EXHIBIT N

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 1 of 28 PageID #:1911
Report of Darrell L. Ross, Ph.D.

Lopez v. City of Chic~i~c~, et, al., No. l2 C 5751

March 6, 20l 5

1. Since t~ugust 2010, I have been employed as a Professor, the Department Head and the Director

of the Center of Applied Social Sciences at Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA. From 2006

to 2010, I served as a Professor and the Director of The School of Law Enforcement and Justice

Administration at Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL. I was a Professor and former Chair of

the Department of Criminal Justice at East Carolina University, Greenville, NC from 1992 to

2006. Attached hereto is a current copy of my CV, a list of cases in which I have rendered an

opinion. within the last four years, and my fee schedule.

2. I received my Ph.D. in 1992 from Michigan State University. I have published ever 80 articles,

four books, and six book chapters/monographs, and have made numerous national and

international conference presentations (see my attached CV).

3. From 1.985 to 1992 i served as the Technical Assistance Coordinator for the Criminal Justice

Institute at Ferris State University, Big.Rapids, MI. My duties included reseazch and training for

police, corrections, security, and military personnel, locally and' nationally. I taught academic

courses at Ferris. I was also a certified instructor by the Michigan Commission on Law

Enforcement Standards and instructed the state training curriculum in the police academy at

Ferris, including the mechanics of arrest, search, and subject control techniques, responding to

persons in crisis and responding to the mentally ill, and physical fitness and physical wellness.

4. I worked for the Michigan Department of Corrections from 1973 to 1985 as an instructor teaching

all levels of Department positions and jail officers throughout the state. I was also a probation

officer, prison cell block supervisor, and correction officer. I was the Unit Manager of a

psychiatric/protective custody cell block housing 500 mentally ill prisoners at ttie State Prison of

Southern Michigan, Jackson, MI.

l have developed and provided numerous line level and administrative training programs for

police, correctional officers, military, and security personnel throughout the United .States and

internationally. I am acertified law enforcement instructor by the GA POST.

I have served as a consultant and/or trainer for: National Institute: of Justice, Michigan

Commission on Law enforcement Standards, Michigan Sheriff's Association, Illinois Law

Enforcement Training and Standards Board, Illinois State Police, North Carolina Justice

Academy, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Alaska Peace Officers Training

Commission, Pennsylvania Law Enforcement'Training and Education Commissio~~, .State of

klorida Police Training C~mmssioti, State of Wyonnng Police Training Co~mnission, American

Corrections Association, National Institute of Corrections, Michigan Department of Corrections,

Michiga~i Department of Corrections Jail Division, North Carolina Department of Corrections,

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 2 of 28 PageID #:1912
Corrections Corporation of America, States Attorney's Generll Office in six states, CJ.S.

Attorney's General Office in Florida, Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Australia Government, Honk

Kong Correctional Services, other agencies across the United States, and various branches of the

MilitZry.

I am familiar with recognized police use of force standards, practices, policies, procedures, and

police responses to subject resistance, subject control techniques, the use of Conducted Energy

Weapons, and police use of force training. My opinions are based on zny knowledge, research,

training, and experience regarding these practices; my training of various criminal justice,

military, and private security personnel; and reviewing the following-case documents:

Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint

Defendant City's Answer to Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint

Defendant Officers' Answers to Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint

Defendant Paramedics' Answer to Plaintiff's Fourth Amended

IJeposition Transcripts:

Guadalupe Guzman

Danie} Kairis, Chicago Fire Department

Julio Mendoza, Chicago Fire Department, ambulance

Sandra Cheatam, Chicago Fire Department, ambulance

Officer Armando Alamillo

Officer Jose Valdovinos

Officer Stevan Vidljinovic

Officer John Guettler

Officer Antonio Valenzuela

Officer Manuel Gonzalez

Sergeant Mark Kearns

Sergeant Larry Snelling

Officer George Cancer

Lt. Robert Dubiel

Ursula Scislicka, RN (and Triage Assessment Ind nurses' notes)

Fernando Orellana, MD (and Exhibits 1-10)

Chicago Police Department General Orders, Special Orders, Rules and Regult►tions:

Chicago Police Department Rules and Regulations

Generat Order 02-08: Use of force Uikidelines with addenda, including Use of

Force Model

Geiaeral Order 02-09-02: Other Weapon Discharge Incidents

• Special Order 02-01-04: Alcohol and Drug Dependent Persons

Special Order 03-08: Assisting Chicago Fire Department Paramedics

'I'rair~ia~g Records of:

Officer Armando Alamillo

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 3 of 28 PageID #:1913
Officer Jose Valdovinos

Officer Stevan Vidljinovic

Officer John Guettler

Officer Antonio Valerulea

Officer Manuel Gonzalez

Sergeant Mark Kearns

Lt. Robert Dubiel

Other Documents

Chicago Fire Department Paramedic report

Chicago Police Department Original Case Incident report

Chicago Police Department Tactical Response Report

Chicago Police Department Officers' Battery Report

Office of Emergency Communications, Police Department and Fire Department,

event queries

Chicago Fire Department incident report

TASER download

City of Chicago Municipal Code authorizing police to assist paramedics

Paramedic Sandra Cheatam's statement to Independent Police Review Authority

Paramedic Julio Mendoza statement to Independent Police Review Authority

Independent Police Review Authority investigation file (Cll)

Chicago Police Department TASER training materials (7 DVDs, 2007-2012)

Chicago Police Department TASER training review guide (11/09)

Plaintiff's TASER articles from Internet

TASER/CEW research bibliography re: CEWs Reduce Use of Deadly Force and

Injuries

20 II.CS 301/25-15 Emergency Treatment (Alcoholism and Other Drug Abuse

and Dependency Act)

Synopsis of the incident

On July 22, 2011, the Chicago Fire Department was dispatched to a call of person experiencing

chest pains at about 3:25 a.m. A friend of Jose Lopez, Guadalupe Guzman, called 9-1-1 and

requested that medical assistance be dispatched to 2451 South Albany Avenue. A Chicago Fire

Department tn~ck with a crew of firefighters and .one firefighter/paramedic responded at about

3:27 a.m. Ms. Guzman spoke to the firefighters and ide~rtified Mr. Lopez as the persona who

needed assistance. Firefighter/paramedic Daniel Kairis approached Mr. Lopez and attempted to

speak with him to determine what was wxong. According to Kairis, Mr. Lopez became agitated,

threw his hands in the air, moved his hands irn a jerking motion, and moved away from hiin. Mr.

Lopez began climbing over a parked car, walking over the hood, the roof, trunk, and jumped back

to the street. Mx. Lopez moved back closer to the firefighters, and began pacing and walking

around. Kairis heard Mr. Lopez grunting and observed him acting erratically and in a threatening

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 4 of 28 PageID #:1914
ma►~ner. Kairis attempted to assess Mr. Lopez's medical condition to provide care but could not

communicate with him due to Mr. Lopez's behavior and altered mental state. Kairis concluded

that Mr. Lopez was under the influence of ETO~-I (alcohol}, was on something, and could not

make competent decisioais. Kairis also concluded that it was not safe to approach Mr. Lopez to

provide medical care. Kairis informed his Lieutenant of his observations and it was determined

the police should be contacted.

At about 3:38 a.m tiie ambulance crew responded and Kairis informed paramedics Cheatam and

Mendoza that Mr. Lopez was acting erratically, believed that he was under the influence of an

unknown substance {ETON), that he was incompetent to make decisions, and that the police had

been summoned. When the paramedics arrived they observed Mr. Lopez walking on the street,

throwing his arms in the air, making fast gestures with his hands, making moaning sounds, that

his speech was slurred and not making any sense, and that he was combative. They concluded

that Mr. Lopez was under the influence of :PCP based on his behavior and determined the scene

was not safe.

Chicago Police Officers Alamiilo and Valdovinos (Beat 1033 R) responded to a dispatch from

the Chicago fire Department requesting police assistance regarding a drug overdose and arrived

on scene at about 3:3.9 a.m. Officer Alamillo spoke with the fire department personnel and

learned that Mr. Lopez refused to cooperate with them, and that they could not make contact with

him. Officer Alamillo also spoke to Ms. Guzman while Officer Valdovinos approached Mr.

Lopez to make contact with hirn. Officer Valdovinos observed Mr. Lopez acting erratically,

pacing back and forth, n~uznbling, and seemed to be high on something. Officer Va}dovinos

attempted to speak with him in English and Spanish and could not communicate with him.

Officer Valdovinos determined that Mr. Lopez was under the influence of PCP based on his

behavior and informed Officer Alamillo of his impressions. Officer Alamillo observed Mx. Lopez

in the street and noted that he was irate, mumbling, pacing back and forth, looked like he was on

something, would run, then stop and start main, would pace back and forth, was having a

conservation with himself, and was Ureathing, heavily. Based on the behavior of Mr. Lopez,

Officer Alamillo requested more officers incltidrng an offccer with a TASER at about 3:41 am.

