Police Citizen Review Subcommittee — Portland, ME
Date: 2024-12-11
Time: 18:00

City of Portland
 Police Citizen Review Subcommittee

 AGENDA
 December 11, 2024
 6:00 PM


1. Zoom information


 a. On Wednesday, December 11, 2024 at 6:00 p.m., the Police Citizen Review
 Subcommittee will conduct a virtual meeting. This meeting will take place remotely
 using Zoom.

 This meeting will be held remotely pursuant to the Remote Meeting Policy adopted
 by the Police Citizen Review Subcommittee and as authorized under 1 M.R.S. 403-B.
 Allow your computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best meeting experience.
 If you are not able to attend live, a recording will be available following the meeting.

 For public comment, you will need to use the "raise your hand" feature. To raise your
 hand via the telephone, please hit *9. You will be unmuted by the host when it is time
 for public comment.

 Please click the link below to join the webinar:
 https://portlandmaine-
 gov.zoom.us/j/83494470621?pwd=PqEvbCqi4naT2Pa1QNco1u4TPI1U3Q.1
 Passcode: 928732
 Or One tap mobile :
 +13126266799,,83494470621# US (Chicago)
 +16469313860,,83494470621# US
 Or Telephone:
 Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
 +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
 +1 646 931 3860 US
 The November meeting was cancelled due to a lack of a quorum and November's agenda
2.
 was moved to this month’s agenda.


3. Call to Order


4. Approval of October 9, 2024 minutes


 a. October 9, 2024 meeting minutes
5. Potential update on the new Civil Police Review Board ordinance
6. Use of Force Report presentation


 a. Use of Force Report
7. Workshop: role/responsibilities of the PCRS Board and IA process overview


 a. PowerPoint presentation
 b. Complainant letter template
8. Public comment on agenda items


9. Executive session pursuant to 1 M.R.S. Sec. 405(6)(F) to discuss IA 2024-17


10. Public comment on agenda items


11. Topics for next month’s meeting


12. Adjourn

City of Portland
 Police Citizen Review Subcommittee

 AGENDA
 December 11, 2024
 6:00 PM


1. Zoom information


 a. On Wednesday, December 11, 2024 at 6:00 p.m., the Police Citizen Review
 Subcommittee will conduct a virtual meeting. This meeting will take place remotely
 using Zoom.

 This meeting will be held remotely pursuant to the Remote Meeting Policy adopted
 by the Police Citizen Review Subcommittee and as authorized under 1 M.R.S. 403-B.
 Allow your computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best meeting experience.
 If you are not able to attend live, a recording will be available following the meeting.

 For public comment, you will need to use the "raise your hand" feature. To raise your
 hand via the telephone, please hit *9. You will be unmuted by the host when it is time
 for public comment.

 Please click the link below to join the webinar:
 https://portlandmaine-
 gov.zoom.us/j/83494470621?pwd=PqEvbCqi4naT2Pa1QNco1u4TPI1U3Q.1
 Passcode: 928732
 Or One tap mobile :
 +13126266799,,83494470621# US (Chicago)
 +16469313860,,83494470621# US
 Or Telephone:
 Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
 +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
 +1 646 931 3860 US
 The November meeting was cancelled due to a lack of a quorum and November's agenda
2.
 was moved to this month’s agenda.


3. Call to Order


4. Approval of October 9, 2024 minutes


 a. October 9, 2024 meeting minutes
5. Potential update on the new Civil Police Review Board ordinance


 Page 1
6. Use of Force Report presentation


 a. Use of Force Report
7. Workshop: role/responsibilities of the PCRS Board and IA process overview


 a. PowerPoint presentation
 b. Complainant letter template
8. Public comment on agenda items


9. Executive session pursuant to 1 M.R.S. Sec. 405(6)(F) to discuss IA 2024-17


10. Public comment on agenda items


11. Topics for next month’s meeting


12. Adjourn




 Page 2
 MINUTES
 POLICE CITIZEN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE

 October 9, 2024
 Meeting Held Remotely Via Zoom

Members present: Anne Hardcastle, Chair; Reverend Lewis, Vice-Chair; Xavier Botana
Gino Desruisseaux; Tim Smith; Joey Brunelle; Kaylin Kerina (joined at 6:46)

Staff present: Associate Corporation Counsel Rachel Millette; Chief Mark Dubois; Major Dan
Hondo; Lt. Jacob Titcomb

6:04 Call to order.

 Motion was made by Reverend Lewis and seconded by Gino to adopt the September 11,
2024 meeting minutes. Passage 6-0.

 Standing of the new ordinance:
 Rachel reported that there is a plan of action for moving the new ordinance forward,
however, there needs to be more negotiations with the police unions before bringing the ordinance
back to the City Council, hopefully in December. Rachel will inform the subcommittee when the
exact date is as soon as she knows. Reverend Lewis asked about the City Council timeline as it
relates the number of readings this will need. Rachel responded that if the ordinance is added to a
December agenda it would likely be in an executive session and then opened up after into a
workshop session. There may be different approaches to the process if the City Council decides
to make significant changes to the ordinance, it could be sent to committee where the changes
would be made and then workshopped. If the City Council comes to an agreement of what the
ordinance would look like, there would be two readings of the ordinance, the first of which is not
open to public comment. The second read is open to public comment before the City Council
votes on the ordinance.
 Joey pointed out that there will be three new city council members and that a workshop
would be appropriate. Xavier asked what version of the ordinance the police unions are bargaining
over. Rachel expressed that the police negotiations are confidential. Xavier asked if the PCRS
will see the ordinance before it goes to the City Council. Rachel responded that once the ordinance
is presented to the City Council in executive session, it will then be workshopped, and then the
PCRS should be able to review it before it is voted on by the City Council. Rachel expressed that
there are a lot of moving parts and that there is no way to predict if the City Council will want
changes. Rachel suggested that the PCRS schedule a special meeting to review the ordinance if
the timing doesn’t align with their normally scheduled monthly meeting. Joey pointed out that the
PCRS meets on 11/13 and 12/11, the City Council meets on December 2, which may end up being
the inaugural meeting for new members. Joey predicted that there could be a workshop on
December 9 before the PCRS December 11 meeting.
 Reverend Lewis asked if the PCRS could authorize the Chair to speak/write on behalf of
the PCRS to the City Council with its response regarding the new ordinance. Rachel agreed that
it could be done that way, or workshopped, though she cautioned the subcommittee about not




 Page 3
meeting outside of the public forum. Anne asked if they planned a special meeting what kind of
advance notice would the public need. Rachel answered that there are no hard and fast meeting
notice rules adding that she will know well in advance of seven days when the City Council
workshop will take place.
 Anne inquired about the timing of the transition from the PCRS to the Citizen Police
Review Board (CPRB). Rachel responded that once the ordinance is passed, it will go into effect
after 30 days, then the PCRS will be dissolved, and an appointment process will begin for the new
CPRB, similar to the process that has been in place. Preference will be given for current members
to serve on the new, larger board. Anne surmised that theoretically it could be 30-60 days before
the new board is in place.

