possess nor use rubber bullets. The RCMP does use Extended Range Impact Weapons (ERIW), which use 40 mm low velocity sponge rounds that are lightweight, high-speed projectiles consisting of a plastic body and sponge nose. Only the sponge nose impacts a person if fired. The 40 mm ERIW is an intermediate weapon designed to deliver less-lethal force. Other intermediate weapons include batons, Oleoresin Capsicum spray, and Conducted Energy Weapon, also known as a TASER.

ERIWs allow officers to respond from a greater distance to a subject who may want to harm themselves or others. This increased distance gives officers more time for de-escalation and communication, when possible. In a public-order setting, only trained and certified members of two (2) specialized RCMP units (Tactical Support Groups and Emergency Response Teams), at the direction of the Commander, are permitted to deploy chemical munitions to disperse a crowd or the ERIW. In 2021, the ERIW was used 86 times, of which it was applied 50 times (58.1%) and used as a deterrent (drawn and displayed or pointed at subject) 36 times (41.9%).

The RCMP’s specialty munitions include chemical munitions such as 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile (CS) gas. Since 2011, the RCMP has only deployed CS gas during two (2) public order events - the 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riots, and in February 2022 during the Trucker Convoy occupation of Ottawa. When deployed, CS gas irritates the mucous membranes causing a burning sensation in the eyes, nose, and throat, as well as nasal discharge, tearing, and closing of the eyes. The use of this tool in a public‑order setting reduces the risk to public and officer safety, and assists in dispersing riotous crowds.

The MAB’s Advice

The MAB is concerned about any use of force against individuals and especially the use of lethal force. We are also concerned about the safety of RCMP officers - particularly those officers who, because of the realities of rural and remote policing, may encounter dangerous situations without immediate assistance from other officers.

We recognize that public perceptions of policing, public trust and confidence are of paramount importance and that the Minister of Public Safety has democratic responsibility for the RCMP and can make directions even on matters that affect the policy of operations. Public disputes between the prior Commissioner and the Minister of Public Safety about these matters have not increased public confidence in the RCMP.

The RCMP has signaled that it does not support the implementation of the mandate letter commitments because limiting or removing available intervention methods would diminish the range of less than lethal options in the officer toolkit. The result could be increased risk to public and officer safety, and potentially an increased use of lethal force. The RCMP has not suspended the use of the CCT based on the existing research, policy, and training, as well as the robust oversight, reporting and accountability measures for its use.

After thorough study and difficult deliberation, the MAB has concluded that the mandate letter commitments against the use of any neck restraint or tear gas are not supported by the available evidence. There is a need for an evidence-based and transparent approach as demonstrated by this letter.

Given the evidence that the MAB has reviewed, we support the RCMP’s decision to train, including annual recertification on the policy regarding the application and use of the CCT. Although the CCT can be a seen as a neck restraint, the evidence firmly supports that it is both less dangerous and more effective than the Chokehold. Not all neck restraints are the same. The use of the CCT could, in some circumstances, be a justified alternative to the use of lethal force.

The MAB recommends that the RCMP explore and report back within 90 days on the operational feasibility of increasing the frequency of in-person recertification of officers on the application and use of the CCT from once every three (3) years to annually.  

We also recommend that the RCMP continue to publicly report on all use of the CCT, and whether it results in a member of the public being injured or rendered unconscious. The RCMP should undertake a thorough review of each use of the CCT, which can also facilitate external review should that be necessary. It would also be appropriate for the policy on training, use, reporting and review of the CCT to be subject to a public Ministerial directive. The MAB cautions, however, that any Ministerial directive should be evidence-based, detailed and contribute to public education and the maintenance of public confidence.

The RCMP does not use rubber bullets, but the MAB has also concluded on the available evidence that the use of CS gas and sponge rounds could be justified in some circumstances, such as those of dealing with a riot and against a person who is causing public harm or on reasonable grounds will imminently cause bodily harm. The MAB supports the RCMP’s proposal to develop policies that would limit the use of these less lethal techniques and require public reporting and review of the use of these polices. We also believe that these policies should, consistent with the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission, be publicly available. They could also be the subject of a publicly available Ministerial directive. Such a directive should also be evidence-based and provide requirements for public reporting by the RCMP, and review of any use of CS gas or sponge rounds in order to contribute to public education and confidence.

In short, the MAB would like to signal that it is our understanding on the available evidence that the RCMP operationally requires CCT, CS gas, and sponge rounds for police intervention. To formally prohibit their use could have unintended consequences that could increase the use of greater and perhaps even more lethal options. The MAB advises that limiting or removing intervention methods diminishes the range of less than lethal options in the officer toolkit, which may increase the risk to public and officer safety, and has the potential to increase the use of lethal force. The MAB supports the RCMP’s position of continuing to use these techniques unless formally directed otherwise in writing by the Minister.

It is the MAB’s hope that any such directive would clearly outline the rationale for a ban on the use of techniques that is supported by evidence and data. Based on the evidence it has reviewed, the MAB does not believe the blanket prohibitions proposed in the mandate letter have been justified.

As outlined in the recently issued Ministerial Directive on how the RCMP interacts with the MAB and considers its advice, please note that it is our intention to make this letter public via our website. In order to meet the requirement to consult with you before public release, we ask that any concerns or comments be sent to my attention, through the MAB Secretariat, [Redacted], within seven (7) days of issuance of this letter.

Sincerely,

Kent Roach, C.M., F.R.S.C.
Chairperson, Management Advisory Board for the RCMP

 

CC: Minister of Public Safety

 

Attachment: Annex A - Safety of Vascular Neck Restraint Applied by Law Enforcement Officers

PDF only

Footnotes

Footnote 1

William P. Bozeman, Gary M. Vilke, Christine Hall, David A. Klinger, Darrell L. Ross, Craig Bennell, Nicholas P. Petit, Diane L. Miller, Kristy K. Ford, Brian Hiestand, Jason P. Stopyra, “Safety of Vascular Neck Restraint applied by law enforcement officers” Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, Volume 92, 2022

referrer