Officer Val~ovinos attempted to make contact with Mr. Lopez a second time but 1VIr. Lopez

continued his erratic behavior and Officer Valdovinos was unable to communicate with him.

Officers Gonzalez and Valenzuela (Beat 1032 R) responded to the officer assist call of a patient

being combative and the call for a TASER. On location, they observed Officers Alamillo and

Valdovinos near Mr. Lopez attempting to talk to him as he was standing in the street, Officer

Gonzalez approached Mr. Lopez. with Qfficers Alamillo and Valdovinos and observed him

waving his hands, acting out of control, talking nonsense, walking away, and not in his right state

of mind. Officer Gonzalez spoke with Mr. Lopez in Spanish in an attempt to calm him-down but

Mr. Lopez continued to walk down the street and away from the officers. Officer Gonzalez

determined that Mr. Lopez was under the influence. of PCP and that he was a danger to himself

and others. During the contact with Mr. Lopez, Officer Gonzalez observed Mr. Lopez become

more enraged, started grunting, clenched leis fists, and looked at the officers in an aggressive

4

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 5 of 28 PageID #:1915
manner. Because of this behavior, t}~e officers kept their distance from Mr..Lopez. Sergeant

Kearns responded to the location and observed Mr. Lopez walking in the street.

At about 3:43 am, Officers Vidljinovic and Guettler (Beat 10] 1 R) responded to the location.

Ofrcer Vidljinovic was carrying a TASER. Officers Vidljinovic and Guettler observed Mr.

Lopez on the sUeet, and they were informed by other offccers that Mr. Lopez was a combative

patient and they were trying to get hin~ into the ambulance. Officers Guettler, Alamillo,

Valdovinos, and Vidlji~iovic approached Mr. Lopez, who had walked away down the block to an

intersection at 25'h and Whipple Streets. Officer Guettler spoke to Mr. Lopez initially from about

10 to 15 feet away, attempted to persuade him to cooperate, and to accompany him to the

ambulance. Mr. Lopez responded with undecipherable speech and mumt~ling. Officer Vidljinovic

stood behind Officer Guettler as Guettler approached Mr. Lopez, spoke with him, and placed his

hand on Mr. Lopez's elbow to guide him toward the ambulance. Mr. Lopez clenched his fists and

began swinging wildly at Officer Guettler. Officer Guettler moved to his right to avoid being

struck. Officer Vidljinovic yelled "TASER" 3 times and deployed it for one, 4 second cycle at

about 3:46 a.m.

Mr. Lopez collapsed in the street and the officers moved in, controlled his hands, and secured

them in handcuffs. Paramedics Mendoza and Cheatam immediately brought the stretcher and the

gurney to Mr. Lopez's location and they, firefighter Kairis, and the officers placed Mr. Lopez on

it. After Mr. Lopez was secured on the gurney, he was placed in the ambulance where paramedics

assessed him and checked his vital signs. Mr. Lopez was combative on the gurney. Neither the

amUulance crew nor the officers observed aray signs of trauma on Mr. Lopez's body. Mr. Lopez

was transported to Mt. Sinai Hospital and adiYiitted at about 4:00 a.m.

The admitting nurse perfoc~med a triage assessment of Mr. Lopez and marked "no" o~i the

assessment form for sustaining trauma. Mr. Lopez became combative and began fighting in the

emergency room. Dr. Orellana authorized Mr. Lopez to be four-pointed restrained, Officer

Vidljinovic assisted medical personnel with restraining lktr. Lopez. Mr. I~opez's combativeness

and altered state ~f mind made it difficult for medical- personnel to perform an initial assessment.

The probes from the TASER were noted to be attached. in Mr. Lopez's abdomen. A urine test of

Mr. Lopez was performed and it tested positive for PCI' at about 4:41 a.m. Later testing of Mr.

Lopez revealed that he had sustained abrain- injury.

Opinion # 1: That Chicago Police Department (CPD) acbninistrators have not abdicated their

responsibility in r~eveloping and implementing operational policies for their

police officers, especially regarding the use of force.

An important function for police administrators is to provide their officers with relevant policies

and procedures. Policies. are a means by which an organization provides guidance anti the bases

for reasonable decision making fox .its employees. Policies cannot cover every conceivable

situation that an employee will confront. They must allow for the totality of the circu~7~stances

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 6 of 28 PageID #:1916
and the use of discretion by eznplayees. As they relate to the claims made in this incident, I have

reviewed the following General Orders and. Special Orders from the CPD:

Rules and Regulations, Rules o.f Procedures, Table of contents;

G.O. 02-08: Use of Force Guidelines (October 1, 2002);

G.O. 02-08-02: Force Options (October 1, 2002);

G.O.02-08-01A: The Use.. of Force Model (August 15, 2003);

G.O.02-08-03: Deadly Force (October 1, 2002);.

G.O. 02-08-04: Canine as a Force Option (October 1, 2002);

G. O. 02-08-05: Incidents Requiring the Completion of a Tactical Response Report

(October 1, 2002);

G. O.02-09-02: Other Weapon Discharge Incidents (October, 2002);

Special Order 02-01-04: Alcohol and Drug Dependent Persons (July 4, 1992); and

Special Order 03-08: Assisting Chicago Fire Department Paramedics (7uly 27,1995)

In my opinion, CPD administrators have taken a proactive approach by establishing written

directives which set forth rules of conduct and policies which guide officer decisions and actions,

and provide penalties for failing to follow them. Specifically, CPD administrators have addressed

the reasonable use of force by Chicago police officers in their written directives. The use of force

General Orders operationalize 720 ILLS 5/7-5 and the United States Supreme Court decision on

the use of force in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), and axe consistent with nationally

accepted police procedures for the use of force.

The CPD General Orders guide officers in the reasonable use of force through the use of force

guidelines (GO 02-08), use of force options (GO 02-08-02), use of deadly force {GO 02-08-03);

and other weapon discharge incidents (GO 02-09-02). Collectively, these GOs provide a

systematic process for guiding officers in the appropriate and reasonable response to various

types of citizen resistance that they may encounter. Officers are provided with numerous force

options to consider based an varying. types of citizen resistance. Furthernnore, nat all situations

can be handled with one or two force options. Officers sometimes need a range of reasonable

force options to select frorn when confronting a resisting citizen. Tn many confrontations a

suspect may interact with an officer in a compliant mode and within asplit-second, elevate his

resistance to a physical attick or even a deadly force attack against the. officer without warning.

Therefore, I teach police administrators to develop their use of force policies to encompass the

totality of the coi2frontation circumstances, subject variables, response time issues, and to provide

officers with various force options with which to respond to a suspect's type of resistance.

Consistent with these principles, CPD has integrated multiple force options available for officers

in its use of force policy.

Specifically, C~'D has developed a Use of force Model which corresponds to the force policy

options authorized fir officers. This use of force model is a graphic illustration which

operationalizes the CPD's use of force policy by depicting on a continuum subject resistance

6

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 7 of 28 PageID #:1917
typologies based on real-life encounters between citizens and police officers and appropriate

officer force responses to them. Through visual representation, the model guides an officer in

decision making ~s to the use of force when confronted with varying kinds of subject resistance

and accounts for environmental acid subject variables related to the confrontation that make up for

the totality of the circumstances.

I am familiar with varying use of force models. I have served as a consultant to the Michigan

Commission on Law Enforcement Standards when they developed their use of force matrix. I

have instructed it to academy recruits and veteran police officers,. and I have explained the

mechanics of the matrix during civil trial proceedings. I have assisted in the development of the

Pressure Point Control Tactics, Inc. (PPCT) force continuum and have instructed it to academy

recruits, veteran police officers, and to subject control instructors. I have provided consultation to

numerous police and correction agencies on their use of force continua as well. About 80 percent

of the law enforcement agencies in the United States use some form of a use of force

model/matrix and link it to their use of force policy (Terrill and Paoline, 2012). CAD does the

same.

The CPD force model incorporates the force principles of escalation and de-escalation. The

model identifies three types of general subject resistance, including: a Cooperative Subject, a

Resister, and an Assailant. The model also provides for reasonable force responses to each of

these types of resistance which include the presence of law enforcement representative, verbal

control, control modes without weapons (empty-hand), control modes with weapons (impact

weapons, impact munitions, OC spray/chemical weapons, LARD acoustic transmission; TASER,

and' Canine, and firearms and other lethal force. CPD's use of force model follows the objectives

of other law enforcement agency's force contim~a and the Illinois Law Enforcement Training

Standards Board guidelines for use of force training.