 Joey asked how to go about bringing up a subject previously discussed at an earlier
meeting. Rachel answered that the subcommittee sets the next meeting’s agenda at the end of each
meeting. If something comes up after a meeting, she suggests that he email her and Anne and
Anne can decide if the subject should be added to the agenda. Rachel said the individual
conversations around procedural topics can take place between two individuals and explained that
nothing confidential should be discussed and to avoid a quorum.

 No public comment was offered.

 Reverend Lewis motioned to postpone review of IA2024-006 until the next meeting, Joey
seconded.
 Reverend Lewis explained that he believes that the case should be reviewed by the person
it was assigned to – thus postponing the case until the next meeting for Kay to review the case.
Anne agreed with postponing the case. Joey asked if they need to wait a whole month before
reviewing the case. Anne responded that there is precedence of postponing meetings, thus it is not
usual practice to hold a special meeting to review a case. Reverend Lewis re-stated his motion to
defer the review of IA2024-006 until the next regular meeting of the PCRS. Tim seconded. Xavier
suggested that the subcommittee appoint two people to each case to review, the second person
acting as back-up. Anne agreed that it would be good practice and volunteered to be that person.
Xavier volunteered to be the second person for the pending case.
 Passed 6-0.

 Next month’s agenda:
 Anne suggested that they hold a workshop around the subcommittee’s roles – what they do
and how they function so that the group is moving forward in the same direction. Rachel can help
with some of it. Rachel and Anne will come up with an agenda. Joey would like the committee
to develop SOPs for different aspects of what they do.
 There are currently no new cases to review next month.
 Joey asked about the Use of Force Report which was emailed to the subcommittee and if
it would be added to agenda next month. Joey also asked about an earlier case which resulted in
a vote that deemed the case was not thorough, not objective and not fair and what happened as a
result of that vote. Anne suggested that they cover that in a workshop. Rachel will provide a copy
of the redacted complainant letter that was sent. Xavier would like a forum to discuss the Use of
Force Report. Rachel offered to ask someone to come and explain the report and process. The
PCRS does not review Use of Force Reports. Tim suggested that the workshop include the training




 Page 4
opportunities available to the subcommittee. Reverend Lewis asked if the SOP addresses the Use
of Force Report because it is not a citizen complaint and if the report is a public document. Rachel
responded that the report is a public document. Joey also asked about discussing training in police
oversight, NACOLE and their best practices. Kay joined the meeting. Anne asked the
subcommittee if they wanted to review the case. Reverend Lewis expressed that he would like to
go into Executive Session to discuss the case.

6:54 Motion was made to enter into Executive Session pursuant to 1 M.R.S. Sec. 405(6)(F) to
 discuss IA2024-006 by Anne and seconded by Reverend Lewis. Passage 7-0.

7:39 Out of Executive Session.

 Motion was made by Reverend Lewis to find that IA2024-006 was objective; seconded by
Kay. Passage: 3 yes; 2 no; 2 abstention, IA2024-0006 was found to be objective.
 Motion was made by Xavier to find that IA2024-006 was timely; seconded by Reverend
Lewis. Passage: 6 yes; 1 no, IA2024-0006 was found to be timely.
 Motion was made by Reverend Lewis to find that IA2024-006 was fair; seconded by Kay.
Passage: 4 yes; 2 no; 1 abstention, IA2024-0006 was found to be fair
 Motion was made by Kay to find that IA2024-006 was thorough; seconded by Reverend
Lewis. Fails: 3 yes; 3 no; 1 abstention, no consensus reached, IA2024-0006 was not found to be
thorough, nor was it found not to be thorough.

 No public comment.

7:46 Motion was made by Reverend Lewis and seconded by Gino to adjourn. Passage 7-0.




 Page 5
 PORTLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT
 MEMORANDUM

TO: Mark Dubois, Chief of Police

FROM: Nicole Albert, Associate Corporation Counsel

SUBJECT: Use of Force Incident Review: IA2023-020

DATE: October 8, 2024

An incident review team (IRT) met on October 4, 2024 to review the use of deadly force
by Officers Jacob Webster and Jordin Jackson on December 17, 2023 in response to an
armed suspect pointing and discharging a weapon at them. The IRT met, as required
by Portland PD Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 90B and the protocols of the
Maine Attorney General’s Office and the Maine Criminal Justice Academy, after the
release of the Attorney General’s findings of its investigation on June 14, 2024, and
subsequent release of the Portland Police Administrative Investigation Team’s (AIT)
investigation report on August 28, 2024. The Attorney General’s Office concluded that
Officers Webster and Jackson were justified in using deadly force against Kyle
Desmarais because Officers Webster and Jackson each had the reasonable belief that
Mr. Desmarais posed an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to each of
them. The Portland Police Department’s AIT then conducted its own investigation,
concluding that the use of force by both Officer Jackson and Officer Webster was
justified under the law, and that their actions were in accordance with Portland PD
SOPs.

Present at the IRT meeting were: South Portland Chief of Police Daniel Ahern, Maine
State Police Lieutenant Kevin Burton, Police Citizen Review Subcommittee Chair Anne
Hardcastle, Major Robert Martin, Major Jason King, Major Daniel Hondo, Internal Affairs
Sergeant Sara Clukey, Training Sergeant Daniel Hayden, Lieutenant William Preis
(representing the Superior Officers Association), Officer William Stratis (representing the
Police Benevolent Association), Behavioral Health Coordinator Bridgit Sliwak, Associate
Corporation Counsel Nicole Albert, and yourself.

The IRT’s review is independent of and not connected with the Attorney General’s
review of the incident.

Professional Standards Lieutenant Jacob Titcomb presented the findings of the AIT’s
Use of Deadly Force investigation.




 Page 6
As outlined in PPD SOP 90B §X-D, the discussion of Officer Webster and Officer
Jackson’s use of force focused on the following areas:

 1) Whether relevant policy was understandable and effective during the incident.
 2) Whether changes in policies or procedures are necessary to increase public
 safety or officer safety.
 3) Whether training methods or protocols should be reviewed or revised.
 4) Whether department equipment or other resources should be replaced,
 supplemented, or modified.

The IRT had access to any and all relevant information about the information, to
include: 911 calls, radio traffic, cruiser and body camera video, photos, and witness
statements.

Portland Police Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) state that the use of deadly force
is justified, when the officer “reasonably believes such force is necessary . . . for
self-defense or to defend a third person from what the officer reasonably believes is the
imminent use of unlawful deadly force. . .”1 Additionally, the use of deadly force is
measured by the following standards:

 1) Whether the use of force was consistent with the requirements of Maine law.
 2) Whether the officer reasonably believed that force was necessary in light of the
 facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time the force was used.

The IRT discussed Officer Webster’s and Officer Jackson’s use of force from a number
of perspectives, including the officers’ decision-making and tactical effectiveness as well
as the actual use of force. It reviewed whether there are training needs, on an
individual, team, or department-wide basis, that were observed during the incident, and
whether any changes to policies and procedures are recommended.

Based on Officer Webster’s and Officer Jackson’s handling of the threat posed by Mr.
Desmarais and the speed with which the situation unfolded on December 17, 2023, the
IRT was satisfied that both officers understood the requirements of both Maine law and
police department policy regarding the use of deadly force, and that no changes were
necessary to the PPD SOP. A review of the physical evidence, including cruiser and
body camera footage and 911 calls and radio traffic satisfied the IRT that the use of
deadly force was in compliance with Portland Police SOPs.


1
 PPD SOP1A §V-B-2.




 Page 7
The IRT also discussed whether there were less lethal tactics or weapons that might
have been effective in neutralizing the threat posed by Mr. Desmarais. Given the fact
that Mr. Desmarais stepped out of his car with a firearm in his hand already pointed at
Officer Jackson’s vehicle, and shot at Officer Jackson within a little over one second of
stepping out of his vehicle, the IRT was satisfied that there were no alternative tactics,
less lethal weapons, or de-escalation techniques that would have been effective in this
case.

The IRT did not identify any concerns with the department’s training methods or
protocols with respect to the response to resistance. In fact, the only suggestion in this
regard was for more of the same type of training officers are already receiving, both at
the Maine Criminal Justice Academy during the Basic Law Enforcement Training
Program, as well as ongoing mandatory training received while serving with the
Department. This recommendation for ongoing training included the tactical medical
response to critical incidents, which was remarked upon by the group, who were
impressed with the officers’ ability to swiftly change focus from threat elimination to
lifesaving measures for Mr. Desmarais.

The current SOP regarding Response to Resistance2 requires, in situations requiring a
casualty report, that the subject and the scene be photographed. As the Attorney
General’s Office investigators (including crime scene investigators) are typically the first
investigators on site following a critical incident, the suggestion was made to amend this
SOP to allow for the photographs taken by these investigators to satisfy this
requirement.

With regard to response immediately following a critical incident such as the December
17, 2023 officer-involved shooting (OIS), a recommendation was made that the
Department’s SOPs, which currently only require that involved officers be transported to
the hospital if treatment is needed,3 be amended to require all involved officers to be
transported for assessment, regardless of whether there is an obvious need for medical
treatment. This will allow for officers’ vital signs to be assessed and monitored by
medical professionals, and the time involved for the medical evaluation will also provide
a brief “buffer” period between the officers’ removal from the scene and their
transportation to police headquarters for further investigation.

Additionally, a different section of the same SOP4 requires Department employees
involved in a critical incident to attend a Critical Incident Stress Debriefing to which other
involved City employees are also invited. The suggestion was made by the group,
2
  PPD SOP 1A-§VII-D
3
  PPD SOP 90A-§V-B-3
4
  PPD SOP 90A-§IX-B




 Page 8
given the requirement that this debriefing occurs within 24-72 hours post-incident, that
the participation of the officers directly involved be at the Chief’s discretion and not
mandatory. This was primarily due to trauma which can surface in the hours and days
following a critical incident.

With respect to post-incident procedures, a further recommendation was made by the
group for the Department to better communicate with personnel the availability of
mental health resources for all officers, whether directly involved in a critical incident or
not. Members of the panel specifically discussed the de-stigmatization of seeking and
receiving mental health counseling, and the importance of mental health in policing
overall, as well as specifically following a critical incident. The Department’s robust
Peer Support group, which includes the recent engagement of the services of a
psychologist who specializes in police and public safety to provide psychological and
operational support to the Department, was noted with approval by the group.

Law enforcement officers perform a vital and often dangerous job in our communities.
Unfortunately, situations arise where officers must use deadly force. The community
expects that such force will only be used when legally necessary and as specified by
law, as it was in this instance.

cc: Danielle West, City Manager
 Mayor Mark Dion and members of the Portland City Council
 Michael Goldman, Corporation Counsel
 Anne Hardcastle, Chair and members of the Police Citizen Review Subcommittee
 Chair of the Board of Trustees, Maine Criminal Justice Academy
 PPD Use of Force Committee members
 Sgt. Daniel Hayden and members of the PPD Training Committee
 Sgt. Sean Hurley, President of the SOA
 Officer Thien Duong, President of the PBA
 Officer Jordin Jackson
 Officer Jacob Webster




 Page 9
Police Citizen Review Subcommittee
 Review of Obligations & Duties




 November 13, 2024




 Page 10
Structure of the PCRS
Established by Chapter 2, Article IV of the Portland City Code
 ● Composed of seven (7) commissioners, who are residents of
 the City of Portland
 ○ Cannot be former employees or City Council members (10 year
 restriction)
 ○ Family members or commissioners cannot have been Portland
 police officers, arrested, filed a complaint, or brought suit (10
 year restriction)
 ● Appointed by the City Council to 3 year terms
 ○ Limited to 3 terms
 ● Assisted by the City’s Corporation Counsel’s office



 Page 11
Meetings of PCRS
Quorum: Four (4) members; Three (3) members during vacancy
Public Meetings
 ● Required by Freedom of Access Act
 ● Public notice of meetings
 ● Executive session to discuss specifics of IA cases
 ○ To protect privacy of employees & other individuals involved in
 the underlying situation
 ● Vote in public session
 ○ Public discussions should not include specifics of IA cases which
 are otherwise confidential
 ● Meeting minutes are required
 ○ Must include date, time, place, presence or absence of
 members, motions or votes taken
Outside communications
 Page 12
 ● Exercise caution in emails & other external communications
PCRS’ Duties - Review of IA Investigations
Section 2-76 of Chapter 2 of the City Code
To determine whether police investigations into citizens’ complaints by
members of the public against police officers are thorough, objective,
fair and timely by auditing the police department’s internal affairs’ unit
investigative methods and procedures.