With regard to TASER use, the force model provides guidance to officers in activatin}; the

TASER in GO 02-08-02A Force Options. This directive specifies that an officer may use the

TASER only after he/she has completed training in its use. The force model further provides that

the appropriate use of the TASER is in response to an active resister and an assailant. The force

model also guides the officer in writing a use of force report, and- the policy far doing so is

addressed in GO 02-08-05, Incidents Requiring the Completion of a Tactical Response Report.

This GO clearly directs officers when to complete the Tactical Response Keport (TRR) and the

procedures for submitting the report..Deploying the TASER requires an officer to submit a TRR.

Regarding other areas of police operations, CPD administrators have developed and provided

their officers with Special Qrder, S02-01-04 (Alcohol and Drug Dependent Persons) and''Special

Order, 503-08 (Assisting Chicago Fire Department Paramedics). The former SO provides a

procedure and an appropriate response for officers when. they determine in their professional

judgment that a person is intoxicated or incapacitated in a public place. The SO operationalizes

the Emergency Treatment section of the Alcoholism and Other Dn~g Abuse and Dependency Act

(20 TLCS 301/25-15), w(~ich authorizes police to take into protective custody and bring to an

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 8 of 28 PageID #:1918
emergency medical service a person who appears to be in need of emergency medical services

while in a public place and who shows symptoms of impairment brought on by alcoholism ox

other drug abuse or dependency. l'he latter SO provides officers with appropriate procedures

when they are requested to assist fire department paramedics. This SO is integrated with peace

officer assistance during emergencies, the Emergency Medical Services Systems Act (210 ILCS

50/1), and the use of farce guidelines.

In my opinion these General and Special Orders comport with contennporary law enforcement

policies coi~sistey~t with the model usz of force policies of the International Association Chiefs of

Police (IACP; 2006 & 2010), the Police Executive Research Forum (PEKE; 2011) Electronic

Control Weapons guidelines, and the Illinois Law Enforcement Training ar►d Standards Board

force training guidelines. in particular, CPD's directives authorizing the use of force in general

and the use of the TASER in E7articular follow generally accepted law enforcement policies and

procedures, and are consistent with law enforcement Uest practices including:

Maintaining written use of force general orders, force guidelines, a use of force model,

and force options,

Guiding officers to use objectively reasonable force based on legal standards, on the

officer's perception, in response to a subject's resistance, and within the totality of the

confrontation circumstances,

Differentiating between varying types of force (less-lethal and' lethal force),

Identifying definitions of force options, types of authorized force measures, techniques,

and equipment, and identifying types of subject actions/resistance with definitions,

Guiding officers to use force under appropriate circumstances and identifying

circumstances for prohibiting the use of force,

Guiding officers to position and nnonitor an arrestee and to seek medical attention for an

arrestee who sustained an injury,

Developing and providing the direction on using the TASER for their affcers (integrated

with the use of force guidelines),

Authorizing the use of adepartment-issued 'I'ASER,

Designating the TASER as an impact weapon (integrated with the force model and force

options),

Certifying and maintaining in-house instructors t~ provide ofrcer training,

Training and certifying officers prior to being allowed to carry it in the field,

Providing re-certification. on a regalar basis,

restricting the use of the TAS~R for two types of subject resistance (integrated with the

force model),

Requiring officers to check out the TASER for use during #heir respective shift,

Requiring ~rotification of OEMC ar a supervisor after deploying the TASER,

Requiring officers to submit a TRR after a TASER application and other uses of force,

Reviewing the TASER Data Port printout,

Requiring fhe Watch Commander to review the TASER application,

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 9 of 28 PageID #:1919
Directing officers in their response to assisting firefighters and paramedics,

Directing officers in responding t~ persons under the influence of alcohol and drug

dependency, and

Requiring an investigation by a commander in circumstances of serious uses of force

In my opinion the CPD has taken proactive steps to provide their officers with the written general

orders and special orders which guide their performance in the field. These orders were

operational prior to the incident date. They are accessible to officers through the policy manual

and through the departments automated directive system. The directive system is available to all

of the officers at the district station house.

9,: `" Opinion #2: Administrators of CPD hove provided their officers with training commensurate

to their law enforcement duties.

Consistent with the United States Supreme Court's decision in City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S.

378 (1989), CPD officers have received ongoing training commensurate with their duties.

Administrators of the department have made a conscious and proactive choice and as a matter of

practice to provide officers with basic academy training and regular in-service training in order to

perform their assigned duties. A review of the officers' depositions and their training records

illustra#e that prior to the incident date they had completed academy trlining, training on

department general orders, use of force training, training on the use of the TEISER, and training

on various other topics through regular in-service training programs..

CPD administrators have e~chibited their commitment to providing all officers with job related

training by developing the Education and Training Division which is devoted to providing basic

academy training and in-service training for their officers. This commitment is manifested on

many levels. First, CPD is authorized by the Illinois Training and Standards Board to operate a

basic training academy for their recruits. The State of Illinois requires all peace officers to

complete 480 hours of basic training prior to being certified. CPD exceeds this requitement and

requires their recruits to complete over 800 hours of basic training over six months. Second,

various modes of training and education are incorporated into the training, including scenariobased training. Sergeant Snelling testified that scenario-based training is provided to officers and

represents the department's training philosophy (Dep. pg. 171). Third, recruits are provided with

classroom instruction and practical skills training depending on the subject matter. Fourth,

recruits must pass various examinations and show proficiencies in knowledge, skills, and abilities

relevant to the subject matters taught. Fish, upon con~~pletion of the academy training, all officers

must complete a probationary period with a fteld training officer (F I'O) for 12 months. Hence, all

officers of the CI'D are probationary for 18 months until they complete the mandatory training

and evaluation period.

Sergeant Snelling testified that he is assigned as an instructor at the CPD academy and that

among other topics recruits receive training on the use of force, the force model, physical skills,

report writing, interacting with people with disabilities, and ~iepartmeirt general orders. I:~e

~]

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 10 of 28 PageID #:1920
testified that all afticers are taught the force options at the academy (Dep. pg. 136). ~-ie further

testified that in-service training is provided on general orders at the district level and that legal

instructors provide training to officers on legal issues and general orders (Dep. pgs. 12-13, 17-21,

23, 54-55, 57-58, 68-69, 74-75,91-93, 98-113, I27-128, 131, 135-136, 177). Sergeant Snelling

testified to his knowledge of the following department Gns and testified that they are taught at

the academy: Use of Force Options, pgs. 55-56 Assisting Fire Department and Paramedics, pgs.

64, 70, 183-186; Alcohol and Drug Dependent Persons, pgs. 70-72; 'Tactical 1Zesponse Report,

pgs. 91-93; the Force Model, pgs. 97-113; 117; and Force Options, pgs. 136, 175-.176.

Sergeant Snelling testified that CPD has adopted a continuing education program for department

officers through e-learning. This training is available on-line through the deparUnent's computer

system, and involves traini~ig on department GOs. Subject matter training is presented through a

modular teaching format, streaming videos, and also includes examinations (Dep. pgs. 57, 132-

135).

Moreover, Sergeant Snelling testified that officers are provided with trai~~ing on the use of the

TASER by certified department instructors of the Tactical Training Unit (TTU; Dep.pg. 25).

Sergeant Snelling testified that he does not provide instruction on the TASER but that three

department instructors of the TTU are certified to provide instruction (Dep. pg. 27). Sergeant

Snelling testified in his deposition on how the TASER instruction is provided to officers and how

the training connects to the Force Model GO and other general orders (Dep. pgs. 36-38, 47, 49,

50, 52-55, 82-87, 118, 120-121, 123-124, 129, 145, 147, 156, 158-160, 168, 171, 179-i80).

Sergeant Sealing testified in his deposition that the TASER training emphasizes the use of the

Probe mode and distance when deploying the TASER, that an officer must check out the TASER

at the beginning of the shift and return it at the end of his shift (pgs. 49, 52). In regard to the

TASER he testified:

That the TASER can be used on active resisters (pgs. 117, 120-121),

That officers are trained that it is unreasonable to use the TASER on a cooperative person

(pg. 128),

That officers are trained to use appropriate force based on subject acti~nsand force based

on officer's assessment on scene (pgs. "84, 87),

That officers are trained to stay within policy parameters and the law when using force

(pg. 128),

Thflt officers are trained when a TASER is used, the data printout is downloaded and

reviewed. by a watch commander,

That the 7'ASER maybe used when multiple officers are on scene. (pg. 179),

That after the 'I'ASER is used, the officer is trained to control and handcuff the subject

(pg. 156), and

'That officers are trained that when faced with an assailant, an officer may use whatever

tool he sees fit to immobilize the subject (pg. 176).