Key Points
 ● Review of IA process, not reinvestigation of underlying incident
 ● Review is to determine if investigation is thorough, objective, fair,
 and timely
 ● Review only citizens’ complaints


 Page 13
PCRS’ Duties - Review of IA Investigations
Limitations on Review
 ● No power to call witnesses
 ● No ability to impose or modify disciplinary action or lack of
 action against a police officer
 ○ No recommendations, findings, or comments relative to
 disciplinary action
 ● Consideration is limited to thoroughness, objectivity, fairness
 and timeliness




 Page 14
PCRS’ Duties - Review of IA Investigations
PCRS has developed its own suggested guidelines for evaluating
IA investigations - updated in March 2023




 Page 15
PCRS’ Duties - Review of IA Investigations




 Page 16
PCRS’ Duties - Review of IA Investigations




 Page 17
PCRS’ Duties - Review of IA Investigations




 Page 18
PCRS’ Duties - Review of IA Investigations
Letter send to citizen complainant after review notifying them of
findings




 Page 19
PCRS’ Duties - Review of IA Investigations




 Page 20
PCRS’ Duties - Additional Duties
Annual Report to the City Manager
 ● Subcommittee’s determinations on thoroughness, objectivity,
 fairness, and timeliness of IA investigations
 ● Recommendations and/or proposals for improvements or
 modifications in:
 ○ Police internal affairs investigative processes, policies or
 training
 ○ Enhancing public confidence in the methods and
 processes of investigation of citizen complaints
Public Hearing
 ● At least annually
 ● To receive comments upon the police citizen complaint
 process
 Page 21
Questions?


 Page 22
 CITY OF PORTLAND
 POLICE CITIZEN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
 Anne Hardcastle, Chair



 RE: Police Citizen Complaint
 IA
Dear ___________:
 The City of Portland has a Police Citizen Review Subcommittee (PCRS) that
reviews all of the Police Department’s Internal Affairs (IA) investigations into citizen
complaints about the Police Department. The PCRS reviews the IA investigations to
ensure that they are thorough, objective, fair, and timely. Although the Subcommittee
cannot change the Police Department’s decision on an investigation, or impose discipline,
it ensures that the IA division is conducting its investigations appropriately. The PCRS
reports its findings directly to the City Manager so that she can address any issues that the
Subcommittee might identify with the IA process.
 The PCRS reviewed the IA investigation into your complaint and found that the
investigation was thorough, objective, fair, and timely.
 If you have any questions about the PCRS or its process, or would like to provide
feedback, the PCRS meets regularly throughout the year, and welcomes public comment
at the beginning of each meeting. Meetings are posted on the City website at
https://www.portlandmaine.gov/602/Agendas-Minutes. You are also welcome to reach
out by email at pcrs@portlandmaine.gov, or by mail or phone through the City’s
Corporation Counsel’s Office, whose contact information is at the bottom of this letter.
Any comments or questions you provide will be shared in the next meeting of the PCRS.
 The PCRS takes its role seriously in ensuring that the review of citizen complaints
about the Portland Police Department is fair and effective, and appreciates you bringing
forward your concerns.
 Sincerely,
 /s/ Anne Hardcastle
 Anne Hardcastle, Chair
cc: Police Citizen Review Subcommittee
 Danielle P. West, City Manager
 Mark DuBois, Portland Police Chief
 Michael I. Goldman, Corporation Counsel




 389 Congress Street, Room 211, Portland ME 04101
 www.portlandmaine.gov / tel. 207.874.8480 / tty. 207.874.8936 / fax. 207.874.8497




 Page 23

Page 2 MINUTES
 POLICE CITIZEN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE

 December 11, 2024
 Meeting Held Remotely Via Zoom

Members present: Anne Hardcastle, Chair (left at 6:52); Xavier Botana; Gino Desruisseaux;
Joey Brunelle; Kaylin Kerina

Members absent: Reverend Lewis, Vice-Chair

Staff present: Associate Corporation Counsel Rachel Millette; Chief Mark Dubois; Major Dan
Hondo; Lt. Jacob Titcomb; Associate Corporation Counsel Nicole Albert; Tracy Boyd

6:02 Call to order.
 Anne announced that she needed to leave the meeting early, thus the agenda was flipped
so that she could present the case that was carried forward from November.

 Motion was made by Xavier and seconded by Gino to adopt the October 9, 2024 meeting
minutes. Passage 5-0.

6:05 Motion was made to enter into Executive Session pursuant to 1 M.R.S. Sec. 405(6)(F) to
 discuss IA2024-017 by Gino and seconded by Xavier. Passage 5-0.

6:44 Out of Executive Session.

 Motion was made by Kay to find that IA2024-017 was fair; seconded by Gino. Passage:
5-0, IA2024-017 was found to be fair.
 Motion was made by Joey to find that IA2024-017 was objective; seconded by Gino.
Passage: 5-0, IA2024-017 was found to be objective.
 Motion was made by Kay to find that IA2024-017 was timely; seconded by Gino. Passage:
5-0, IA2024-017 was found to be timely.
 Motion was made by Xavier to find that IA2024-017 was thorough; seconded by Gino.
Passage: 5-0, IA2024-017 was found to be thorough.

 No public comment was offered.

 Standing of the new ordinance:
 Rachel reported that there’s been an update to the City Council’s workshop schedule, the
new Civilian Police Review Board (“CPRB”) will be discussed on February 10, 2025.
The meeting will start in an executive session because the discussion will entail bargaining
related obligations and collective bargaining processes. After the executive session the City
Council may open up the workshop to the public depending on the outcome of the
meeting, or, they may announce that they are still bargaining. Joey asked when the public
might see the updated version of the ordinance. Rachel responded that once the City Council
has settled on the new version, the public will have a minimum of two and a half weeks to view
the new ordinance before the City Council votes on it. The item will be a two read item posted
ahead of the first read then public comment will be allowed during the second read.

6:52 Anne designated Xavier to lead the remainder of the meeting and left the meeting.

 Use of Force Incident Review Presentation:
 Associate Corporation Counsel Nicole Albert, legal counsel to the police department,
gave an overview of the Use of Force Incident Review process.

Questions arose around the Police Department’s separate Use of Force committee members;
who they are; how are they chosen; are there any disqualifiers for serving on the committee?
Nicole explained that her task was to inform the committee of the incident review process and
explained that she did not have information to answer the subcommittee members’ questions
regarding the separate Use of Force committee.
>> Acting Chair Xavier requested that staff provide answers to these question at the next
meeting.

Members discuss the possibility of making information about the Use of Force/Incident Review
information available to the public.
>> Rachel, Tracy and Nicole say they can put this information in the meeting’s
minutes/supporting documents, along with the Police Department’s relevant SOP.

 Workshop – role/responsibilities of the PCRS Board and IA process overview:
 Rachel gave a PowerPoint presentation around the roles and responsibilities of the
subcommittee members.

Rachel clarifies something from the previous meeting and says that PCRS members *can*
discuss their votes in a public session provided that the discussion does not in any way violate
the privacy rights of the employees or the individual making the complaint. Broad
generalizations are allowed, and questions can be asked during executive session regarding
what is allowable to say in the public meeting.

The Committee discussed the possibility of sending a letter to complainants *before* the PCRS
process, in addition to afterward (as currently happens), to better explain our purpose,
limitations and value, which happened in the early years of the committee. The Committee also
expressed interest in including vote totals in the letter sent to complainants.
>> It is suggested to put these on a future agenda.
Joey raised the concern that the PCRS annual reports from 2008-2013 are missing from the
City’s website.
>> Rachel says she will take a look into that.

The Committee discussed past and possible future training, including from the police
department and from NACOLE, and multiple members expressed interest in additional training.

 No public comment was offered.

 Topics for next month’s meeting:

Kay suggests that we have a forward-looking discussion of trainings offered by PPD and
NACOLE, or reaching out to USM (or other schools, e.g. Husson) to see if someone can give a
presentation on other models of citizen police review. Xavier suggests starting with a review of
past trainings.

Joey asks what the process is to develop the annual report. Gino says that it starts in spring and
sometimes drags into fall. It doesn’t take much, once we get the data.
>> Acting Chair Xavier suggests putting this topic on the January meeting agenda.

 ●​ Potential update on the new Civil Police Review Board ordinance
 ●​ Notice to complainant regarding PCRS review of their IA complaint
 ●​ An Outline of the Incident Review Process that could go along with the meeting
 minutes and the SOP around incident review on the city’s website
 ●​ Previous trainings offered by PPD and NACOLE
 ●​ 2024 Report development

8:06 Motion was made by Joey and seconded by Kay to adjourn. Passage 4-0.
 PORTLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT
 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE

 Effective Date 06/29/2014 Number 90B
Subject Deadly Force Investigations
Amendment Date




 I. Purpose

 The purpose of this policy is to establish uniform procedures for the investigation of all incidents
 involving the use of deadly force by police officers. These procedures will govern only the
 investigative aspects of those incidents. Post incident procedures are addressed in SOP 90A.

 II. Policy

 It is the policy of the department to thoroughly, quickly and impartially investigate the use of
 deadly force by an officer. This may involve several separate investigations. The investigations
 will include:

 a) a criminal investigation of the suspect’s actions by the department’s Criminal Investigations
 Division. If the incident occurred in a different jurisdiction, the Chief of Police may request
 a joint investigation with that jurisdiction’s police department.

 b) a criminal investigation of the involved officer(s) conducted by the Office of the Attorney
 General.

 c) an administrative investigation conducted by the Internal Affairs Unit (IAU) and other
 assigned personnel, to determine if there were any violations of department policy.

 The procedures outlined in this policy are intended to elicit the information necessary to fully
 review the officer’s use of force. These procedures are intended to facilitate the investigative
 process by allowing all the investigative components to work in a cooperative and collaborative
 fashion; while still respecting the rights of all of the involved parties.

 III. Confidentiality of Investigations

 Administrative investigations of the use of deadly force are conducted for the internal use of the
 Portland Police Department and are to be kept confidential in accordance with state law. The
 department reserves the right; however, to provide information regarding an investigation to the
 department's legal counsel. An officer whose conduct is the subject of an investigation is entitled
 to review the investigation upon its completion.


 IV. Definitions

 Administrative Investigation Team [AIT]: An investigative unit supervised by the Assistant Chief
 and comprised of personnel from the Internal Affairs Unit, the assigned evidence technician(s) and
 any other investigative resources deemed necessary by the Chief of Police. This unit is solely
 responsible for the internal, administrative investigation of the use of force by the officer.

 Deadly force Incident: Any incident involving the use of deadly force by an officer; the use of any
 level of force which results in death; any departmental in-custody death or a use of force incident
 that results in serious bodily injury.

 Garrity warning: A warning given to a police officer who is interviewed by his/her employer in a
 potentially disciplinary setting to advise the officer that he/she is part of an investigation, that the
 officer is obligated to give statements for internal purposes, and these answers may not be used


 9-90B-1
 against the officer in the prosecution’s case in a criminal proceeding. Garrity statements may be
 used in rebuttal.

V. Command Responsibilities

 A. The Commander of the Uniformed Operations Group shall assume responsibility for the
 oversight and management of the personnel assigned to the police headquarters after the
 incident, including, but not limited to, involved officers, dispatch personnel, peer support
 employees and union representatives.

 B. The Assistant Chief shall assume responsibility for the oversight and management of
 investigative personnel including, but not limited to, investigators, evidence technicians
 and patrol officers and shall act as the liaison with personnel from the Attorney General’s
 office.

VI. Investigative Responsibilities

 A. The internal, administrative investigation of a deadly force incident shall be the
 responsibility of the Administrative Investigations Team. If a member of the
 Administrative Investigation Team is involved in the incident being investigated, a
 supervisor of equal rank will replace that member. The Administrative Investigation Team
 will work in coordination with the Criminal Investigation Division as they each conduct
 parallel investigations. The AIT will share any investigative knowledge that is not a
 product of compelled statements of involved officers. Investigative knowledge obtained
 by CID is provided to the AIT. Examples include results of witness interviews, canvasses
 and physical evidence collected.

 B. The CID Lieutenant shall retain responsibility for the criminal investigation of the
 suspect’s actions and assign CID personnel, as he/she deems necessary.

 C. The Investigation Division of the Office of the Attorney General is designated as the
 official representative of the Attorney General in the investigation of police-involved
 deaths. The Attorney General’s Office is required by law to investigate any use of deadly
 force by a law enforcement officer while acting in the performance of the officer's duties.
 The sole purpose of the Attorney General’s investigation is to determine whether the force
 used by the officer was legally justified by self-defense or the defense of others; and to rule
 out criminal prosecution of the officer. Notification to the Attorney General and Office of
 the Chief Medical Examiner shall be the responsibility of the Assistant Chief, acting in
 his/her role as the supervisor of the Administrative Investigations Team.

VII. Investigative Duties

 A. Upon notification, Administrative Investigations Team members shall respond to the
 scene, the police department or other location as specified by the Assistant Chief.