10

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 11 of 28 PageID #:1921
Officer Cancel is assigned to the TTU at the tzain ng acade~ay, and as a Master TASER Instructor

acrd he provides instruction in the use ot'the T~SER for department officers (T~e~. pgs. $, 10, 13-

15, 19, 26-27, 31). Officer Cancel' testified that GO 02-08-02 was amended in August 2003, and'

directs officers to use the TASER on an active resister oz greater (Dep. pgs. 188-1 %9).

Throughout his deposition, officer Cancel testified as t~ how department officers are trained on

using the TASER, which include the following components:

Provides 8 hours of training including classroom instruction and practical application

{pgs. 23, 58),

Incorporates a power point presentation into his teaching methods and that tie is required

to check Taser International's website for updated information prior to teaching a course

(pgs. 80, 161-1.62),

Provides training on the use of force policy (pgs. 54, 60-63, 114, 117, 189),

Training includes an examination (pgs. 5=1-52, 55-57),

Officers must be certified to carry the TASER (p~. 51),

Train officers to do a spark test (pg. 48),

Train officers that they must check-out the TASER prior to their shift {pg. 50),

Train officers on the TASE.R nomenclature acid on the types of subject resistance an

officer may activate the TASER (pgs. 24, 61-62, 7&, 104, 116-1.17),

Specifically trains to use the TASER on active resistor and above (pg. b2),

Trains officers not to use tl~e TAS~R on a cooperative subject (pg. 61),

Train officers that the 'I'ASE}t is less-lethal force anti when to use it in varying situations

and safety issues (pgs. 95-99),

Train ot~cers on activating the TASLR for 1, 5 second cycle, to release the trigger,. t~

evaluate t}~e situation, and to place the subject under control {pgs. 83-84,125-129),

Trains officers about the applcaCian of using a TASER on a person under the influence

of narcotics (pis. 165-1'66),

Train officers about the princi}~le of contact and cover when. using the Tf1SER (pgs. 105-

10G),

11

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 12 of 28 PageID #:1922
'1"rains officers to state TASER three times prior dcployin~ it, if they have the opportunity

(pgs. 106-L09, 187),

Trains officers to submit a TRR after deploying the T'ASEIt (pgs.I44-145),

Trains officers on what procedures are to be fotlowed after activating the TASER {pgs.

141-151), and

Trains officers that if the TA.SEit is not effective, to go to something else and to make

judgment calls when using the TASER (pgs. 17~-173).

Moreover, each officer testified in their deposition about receiving basic training at the academy,

receiving training on general and special orders, completing in-service training, and receiving

training on using the TASFR prior to tha incident date. Officer Vidijinovc, the officer who

deployed the "I'ASER during the encounter with Mr. Lopez testified that he:

Completed academy training and probation (pg. 11),

Completed 8 hours of TASER training after the academy provided by the TTU, that he

completed a written and scenario-based exam, and passed the course (pgs. 14-18),

Was trained in the academy that a person may refiise treatment ox assistance (pg. 99),

Was trained to assess each situation (pgs. 112-1 l3},

Trained and by CPD protocol to give a command three times before using the TASER

(pgs. 129, l43),

Trained that the TASER would incapacitlte the person (pg. 131),

Trained to target center mass and to deploy the TASER for 5 seconds, hold for 5 seconds,

no more (pgs. 136, 139, 154),

Trained on how to drive stun and neuromuscular incapacitation (pgs. 138, 149),

Was aware that using the TASER would cause loss of muscle control and a person could

collapse to the ground (pg. 156),

Trained to use the TASER far assailant. resistance (pg. l 58),

Trained in the Force Model, F'orcc Response Options, and taught to make distinctions of

varying types of resistance (pgs. 167-168, 171-176, 1.80-185),

Trained regarding persons behaving under the influence of drugs (pg. 185),

Trained that a medical expert would remove probes From the TASER (pg. 205),

Based on his training and experience that behaviors exhibited by Mr. Lopez usually

meant they are under the influence ofnarcotics, PCP, or cocaine (pg. 254), and

Knew to notify a supervisor after he discharged the TASER (pg. 259).

Further, assessment of the officers' trainingrecords reveals that each officer has been provided

and completed in-service training beyond their graduation ftom the academy. The records reveal

that each officer completed numerous training courses commensurate with their law enforcement

12

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 13 of 28 PageID #:1923
duties on a regular basis. Topics for which training has been completed by the officers releva~~t to

this civil action and prior to the incident date include: TAS~R certification, the reasonableness

standard, controlling resisters and assailants, medical services, crisis intervention team,- binge

drinking, sudden and in-custody deaths, disorderly conduct, suspicious behavior assessment,

emergency response, hands only CPR, and tactical comrntmications.

I have also reviewed several discs which contain department training materials presented in the 8-

hour TAS~R course by the TTU from 2007 to 2012. Consistently each year of training provided

updated information and included: power point slides for lectures, curriculum materials,

instructional materials specific to safely operating the TASER, general orders, training videos,

and videos of field applications of the TASER. While these instructional materials set the

framework for instructing the use of TASER and follow the manufacturer's speciFcatians, they

are also ciesigaed within CPD's tota} use of force system. For example, the Education and

Training Division developed a 4-page "ready reference" Training Review handout (11/2009)

which integrated two general orders (Use of Force Guidelines and Dept. Approved Weapons and

Ammunition [Taser Devices]} and the Use of Farce Model with directives and' guidance for

deploying the TASER. The handout specifies five steps for deploying the TASER and directions

for Post-Taser Responsibilities for officers and supervisors.

In sumnnary, based on my review of tl~e aforementioned documents it is evident that CPD

administrators have made a conscious choice to provide officers with basic law enforcement

training which exceeds the state standard. By practice CPD administrators provide ongoing

annual training to officers in order for them to keep abreast of their law enforcement duties. A

review of the named officers training records shows that they have completed various training

courses annually, supporting CI'D's practice and commitment to providing ofTicers wits► ongoing

training. Concomitantly, CP.D administrators have provided training and ongoing accessibility to

department general and special orders which forms the foundation for the training. General orders

may be accessed at the district station house through the department's directive system.

CPD has established a comprehensive and robust training and accountability system for managing

and training officers, and for field application of the TASER. Components of such a system

comport with guidelines outlined by the IACP, PERF, die Illinois Law Enforcement Training and

Standards Board and by researchers on the subject (Alpert and Dunham, 2010; Smith, et al.,

2010), which include: implementing and training in force policies, 8 hours of training; case of

scenario-based training, training to activate 1, S second cycle and to assess the situation and the

use of multiple applications, training on the risks of using the TASEit, training which specifies

the types of subject resistance in which the TASER will be used, targeting }orations on the

subject, restricting medical personnel' to remove the probes, reporting the use of the TASER,

supervisors reviewing incidents/reports in which an officer deployed the TASER, and providing

trlining in accordance with fhe manufacturer's specifications.

My review of the department documents, the deposition testimony of the officers, depositions of

the department training instructors, and department instructional materials demonstrates that the

13

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 14 of 28 PageID #:1924
CPD meets and exceeds the suggested guidelines for managing, training,. and applying the

TASER. The items identified on pages 8-9 and 10-12 of this report, combined with the officers'

testimony illustrate that CPD administrators leave more than adequately prepared their officers

with operational policies and training with which to use force measures, including using the

TASER in the field. Officers also testified to their knowledge of assisting fire department

personnel and paramedics in various circumstances. The deposition testimony of the officers

underscores the fact that CPD's use of force policies and the training provided on using force

measures including the TASER, is actually guiding officer decision and field application, a~~d

further comports with professional, evidence-based, best practices. These components manifestly

show that evidence of a training anc! policy deficiency at CPD is non-existent. CPD officers are

provided with relevant and current training on a regular basis commensurate with their job

responsibilities.

10. Opinion #3 That CPD o~ce~s used appr~priute procedures t~ assist Chicago Fire

Department personnel

The officers responded to a call to assist CFD personnel regarding a drug overdose. Collectively

these officers had over 60 years of police experience in which they had responded to numerous

types of calls, including responding. to calls involving persons acting under the influence of a

substance. Beyond their experience the officers were trained and guided in their response by

Special Order 503-08, Assisting Chicago Fire Department Paramedics (9/27/95) and Special

Order, S02-O1-04, Alcohol and Drug Dependent Persons (7/4/92). Further guidance was provided

to officers through the Section 4-G8-110 of the Municipal Code of Chicago (Peace officer

assistance durvng emergencies) (7/30/9'x, and tlie Emergency Treatment Sec#ion of the

Alcoholism and Other Drug Abuse Dependency Act, 20 II.,CS 301/ 25-15 (7/13/1993). In their

collective totality, these documents authorize police officers to assist paramedics on scene.