 B. The assigned evidence technician(s) shall respond to the scene to begin preliminary
 processing of the scene and to ensure the preservation of evidence. The collection of
 evidence from the involved officer shall be a priority and shall be accomplished as quickly
 as possible. Processing may be done at the scene or at the police department.

 C. The AIT shall receive a general briefing and walk-through by the scene supervisor
 regarding the circumstances surrounding the shooting. The involved officer(s) may also be
 asked at some point to participate in the scene walk-through, if they are able.




 9-90B-2
 D. In dealing with involved personnel, AIT members should be cognizant of the symptoms of
 post traumatic stress including time and space distortions, confusion, hearing and visual
 distortion and shock.

 E. The involved officer(s) shall be relieved of the task of writing a Use of Force report. A
 Blue Team entry shall be made by the AIT for statistical purposes.

 F. An AIT member will be responsible for reviewing and collecting all of the video/audio
 information connected with the incident; including cruiser video, interview video, car to
 car messaging, email and dispatch audio recordings. The original material shall either
 remain in the custody and control of the team for investigative purposes or be logged into
 the evidence system. Copies will be made and/or released to CID and the Attorney
 General’s office as needed, with the approval of the Assistant Chief.

 G. An AIT member will review all of the information collected by the AIT during the course
 of the investigation and be periodically briefed by the CID Lieutenant regarding the status
 of the criminal investigation. Information gathered by the AIT, pursuant to the Garrity
 warning, shall not be shared with CID investigators. The Assistant Chief will periodically
 brief the Chief of Police.

 H. If an autopsy occurs as a result of the incident, an AIT member will be assigned to attend.

 I. Blood/Urine testing: It is the police department's policy not to request blood or urine
 samples from the involved officer(s) unless the officer(s) requests the sample, the involved
 officer(s) shows objective symptoms of alcohol or drug use or it is obtained pursuant to the
 Fourth Amendment as part of the criminal investigation.

VIII. Officer Interviews

 A. An AIT member or the Chief’s designee, will be responsible for conducting the formal
 interview (if necessary) of the officer(s) involved in the incident as well as the witness
 officers. The interviews shall be audio recorded. No more than two members of the
 Administrative Investigations Team may be present at the interview but only one person
 should question the officer.

 B. Prior to the interview, the involved officer(s) and department witnesses shall be read and
 provided with a copy of the Garrity warning. Garrity statements will not be released to
 CID or the Attorney General’s office.

 C. The interview will be limited to questions which are specifically, directly and narrowly
 related to the incident. An officer may be questioned about off-duty conduct if it relates to
 the incident.

 D. The officer shall be advised that he/she has the right to have an attorney or union
 representative present during the interview. An officer's request to have an attorney or
 union representative present shall not unreasonably delay the interview.

 E. An officer can be disciplined for refusing to participate in an internal interview.

 F. If an officer chooses to participate in an interview with members of the Attorney General’s
 office as part of their investigation of the incident, the AIT may request that the officer or
 his/her attorney arrange for the interview to be recorded and voluntarily provided to the
 AIT. An officer may refuse the request and will NOT face any discipline for refusing. If
 an officer provides an audio recording of the interview to the AIT, it may serve to



 9-90B-3
 eliminate any additional interviews by the AIT. An officer or his/her attorney, who agrees
 to provide this information, acknowledges that the interview is NOT being compelled by
 the Garrity ruling.


IX. Administrative Findings

 A. The Assistant Chief or his/her designee shall prepare a written report, which includes the
 team's investigative conclusions about the incident and recommendations to the Chief
 regarding discipline, policy revisions and training alternatives. The final investigative
 report will be assigned an Internal Affairs case number and filed in the Internal Affairs
 Unit.

 B. The report shall be subject to command review to determine whether:

 1. the use of force was justified,

 2. the actions of the officer(s) were in accordance with department policy,

 3. any training or policy modifications are necessary and

 4. the Chief of Police should consider disciplinary action.

 C. The Chief of Police shall have final approval of the disposition of the case in accordance
 with the procedures established by SOP. The Chief may take action based on the
 command staff recommendations at any time before or after the findings of the Incident
 Review Team are completed.

 D. The involved officer shall receive a copy of the written report, the command staff
 recommendations and the Chief’s final disposition.

X. Incident Review Team

 A. Pursuant to Maine law, within thirty (30) days of the completion of the Attorney General’s
 investigation and the department's administrative investigation, the Chief of Police will
 convene an Incident Review Team consisting of members appointed by the Chief.

 B. The members appointed will include:

 1. the Assistant Chief, Commander and Captain;

 2. one member who is a commissioned officer of the Maine State Police;

 3. one member of the public who is not and has not previously served as a sworn law
 enforcement officer;

 4. the police attorney;

 5. the Use of Force Committee representatives from the PBA and the SOA;

 6. a Chief of Police from an outside agency; and

 7. any other individuals the Chief deems appropriate.

 C. The investigator(s) assigned to the incident will make a presentation to the Incident
 Review Team and answer any questions that may arise concerning the incident.



 9-90B-4
 D. The purpose of the Incident Review Team is to review both a factual reconstruction of the
 event and the use of deadly force to advise the Chief of Police on the following issues:

 1. Whether relevant policy was understandable and effective during the incident.

 2. Whether changes in policies or procedures are necessary to increase public safety or
 officer safety.

 3. Whether training methods or protocols should be reviewed or revised.

 4. Whether department equipment or other resources should be replaced, supplemented
 or modified.

 E. The police attorney will draft a report that reflects the findings of the Incident Review
 Team on the above issues for delivery to the Chief of Police. The Incident Review Team
 does not have the authority to determine whether an officer engaged in misconduct,
 violated department policy or procedures or should be subject to discipline for his/her
 actions.

 F. The Chief of Police will determine whether training, equipment and/or policy revision is
 needed.

 G. At the conclusion of the review process, a copy of all relevant reports and information will
 be filed with the Internal Affairs Unit.

 H. The involved officer will be given a copy of the Incident Review Team’s report and may
 meet with the Chief to discuss the team’s findings.

 I. The report of the Incident Review Team is a public record as provided by law. The
 following individuals will be provided with copies of the report: the City Manager, the
 Mayor, Corporation Counsel, members of the Portland City Council and the Police Citizen
 Review Subcommittee, members of the police department’s Training and Use of Force
 Committees, the involved officer(s) and the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Maine
 Criminal Justice Academy.

 J. After the Incident Review Team has made its findings, the Training Sergeant will convene
 the Training Committee, if necessary. At that meeting, a Command Staff member will
 review the Incident Review Team report with the committee and discuss any training
 concerns raised in the report.