Specifically, these documents authorize police to assist paramedics with a patient who requires

emergency medical assistance; who is incapacitated in a public place; who presents a danger to

himself or to others; to take the person into protective custody in order to obtain medical

assistance; and permit an officer to use minimum force and to take reasonable steps to protect

himself from harm.

Law enforcement officers respond to varying types of calls for service which include crimes in

progress, investigating crimes, and calls requesting their assistance to place a person into.

protective custody. These'types of calls are different from investigating a crime acid arresting a

subject and involve a community care taking function which may address. taking a person.. into

protective custody for the safety and protection of the person and for the safety of the public.

Pursuant to the Special Orders 503-08 and S02-O1-04, as well as flue Chicago Municipal Code, 4-

G8-110, CPD offcers are authorized to assist paramedics when requested, and in accordance with

Illinois law, 20 ILCS 301/ 25-15, may take a person into protective custody for emergency

medical service.

~.a

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 15 of 28 PageID #:1925
The officers testified in their depositions that they had been trained and had previous experience

assisting firefighters and paramedics. Officer Atamillo testified that he determined that Mr. Lopez

needed to be taken into protective custody, it was not an arrest, it was for his safety, that he posed

a risk to himself a~ad to pi~b[ic, and that he needed help (pgs. 91-92, -130, 132). Officer Valdovinos

testified in his deposition that he believed the call was a medical e~ner~ency, that he believed that

Mr. Lopez was under the influence of PCP, which he could not give consent, that we can't leave

him on the .street, he was on the public way, that Mr. Lopez needed medical attention, that the job

of the police was to help CFD get him medical attention, that they were providing an effort to

protect Mr. Lopez's health and safety, and that was the primary reason for being there (pgs. 90,

105-106, 132, Y4S).

Officer Gonzalez testified that he observed Mr. Lopez display behaviors characteristic of being

under the influence of PCP and that he needed to be taken to the hospital for emergency medical

treatment (pg. 71). Officer Guettler testified that Mr. Lopez would have been a danger to himself

or others in the community if he had not received assistance and that he required assistance (pgs.

120, 122-123). Officer Vidljinovic testified that the objective was to seek medical assistance for

him, that it was never our objective to arrest him but to take him to a medical facility and seek

treatment, that based on Mr. Lopez's actions believed that his words were incoherent and

indecipherable, that he was a danger to himself and to others, that he believed that he was

incapacitated' in a public place, and due to leis condition he believed that Mr. Lopez needed to be

taken into protective custody (Dep. pgs. 1.64, 199, 299).

The officers and the paramedics be}ieved that Mr. Lopez's behaviors were consistent with being

under the influence of PCP requiring immediate medical assistance. Such a belief was confirmed

about an hour later at the hospita} when a urine screen revealed that PCP was in his system. The

paramedics call for police assistance, coupled with the demonstrated behaviors the officers

confronted from Mr. Lopez, created a specific and articulable basis for the officers and

paramedics to reasonably believe that Mr. Lopez posed a threat to himself, to others, and to the

responding paramedics and officers. The situation clearly required police intervention, not to

arrest Mr. Lopez, but to control him and to take him into protective custody in order for the

paramedics to provide him with the medical attention that he required.

Further, the incident fit squarely within the previously identified Special Orders, municipal code

and state law as the paramedics. needed assistance in restraining Mr. Lopez before they couldprovide hirn with medical assistance. 'The officers responded on sce~~e not to investigate a crime

but to assist the paramedics on a call of drug overdose and. for the purpose of providing protection

to the paramedics and assist in providing Mr. Lopez with emergency care. Under these

circumstances the officers were justified in responding to the call, taking control of scene safety,

and attempting to persuade M. r. Lopez into cooperating with them so That he may obtain medical

caxe.

I train officers when confronting such a person and in an unpredictable situation, when tactically

feasible, to have multiple officers on scene, to acquire information about the situation as possible,

15

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 16 of 28 PageID #:1926
to remain calm, to maintain a safe reactionary distance but close enough to speak to the person,

not to make quick aggressive motions, and to attempt to talk a person into compliance. I teach.

officers to cue into statements made by the person. I also e~iiphasize to officers to be aware of the

confrontation env ro►~ment, to observe and to scan the behaviors and gestures of the person, to

watch their hands and bodily motions, and to be prepared to use control techniques and weapons

as warranted. An officer will not successfully "talk" an agitated persop who is under the

influence of a chemical substance or who displays behaviors of a mentally disorder into

compliance in every situation.

Li my opiiaion the officers used proper techniques in attempting to make verbal contact with Mr.

Lopez. Each officer observed Mr. Lopez and noted that his behaviors and incoherent speech were

characteristic of someone being under the influence of PCP and made numerous attempts to speak

with him and persuade him to cooperate so that he could receive medical. assistance. Once Officer

Alamillo determined that Mr. Lopez was not responding to verbal attempts of control anti that his

condition could potentially turn violent, he radioed for additional officers and for an offtcer to

respond with a 1 ASElt. The initial responding officers properly assessed the situation,

maintained their distance, calmly spoke with Mr. Lopez,. spoke with him in English anti Spanish,

did not crowd him, attempted to determine the problem, attempted to provide him assistance, and

did not ash him creating a physical struggle with him. Rather, they showed restraint and radioed

for additional officers which was prudent. Further, while waiting for back-up officer Valdovinos

attempted a second time to verbatly persuade Mr. Lopez into cooperating with them but was

unsuccessful.

In my opinion, the officers followed Special Orders, the municipal code, and sCate law, and used

appropriate protocols for respaz~ding to such a confrontation. I"irst, their on scene management

was performed properly as they approached with two officers and followed their training. Second,

Officer Alaanillo spoke wide the paramedics on scene to obtain infa~mation about the call and the

scene. Third, he and Valdovinos quickly observed Mr. Lo~ez's behaviors and attempCed to speak

with him but that he would not enter into a dialogue with them, would not comply with their

instructions but did attempt to communicate with him. Fourth, they maintained' a safe distance

and cued into his behaviors. Officer Alamillo purposed to intervene with Mr. Lopez through

cottamunication anddesired for him to comply without further incident. Based on the.

circumstances, the officers ~~sed appropriate police protocols in their approach to Mr. Lopez's

behaviors in order to take him into protective custody fir emergency medical treatment.

11. Opinion #4: O fiver Vid jinovic's decision to zrse tjre TASER was consistent with generally

accepted police practices and procedztres

Law enforcement officers are trained to use objective reasonable force in light of the totality of

the circumstances and based oar t}~eir perception of the behaviors and resistance exhibited by the

person they are attem}~ting to control and/or arrest. Tn this case, Officer Vidljinovic's rise of force:

must not be viewed in isolation but assessed in light of Mr. Lopez's actions and resistance in their

totality. The incident was a dynamic and fluid confrontation.

16

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 17 of 28 PageID #:1927
An evaluation of a claim of excessive force is to be performed in accordance with the criteria

established by the United States Supreme Court in their decision in Graham v. Connor (1989)

including: balancing the nature and the quality of intrusion with the need for governmental action;

the severity of the crime at issue; whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to

evade arrest by flight; or whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or

others. An officer does not have the luxury to select the location or the environment to confront a

person, nor does the officer have the luxury to script a force response in a given confrontation.

The officer's use of force must be judged at the moment the officer decided to use it, recognizing

that there is no mechanical test applied to the incident circumstances, and knowing that an officer

frequently must make asplit-second decision tinder circumstances which are tense, uncertain, and

rapidly evolving. Further, it is the subject's actions, combined with the totality of the

circumst~lnces which dictate an officer's force response.

1n my opinion it was reasonable for Officer Vidljinovic to deploy the TASER in response to Mr.

Lopez's assailant behaviors and to protect Officer Guettler and himself, as he advanced toward

him, and while he attempted to strike him. It is relevant that Officer Vidljinovic only used the

TASER after other officers had attempted to first verbally persuade Mr. Lopez to cooperate and

allow the paramedics to attend to him. Officer Vid(jinovic completed the TASER training and

was certified to carry the TASER on the date of the incident.

In this stage of the incident Officers Vidljinovic and Guettler followed appropriate protocols

which demonstrated application of their training and law enforcement experience when

confronting a combative individual. First, officers Vidljinovic and' Guettler spoke with Officer

Alamillo and learned that Mr. Lopez was apparently experiencing a drug overdose, that the

paramedics needed assistance in placing him in the ambulance, and the objective was to obtain

medical assistance for him. Second, Officers Vidljinovic and Guettler assessed the situation and

observed Mr. Lopez in the street with his fists clenched and formed the perception that Mr. Lopez

was under the influence of a substance, probably PCP, based on his behaviors. Third, Officers

Vidljinovic and Guettler approached Mr. Lopez and used a tactical contact and cover approach.

When approaching a combative and unpredictable person/sih~ation, officer safety is critical. The

systematic approach enhances officer safety as one officer will initially make verbal contact with

the person from a safe distance while the second officer provides cover as backup. Depending on

the circumstances and generally, the cover officer will be the officer that may potentially use a

level of force if warranted. The approach provides for the contact ofticer to speak with the person

providing instructions so that tl~e person does not receive contradictory or confusing instructions.

Both officers stood in a bladed stance which positioned'their firearm further away from Mr.

Lopez.

Fourth, Officer Guettler began speaking to Mr. Lopez calmly from about 10 feet. while Officer

Vidljinovie stood behind officer Guettler with the TASER drawn. The initial distance provided an

adequate safe reactionary gap which would allow officerstime to respond should Mr. Lopez

mike sudden. furtive movements. Officer Guettler attempted to persuade Mr. Lopez to cooperate

with them and directed him toward the ambulance. Fifth, as officer Vidij novic provided cover,

17

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 18 of 28 PageID #:1928
Officer Guettler moved slowly and next to Mr. Lopez while he spoke to him and attempted to

guide him toward the ambulance. Officer Guettler placed his hand on Mr. Lopez's elbow to guide

him to the ambulance but within asplit=second, Mr. Lopez raised his clenched fists and began

swinging his fists at hicn as he advanced toward Officer Guettler presenting an immediate threat.

Officer Giiettler formed the perception that he was going to be struck and moved away from the

punches.

Sixth, Officer Vidljinovic observed Mr. Lopez advance towards he and Guettler, attempt to strike

at Officer Guettler with his clenched fists, and' formed the perception that Guettler would be

struck. Officer Vidljinovic announced TASER three times and deployed the TASER for one

trigger pull lasting 4 seconds. Officer Vidijinovic feared that Guettler and he may be struck, that

Mr. Lopez suddenly transitioned from an active resister to an assailant, that he targeted the center

mass of Mr. Lopez, and activated the TASER to protect Officer Guettler and himself from being

battered. The TASER probes struck Mr. Lopez in the abdomen and he collapsed to the ground

{see ER nurses notes).

In my opinion Officers Guettler and Vidljinovic followed accepted police practice in response to

the confrontation and circumstances created by Mr. Lopez. Only after ether officers attempted to

verbally control and persuade Mr. Lopez over several minutes, and only after Mr. Lopez

advanced on and attempted to strike t13e officers, did Officer Vidljinovic use force by deploying

the TASER. The officers took appropriate steps to resolve the situation peacefully before Officer

Vidljinovic resorted to using the TASER.

The TASER is a safe less-than-lethal device desigied to incapacitate a resisting person without

causing death or permanent injury. It uses anslectrical discharge to disrupt the body's ability to

communicate messages from the brain to muscles causing motor skill dysfunction. It provides a

safe force option for officers to use on combative persons and stops conflicts, avoids the need to

use higher forms of force, and has a lower injury rate for suspects and officers. alike. A data port

system records the time and' date when. an officer deploys the Taser.

The TASER is designed to be used in two different modes. In the probe mode, an officer can

deploy the TASER from a safe distance through an fir Cartridge mechanism which projects two

probes connected to wire leads. The probes attach to the person and carry electrical impulses

which cause neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI) causing involuntary stimulation of the sensory

nerves and motor nerves. The probe mode o.fa~plication is not dependent upon pain a~~d is

effective on persons who may have a high tolerance of pain. Immediate submission by

momentarily disrupting the nervous and muscular system occurs. By design the TASER applies a

eve second electrical discharge cycle. Officers are instructed to deploy the TASER and assess die

situation prior to applying additional discharges.

Alternatively, the TASER may be used in a "Drive-Stun" mode by pushing the front of the

weapon into the skin to function as a highercharge stun gun. The Dive Stun mode is applicable

for application in close quarter circumsta►aces and generally used as a pain compliance device

18

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 19 of 28 PageID #:1929
when confronting combative persons. With the fixed electrodes only 4 cm (centimeters) or 1.6

inches apart —and the lack of skin penetration —the current flow is primarily through the

clermis between the electrodes and there is no significant penetration bayon~l the fat layer. Since:

there is insufficient depth of current flow to capture muscles, the drive-slain mode serves only as a

compliance technique. To make an analogy to medicine, drive-stun is 13ke rubbing an antibiotic

on the skin compared to the probe mode which is like an injection. They have significantly

different effects. Expected impact of the 1'ASER exposure can result in local skin irritation. or

minor contact burns.

In the probe mode, the TASER uses compressed nitrogen to fire 2 small probes at typical

distances of up to 7.7 m (meters) or 25 feet. When the TASER trigger is pulled, the high voltage

first serves to open the nitrogen cartridges to release the nitrogen to propel the probes towards the

target. These probes are designed to pierce or become lodged in most light clothing (which is

usually overcome by the 50,000 V (volt, arcing capability). The sharp portion of the probe is

typically 9 mm (millimeters) long and will usually penetrate the epidermis and dermas to a depth

of 4-5 mm for a good electrical connection.

The TASER delivers only a fraction of the 50,000 V to the body and the mean delivered pulse

voltage is 584V. 'The actual delivered electrical current of the TASER X26 is only about 1.9

milliamperes (mA) ox 0.0019 amperes (A) and the peak current is only about 3 A. The stored

energy in the TASER X26 is about 0.36 joules (J) per pulse {J/pulse) and the delivered energy is

about 0.1 J/pulse. By comparison an automatic external cardiac defibrillator (AED) used

numerous times per day by paramedics uses 360 J, over 3,000 times greater than the X26

TASER. The TASEIZ is only powered by a battery of two 3 V cells, commonly used in some

small digital cameras (such as the Nikon F6). It is the TASEK's rapid cycling that can cause the

person's muscles to contract at about 19 -times a second that can offer the effective incapacitation

of the subject in the probe mode, or pain compliance in the drive=stun mode, while still offering a

significant safety margin from electrical injury. The result leads to a loss of regional. muscle

control and a fall to the ground'to end a violent confrontation.

Over 12,000- law enforcement agencies in the United States use the TASER and over 2 million

deployments have been applied in training and in the field. The TASER has an impressive record

of safety. Research studies in the field have repeatedly shown than the use of TASER's are safe,

are significantly instrumental in reducing the need to resort to lethal farce, reduces the injury and

death potential of subjects, and reduces officer injuries. Further, reliable human subject studies

performed on the medical aspects of the TASER a[so demonstrate that there is no conclusive

medical evidence indicating that the TASER poses a significant risk of serious injury or death

from the direct effects of its use (Bozeman et al. 2009; Hall, et al 2012; Ho et al. 2006; JEnkinson,

et a1.2006; Kro11, 2009; Laub, 2011; Macllonald, et al. 2009; Meslocti, et al. 2008; Ross, 2014;

Smith, et al 2007; Stroke,. et al. 2010; Taylor et al. 2010; Vilke, et al. 2011; Vilke, et al. 2009;

White et al. 2012; White et al. 2Q09).1'hese studies reveal that:

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 20 of 28 PageID #:1930
a. The deployment and use of TASER has been shown to reduce injuries to officers and

suspects over other force options, including physical force,

b. The deployment and use of TASER has been shown to reduce officers' workers'

compensation claims for use-of-force and arrest-related injuries,

c. The deployment and use of the TASF,R has been shown to reduce use-officer-citizen

complaints. and law enforcement internal affairs complaints against law enforcement

officers,

d. The deployment and use of the TASER has resulted in the reduced need to use

deadly lethal force,

e. Rates of injury fronn the TASER are comparable to, or less than, some collegiate

contact and exertion sports,

f Rates of injury from the TASER are less than several other common law

enforcement force options, including, but not limited to: p(~ysical force, batons, impact

tools, canines, rubber bullets, and bean bags,

g. The TASER is a safer alternative than other comparable law enforcement force

options tools or techniques,

h. The TASER is shown to reduce suspect injuries when compared to physical force

options,

i. The TASER has greater accountability features than any other force option,

The TAS~R is the most studied force option available to U.S. law enforcement,

k. The TASER is the most effective force optio~i in accomplishing intended effects

for U.S. law enforcement, and

1. According to peer-reviewed literature, the TASER causes less-severe physiologic

and metabolic effects than other force options and the. TASER is the safest force option

available to law enforcement.

Collectively, these studies show that the use of the TASER reduces suspect injuries by about 2/3.

To put it another way, the use of alten~ative control techniques triples (3x) the risk of injury to

subjects. Indeed tl~e current literature as a whole suggest thatthe deployment of the TASER has a

margin of safety as great as or Beater than most alternatives and recommends using the TASER

over physical control techniques when it is justified.

An officer's use of reasonable farce is justified. based on the person's resistance; and

consideration of the officer's safety is paramount. An officer does not have to sequentially

progress through a series of force options before using the TASER, or any other force technique.