Disclaimer: Any policy, procedure and/or rule shall not be construed as creating a higher legal
standard of care or safety in an evidentiary sense with respect to third party claims. Nothing in
this policy is intended to increase, modify or in any way affect current legal standards nor shall
any deviation from these guidelines be considered a breach of any legal standard. The
procedures articulated in this policy are for Department use only and do not apply in any criminal
or civil proceeding. When a conflict occurs with Federal laws or Maine statutes, the law or
statute will supersede the directive in conflict.



 9-90B-5
 PORTLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT
 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
 Subject: RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE/AID/REPORTING Policy #: 1A

 Distribu on: Internal/External Eﬀec ve: 10/22/2017

 By Order of: Chief of Police Revised: 12/18/2022


I. PURPOSE
To establish guidelines governing response to resistance by Portland Police Oﬃcers and to describe requirements for
medical aid and repor ng.

II. POLICY
The Portland Police Department seeks to treat all people with dignity and respect and recognizes the value and
sanc ty of every human life. Inves ng oﬃcers with the trust and lawful authority to respond to use force in
response to resistance and to protect the public welfare, a careful balancing of all human interests is required. Since
there are too many variables that go into an oﬃcer's split-second decision to use force in what are o en mes
tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving situa ons, this procedure, although intended to provide clear direc on, is
unable to be all inclusive and does not a empt to describe in absolute terms and in every circumstance when an
oﬃcer should or should not use a par cular response op on. It is the policy of this agency for oﬃcers to consider
safety priori es and a empt to control an incident by the use of de-escala on whenever safe and reasonable to do
so, and to use only the degree of force that the oﬃcer reasonably and actually believes is necessary to eﬀec vely
bring an incident under control while protec ng the oﬃcer or another. When necessary to respond to resistance,
the degree of force employed must be propor onal and in direct rela onship to the amount of resistance exerted,
or the immediate threat to the oﬃcers or others. Oﬃcers must respond in a way that does not violate the
Cons tu on or applicable law. Oﬃcers shall report their use of physical force, and shall take reasonable steps to
obtain appropriate medical a en on. Supervisors and command staﬀ shall review all uses of force and control to
ensure compliance with legal requirements and this policy. Given this is a statutorily mandated policy, oﬃcers must
abide by this SOP as it applies to all standards of the MCJA Board of Trustees.

III. DEFINITIONS

 A. Actual Belief: A subjec ve state of mind in which the oﬃcer holds a genuine or honest convic on.

 B. Bodily Injury: Physical pain, physical illness or any impairment of physical condi on.

 C. Canine (K-9): A department authorized dog, the training and cer ﬁca on of which has included
 handler protec on and suspect apprehension. This is considered the use of non-deadly force.

 D. Chemical Agents: A response op on intended to disable a person with the use of chemicals,
 inﬂammatory agents, or similar substances (e.g., OC or CS) that has an irrita ng or disabling eﬀect
 upon human beings. Incapacita ng agents are designed to produce temporary physiological or mental
 eﬀects, or both, which will render individuals incapable of concerted eﬀort. This is considered the use
 of non-deadly force.

 E. Command / Oﬃcer Presence: The presence of a law enforcement oﬃcer who is willing and able to
 handle a situa on, and the ability to speak clearly authorita vely, issuing concise commands
 using a tone that reﬂects control and professionalism.




 1A-1
F. Compliance Techniques: Methods of arrest, restraint and control that include the manipula on of
 joints, pressure point applica ons, and take down techniques to control a resistant or aggressive
 oﬀender.

G. Conducted Electrical Weapon (CEW): An incapacita ng weapon that uses electricity against a
 person, causing involuntary muscle contrac on, and overriding the person’s voluntary motor
 responses. This is considered an intermediate level use of non-deadly force.

H. Deadly Force: Physical force which a person uses with the intent of causing, or which the person
 knows to create a substan al risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury, including, but not limited
 to the inten onal, knowing or reckless discharge of a ﬁrearm in the direc on of another person or at a
 moving vehicle.

I. De-escala on: Coupled with the considera on of safety priori es, the use of verbal or non-verbal
 ac ons and tac cs, whenever feasible and possible, preceding a poten al force encounter. This may
 include, but is not limited to the use of distance, cover, tac cal re-posi oning, and communica on in
 order to stabilize the situa on, reduce the immediacy of the threat, and allow for more me and
 op ons for resolu on. The goal of these tac cs is to slow down the situa on, allowing access to
 addi onal resources (e.g., personnel, supervisors, specialized oﬃcers or teams) that may
 mi gate the intensity of the encounter, help gain voluntary compliance, or otherwise allow for
 control of the situa on and the safety of the oﬃcer, subject and others without the need to use force,
 or with the use of a lower level of force.

J. Excessive Force: Physical force that is unreasonable, unnecessary or inappropriate given the
 facts and circumstances known to the oﬃcer at the me the force was used.

K. Firearm: Any weapon whether loaded or unloaded, which is designed to expel a projec le by the
 ac on of an explosive and includes a pistol, riﬂe, revolver, gun, machine gun or shotgun, but
 not including the PepperBall system or a CEW device. Any weapon that can be made into a ﬁrearm
 by the inser on of a ﬁring pin, or other similar thing, or by repair, is a ﬁrearm.

L. Imminent: Impending, immediate or appearing as if about to happen or occur.

M. Impact Projec les (Less Lethal Muni ons): Specialty, low-kine c energy projec les, approved by the
 MCJA Board of Trustees, designed to be discharged from a ﬁrearm and have a disabling eﬀect upon
 human beings. Law enforcement use of such muni ons is considered the use of non-deadly force.

N. Impact Tool / Weapon: A tool or device designed for use by an oﬃcer in close quarter physical
 defense of the oﬃcer or another and / or control of an aggressive oﬀender. The issued baton is a
 department-approved impact tool.