20

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 21 of 28 PageID #:1931
Prior to the advent of the TASER it was not uncommon for officers to have to use more force to

gain control of a combative person axad take the person to the ground. Typically in these incidents,

several officers were involved in taking the person down frequently resulting in a prolonged

struggle on the ground where officers used more force to control the resisting person resulting in

an increased risk of injury to the person and the officers. During these ground fghtin~ situations

the resisting person was inclose proximity to the officer's firearm increasing the risk of the

officer being disarmed.

A further risk of injury or sudden death of the resisting person increases when the person is under

the influence of an illicit dnig or is experiencing a psychotic episode. The prolonged struggle on

the ground and the strength of the person, who presents a high threshold to pain, combined with

the condition of the resisting person can create. a catecholamine surge flooding the heart whereby

causing a sudden in custody death.

The observed behaviors of Mr. Lopez are consistent with a condition known as Excited Delirium

Syndrome (ExDS). Tor example Mr. Lopez was repeatedly observed to be: agitated, combative,

sweating, erratic behaviors (hyperactive, changing of his speed of movement), mumbling and

grunting, incoherenUslurred speech, disoriented, threw his arms up, moving them in jerky

motions, acting with an altered state of mind, facial grimaces, breathing heavily, clinching his

fists, and was not responding to mimerous verbal attempts to calm down and to cooperate with

the officers. Prior to the officers responding on scene, Mr. Lopez was observed climbing and

walking on a parked vehicle by firefighter Kairis. Mr. Lopez's behaviors were consistent with

studies performed in the field when officers encountered suspects exhibiting features of EIS.

(Hall,. et. al., 2012; Hall, et. al. 2015; Ross, 1498, 2014; Ross and Chan, 2006).

ExDS is connmonly caused by use of stimulant drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine or PCP and

presents typically with aggressiveness and sometimes paranoid behavior, but can also be caused

by uncontrolled and untreated psychiatric illness. ExDS is a physiological condition manifesting

itself with a psychological presentation often resulting in a sudden death. Classical general

features include: agitation, hyperactivity, elevated body temperature, high degree of sweating,

frequently breathing fast, are often destructive, Have a High threshold of pain, and often exhibit

extraordinary strength (.DiMaio and DiMaio, 2006). A majority of cases occurs in subjects using

illicit drugs and is a significant cause of sudden cardiac arrest, but psychiatric patients who have

been off of their medications also present in and ultimately die from ExDS as well. ExDS is

considered a medical emergency. I have worked as a consultant with the NIJ on the subject,

researched and published on the subject, trained officers and investigators on the subject, and

have provided expert opinions on the subject.

The TASER, reduces the need to engage in a physical struggle with a combative subject, provides

a safe option to minimize the risk of injury to the subject and the officer from a safe distance

while simultaneously maximizing the ability to control a combative person more quickly whereby

shorting the confrontation time span. As described earlier, the TASER has actually been

documented to reduce suspect injuries, reducing sudden in-custody deaths, and reducing officer

21

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 22 of 28 PageID #:1932
injuries as we11. The `I'ASER is the preferred use of force measure when faced' with active

resistance.

Officers Gonzalez, Guettler, at~d V:idIjinovic all testified as being aware the risks of grappling,

wrestling, and attempting to physically control a combative person. under the influence of PCP.

For example, Officer Gonzalez testified that he would not have used physical force as those on

YCP have extreme strength, would be wrestling with him, it would not work, and believed that

Mr. Lopez was under the influence of PCP (Dep. pg. 74). Officer Vidljinovic testified that that

Mr. Lopez looked formidable, that he displayed behaviors consistent with individuals under the

influence of a substance, such as PCP or cocaine, that those under the influence can be strong,

that it would take five to six officers to restrain one individual, and that he believed that Mr.

Lopez was capable of doing many more things as he was under the influence of same kind of

substance (Dep. pgs. 69, 96-9?, 112). Officer Guettler testified that he believed that Mr. Lopez

was under the influence of PCP, that he has seen multiple others on PCP, and in his experience

they have a higher threshold to pain, and that jumping on him would cause a lot more injury to

himself and the officers than using the TASF,R (Dep. pgs. $9, 109-110, 113-114, 136-137, 153).

As described earlier, all of the research literature regarding the safety margin of the TASER

recommends that the TASER is the preferred method of force to use over other forms of force

when faced with active suspect resistance. The use of the TASER provides a safe and reasonable

force option for an officer to maintain a reasonable safe distance fronn an uncontrolled suspect,

whereby enhancing the officer's safety in order to deploy it and still achieve the objective of

controlling the person. The use of the TASER allows an officer to control an uncooperative

person from a safe distance, without undue risk to either party. The use of the TASER

significantly lowers the risk of injury than using physical force.

The testimony of the officers and'- their response on scene not to physically engage with Mr.

Lopez reflect their knowledge gained through training, experience, and proper tactical thinking of

how to respond to a combative person under the influence of an illicit substance. Hence, Officer

Vidtjinovic's decision to deploy the TASER in response to Mr. Lopez's physical attack which

presented an immediate thxeat was consistent with accepted .police practices. An officer is not

required to first physically engage with a violent person as he is advancing and throwing punches

at the officer and then transition to another level of force. The officer does not have to risk his

personal safety by being struck nor is an officer req~~irecl to be struck first before using a degree

of force, including, the TASER.

Further, Officer Vidljinovic was not required to holster the "PAS~ft, t~nl~olster a canister of OC,

arad use it prior to using other force measures including; the TASER. This is an important point as

Mr. Lopez would hive closed fhe reactionary gap between himself and Officer Vidljinovic before

he could upholster the OC, acquire target acquisition, and spray Mr. Lopez..Tn this scenario,

Officer V dljinovic could have been attacked and injured. -lad Officer Vidljinovic been able to

spray Mr. Lopez with OC and had he fought through it and continued to advance and fight,

22

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 23 of 28 PageID #:1933
Officer Vidljinovic would riot have been able to use the TASEK as Mr. Lopez would have been

covered in a :potentially flammable liquid which can dose a risk of injury.

In my opinion and under the circumstances Officer Vidljinovic used the TASER appropriately

under accepted police practices and pursuant to his training. This is evidenced on several. levels.

First, the officers including Officer Vidljinovic testified that they were U•ained about the potential

risks of activating a TASER. While using any level of force may create a potential risk of injury

to the resisting person and or the officer, the review of using such force is assessed on the

objective xeasonableness of using the force in light of the resistance encountered within the

totality of the circumstances of the confrontation.

When officer Vidljinovic deployed the TASER, Mr. Lopez was in the street as he advanced and

attempted to strike at Officer Guettler. Mr. Lopez was not standing on an elevated position, nor

was he running away from the officers, nor was he operating a motor vehicle or bicycle, nor was

he standing near combustible vapors or liquids (like OC), nor were sensitive bodily areas

targeted. Officer Vdljinovic knew to target center mass and the 7'ASER probes made contact

Mr. Lopea's abdomen.

Second, Officer Vidljinovic used the TASER appropriately, consistent with the use of force

model authorizing the application of the TASER for assailant type of resistance which was

demonstrated by Mr. Lopez's behaviors. Third, Officer Vidljinovic's decision to deploy the

TASER was made for the expressed purpose of protecting Officer Guettler and himself from

being physically attacked and for tl~e purpose of cont~•ollin~ Mr. Lopez. An officer may take

reasonable measures to protect himself from harm. Officers are trained to provide a verbal

announcement prior to activating the TASER. Fourth, Officer Vidljinovic aruiounced TASEK

three times prior to activating ifi. rifth, Officer Vidljinovic deployed the TAS~R one time for 4

seconds, assessed the situation, and did not activate it a second time. Hence, Officer

Vidljinovic's use of the TASER was measured, and demonstrated compreYiension of the force

principle of de-escalation. The data print out confirmed the fact that Officer Vidljinovic deployed

the TASER one time fox 4 seconds.

Under the circumstances presented, Officer Vidljinovic's deployment of the TASER for one, 4

s+~concl application, rather than other force measures, was appropriate based on accepted police

practices given Mr. Lopez's sudden behaviors of assailant resistance. The TAS~R was

appropriately used as it was designed and for the purpose of bringing Mr. Lopez under control

quickly without increasing the risk of using additional force measures whereby eliminating the

risk that officers would have to engage in a prolonged physical altercation with Mr. Lopez.

In my opinion Officer Vidljinovic appropriately deployed the TASER in response to the assailant

resistance demonstrated by Mr. Lopez and announced TASER three times prior to activating. it.

Fellow officers, paramedics, and Ms. Guzman heard the announcement and/or heard the TASER

being deployed. No one testified that they heard repeated activations of the TASER.

23

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 24 of 28 PageID #:1934
Of those on scene, four. testified that they recalled observing Mr. Lopez fall to the ground after

the TASER being. used. Officers Gonzalez and Vale~~zuela testified that Mr. Lopez fell backward

onto the pavement. Ms. Guzman testified that Mr. Lopez fell forward, that the 1'ASER probes

made contact in his 61ck, and that h.e was yelling in pain on the street. Paramedic Kairis reported

that Mr. Lopez fell to lais knees and then landed on his side. Paramedic Cheatam testified that she

saw Mr. Lopez sitting in the street and was combative on the stretcher. Paramedic Me»doza

testified that Mr. Lopez was flailing his arms on the ground, was combative on the stretcher and

in the ambulance, and only allowing him to perform a partial medical assessment of hitn. No one

on scene testifeci that they observed any sites of injuries or trauma on Mr. Lopez.

It is acknowledged that a person may fall to the ground after an activation of the TASER. CPD

Officers are trained in this regard and Officer Vidljinovic testified that he was trained and aware

of this. Responses to the use of the TASE:R vary from person to person, however, and depend on

the confrontation circumstances and the condition of the person. Officers are instructed that some

persons may fall to the ground (not necessarily in one specific manner), that some individuals

may withstand the probe contact, that some persons may remove the probes and continue to fight

or flee froth the officer, and in some incidents the probes may not make full contact due to-the

type of or layers of clothing worn by the person. When it is tactically feasible a second officer on

scene may be able to assist a person to the ground after the deployment of die TASER, but the

totality of the circumstances may prevent that from occurring. Officers are trained that the person

may not just simply fall to the ground and surrender and to assess the situation after one, 5 second

cycle application, and to be prepared to apply a second TASER application: or move to another

form of force. When it is tactically safe the officer will advance to the person, control, restrain,

him and assess for injuries. As warranted, medical attention will be summoned by an officer.

]n this circumstance, Mr. Lopez suddenly attempted to strike Officer Guettler, creating a rapid

.and dynamic scenario. To protect himself and to avoid being struck, Officer Guettlar moved

several feet away from Mr. Lopez. Officer Vidljiuovic was about 5 to 7 feet away and he had to

make an on the scene, split-second decision to protect Officer Guettter, and to protect himself.

The dynamic nature of the attack and the distance that he stood from Mr. Lopez, prevented

Officer Vidljinovic or Officer Guettler from assisting Mr. Lopez to the ground after the TASER

was deployed. Again, and for officer safety, an officer is trained to assess the situation after the

deployment of the TASER and only to approach the person when he believes that it is tactically

safe.

In my opinion, the use of the TASER provided a reasonable mechanism for the officers to bring

Mr Lopez under control so that_paramedics could render medical treatment and convey him to

the hospital so that he may obtain further treatment. After the TASER was used, the paramedics

who were standing by immediately responded to Mr. Lopez, and placed him on the stretcher. Mr.

Lopez was then placed in the ambulance for further assessment and transported to the hospital'

without further delay.

24

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 25 of 28 PageID #:1935
I reserve the privilege to amen my opinions sh~t►ld additi~na# documents, materials or testimony

l~come available and I have the oppart~nity to revietiv it.

I ackno~vl~dg~ that there are differing accounts of the incident as dcscribec~ by Ms. Guzman on

the une hand, a»d the officers anci paramedics on tho other. I do nrat attempt to r~soive those

differences, My opinions ate based on generally accepted pc~lsce practices and procedures, and

from the perspective of a how a reasonably trained golice officer would respond when cantront~d

by the same fact paEt~rns that the offic~ra confronic:ci in this incident,

bill sub i~~,

~Gf .~', , ~ . 2?. Match 6, 2015

25

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 26 of 28 PageID #:1936
References

Alpert GP, Dunham RG (2010). Policy and training recommendations related to police use of CEDs:

Overview of findings from a comprehensive national study. Police Quarterly, 13 (3): 235- 239.

Bozeman WP, Hauda WE Jr., Heck JJ, Graham DD, Martin BP, Winslow JF (2009, April). Safety and

injury profile of conducted electrical weapons used by law enforcement officers against criminal suspects.

~In~t Emerg Med (4):480-89.

Di Maio TG, Di Maio JM (2006). Excited delirium syndrome: Causes of death and prevention. Taylor

and Francis, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FI,.

Hall CA, Votova K, Heyd C, Walker M, MacDonald, S, Eramian D, Vilke GM (2Q15). Restraint in police

use of force events: Examining sudden death for prone and not-prone position. Journal of Forensic and

Legal Medicine, 1-20.

Hall CA, Kader AS, McHale AM, Stewart A, tick GH, Vilke GM (2012). Frequency of signs of excited

delirium syndrome in subjects undergoing police use o~ force; Descriptive evaluation of a prospective

consecutive cohort. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 1-6.

Ho JD, Miner JR, Lakireddy, D, Bultman LL, Heegaard L, Heegaard WG (2006). Cardiovascular and

physiologic effects of conducted electrical weapons discharge in resting adult. Academic Emergency

Medicine, 6:239-243.

Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board (2007). Policy development guidelines for

deployment of electro-muscular disruption devices; Evaluation of guidelines for use of force training.

Springfield, II,.

International Association of Chiefs of Police (2010}. Electronic control weapons: Model policy.

Alexandra, VA.

International Association of Chiefs of Police (2006). Use of force: Model policy. Alexandra, VA.

Jenkinson ~, Neeson C, Bleetman A (2006). The relative risk of police use of force options: Evaluating

the potential for deployment of electronic weaponry. Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine, 13: 229-241.

Kroll M. (2009). Physiology and pathology o~TAS~R electronic control devices. JForensic,and .Legal

Medicine.

Laub JH (2011, May). Study of deaths following electro muscular disruption. US Dept. of J isticc,

National .institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.: 1-60.

M1cDonald JM, Kaminski RJ, Smith MR (2009, Dec.). The effect ofless-lethal weapons on injuries in

police use-of-force events. Am JI'ublie Health, 99 (12)2268-2274.

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 27 of 28 PageID #:1937
Meslo}i C, Henych M, Wolf R. {2008, Sept.J. Less Leth11 Wenp~n Effectiveness, L1se ~l'force,. anti

suspect &officer injuries: Afive-year analysis. Report to the Notional ~rl,stitute of Justice, Washington,

DG

Police Executive Research Forum (20I 1). Llcct~•Unic weup~n guic~elrnes. WashingCon, DL.

Smith M, Kanniraski R, Alpert G, Fridell L, MacDonald J, Kubu B (2010, July). Amulti-method

evaluation of polieE> use of force outcomes: Final repo~7 to the national institz{te of justice, US

Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Smith Nt, Kaminski R, Rojek J, Alpert G, Mathis J (2007). The impact of conducted energy devices and

other types of force and resistance on officer and suspect injuries. Policing: An International Journal of

Police Strategies &Management. 30(3):423-446.

Sttote J, Verzemnieks E, Walsh Iv1, tIutson ~Ift. (201 U, Nov.}. Use of forcz by law enforcement: An

evaluation of safety and injury. JTrauma, 69 (5):1288-1293.

Ross DL (2014). The outcomes of a prospective anllysis of'the outcot~ies of violent prone restraint

incidents in policing. A technical research re}~~rt.

Knss DL and Chan TC (2006). Sas~den in-custody deaths. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ.

Ross DL (1998). Factors associated with excited delirium deaths in police custody. Modern Pathology,

11:1127-1137.

Taylor B, blonds D (2010, September). Injuries to officers and suspects in police use of force cases: A

quasi-experimental evaluation. Police Qunrte~dy, 13(3):260-2$9.

7'erril] W and Paoline EA (2012). Examining less-lethal force policy and the force continuum: Results

from a national use-of-force study. Police Quarterly, 16 (1):38-65.

Vilke GM, Bozeman WP, Chan, TC (2011), Emergency dep~rtrr~ent evaluation after conducted' energy

weapon use: Review of the literature for the clinician. Journal Ernerg Merl, 40 (5); 598-604.

Vilke GM, Sloata CM, Suffecaol A, Kolkhurst FW, Neuman T, Castillo EM, Chan TC {2009).

Physiologic effects of the TASER after exea•cise: ~caclemic Emergency Medicine, 16 (8): 794-710.

White MD, Ready, J, Rigg C, Dav~~es, DM, Hinz A, Ho JD (2012)_ An incident-level profile of TASER

device deployments in arrest-related deaths. Police Quarterly, 20 {10):1-28.

White MD, Ready J (2009). EYaminin~ fatal and nonfatal incidents involving the TASER, Crirninolo~y

and Parblic Polrey, 8: $65-891.

27

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 119-15 Filed: 12/30/15 Page 28 of 28 PageID #:1938