O. Individual Ac ons: As a part of the Situa onal Use of Force assessment process, the categories below
 can be used to describe an individual subject’s behavior:

 ● Coopera ve: Compliant and willing to obey, posing minimal threat to the oﬃcer(s) or others.
 ● Resis ve (Passive): Non-compliance, deﬁance or failure to cooperate with lawful verbal direc on,
 but oﬀering no resis ve or evasive bodily movement to prevent the oﬃcer’s a empt at physical



 1A-2
 control (e.g., a passive demonstrator, a person going limp, prone or refusing to stand up, lie down,
 enter / exit vehicle, leave the scene, etc.).
 ● Resis ve (Ac ve): Physically resis ve or evasive bodily movement, including but not limited to
 muscle tension, bracing, pushing, pulling, ﬂailing or ﬂight, to avoid or defeat an oﬃcer’s a empt
 at physical control, or to prevent being taken into or retained in custody. Verbal
 statements, deﬁance and belligerence alone do not cons tute ac ve resistance.
 ● Ac ve Aggression: A threat of an assault, coupled with any pre-a ack indicators (e.g., clenched
 ﬁsts, ﬂanking, ﬁgh ng stance, etc.) and the present ability to carry out the threat or
 assault, reasonably indica ng that an assault or injury to the oﬃcer or another person is
 imminent.
 ● Assaul ve (High Risk): An overt act of an assault, or highly agitated or comba ve ac ons or
 behavior posing an imminent threat of injury to the oﬃcer or another. Such ac ons may include,
 but are not limited to hos le physical or ac ve resistance, kicking, punching or spi ng, whether
 an assault occurs or not.
 ● Life Threatening: Ac ons or behavior that could cause death or serious bodily injury,
 poten ally jus fying the use of deadly force.

P. Less Lethal Force: Response op ons that are not designed or used with the inten on of causing (and
 have less poten al for causing) death or serious bodily injury, including but not limited to
 chemical agents, PepperBall, impact projec les or muni ons, or a CEW.

Q. Less than Lethal Muni ons: A low-kine c energy projec le designed to be discharged from a 40 mm
 launcher that is approved by the Board of Trustees of the Maine Criminal Jus ce Academy that has
 been designed to have a disabling eﬀect upon human beings. The use of a less-than-lethal muni ons
 weapon is considered to be the use of non-deadly force.

R. Neck (“choke”) hold: One of the following types of holds: (1) arm-bar control hold, a hold that
 inhibits breathing by compression of the airway in the neck; (2) caro d restraint hold, a hold that
 inhibits blood ﬂow by compression of the blood vessels in the neck; (3) lateral vascular neck
 constraint; or (4) a hold with a knee or other object to the back of a prone subject's neck, all of which
 are considered lethal force.

S. Non-Deadly Force: Any physical force that is not deadly force.

T. Oﬃcer Response Op ons: Choices available to an oﬃcer concerning the type of force to be used in
 response to resistance in a given situa on, including but not limited to oﬃcer / command presence,
 voice commands, de-escala on, compliance techniques, CEWs, chemical agents, impact weapons,
 canines, and deadly force.

U. PepperBall Projec les: Plas c spheres that are ﬁlled with pelargonic acid vanillylamide (PAVA)
 and are delivered by a special launching device. With the excep on of specialized (e.g glass-breaking
 rounds) use of PepperBall projec les is considered the use of non-deadly force.

V. Physical Force: Any physical power or kine c energy exerted by an oﬃcer to coerce, overcome,
 control or restrain another individual to comply or submit. The actual exercise of some form of Kine c
 energy (one person to another) of such a nature as to create an imminent and substan al risk of
 causing bodily harm.



 1A-3
 W. Reasonable Belief: When facts or circumstances provided to or known to the oﬃcer are such as to
 cause an ordinary and prudent oﬃcer to act or think in a similar way under similar circumstances.

 X. Safety Priori es: A decision-making process which provides the framework for making tac cally
 sound decisions, u lizing objec ve criteria based on an individual’s current or likely risk of suﬀering
 serious bodily injury or death and their ability to remove themselves from that danger. Those
 exposed to the greatest poten al of injury with the least ability to escape the situa on are placed at
 the top of the priori es (e.g., a hostage held against their will who has li le ability to control the
 situa on). On the other end of the con nuum is the suspect or subject who has li le threat
 of injury by others and is in control over the situa on. The safety priori es value all life and its
 intent is to assist law enforcement in making tac cal decisions to assist in saving lives.

 Y. Serious Bodily Injury: Bodily injury which creates a substan al risk of death, or which causes
 serious, permanent disﬁgurement or loss or substan al impairment of the func on of any bodily
 member or organ, or extended convalescence for recovery of physical health.

 Z. Situa onal Use of Force Op ons: A dynamic process by which an oﬃcer assesses, plans and responds
 to situa ons that threaten public and oﬃcer safety and require the use of force and control. The
 process includes an assessment of the situa on and circumstances immediately confron ng the
 oﬃcer, including but not limited to the severity of the crime or suspected oﬀense, the level and
 imminence of any threat to the oﬃcers or public, the level of resistance, the risk or apparent a empt
 to ﬂee or escape; the suspect’s behavior and individual ac ons (coopera ve, resis ve (passively or
 ac vely), assaul ve / high risk, or posing a threat of death or serious bodily injury); and to the oﬃcer’s
 percep ons and tac cal considera ons. Based on this assessment, the oﬃcer selects from the
 available oﬃcer response op ons while con nuing to evaluate the evolving situa on, adap ng a
 plan and ac ons that are appropriate and eﬀec ve in bringing the situa on under control.

 AA. Op on of Availability: Flashlights, vehicles, tools, implements, objects or other devices or techniques
 that are not necessarily issued, intended or normally authorized as response op ons, but that may be
 used in extraordinary circumstances when their use would be jus ﬁable and no other adequate
 or suitable defensive op on is immediately available.

IV. TRAINING / PROFICIENCY / DUTY TO ACT

 A. Only sworn and cer ﬁed personnel, who have been trained on this SOP and demonstrate proﬁciency
 in the use of the department’s authorized ﬁrearms and less lethal force op ons, as may be
 established by the department or the Maine Criminal Jus ce Academy, will be permi ed to carry or
 use them on or oﬀ-duty.

 B. Ini al weapons proﬁciency will be achieved through training and qualiﬁca on during the Field
 Training program. Training will include instruc on on safe handling, storage and maintenance
 procedures. Con nued proﬁciency with all authorized ﬁrearms (both lethal and impact projec les)
 and the CEW will be demonstrated by successful comple on of annual training and qualiﬁca on.
 Annual training should include relevant review of this SOP. All ﬁrearms and less lethal force response
 op ons training and qualiﬁca ons will be documented and supervised by trained and / or cer ﬁed
 instructors.




 1A-4
 C. Training in other less lethal response op ons (O.C., PepperBall, impact baton and defensive tac cs)
 must be conducted at least biennially.

 D. If an oﬃcer fails to qualify with a ﬁrearm as outlined in SOP 1B, or demonstrate proﬁciency with
 another less lethal response, the instructor shall no fy the Chief of Police, in wri ng, on the same
 date, and will develop a remedial training (lesson) plan, subject to approval by the Chief of Police or
 designee, to include the type of remedial training and the metable to address the deﬁciencies.
 The oﬃcer will be placed on an altered or administra ve assignment pending successful comple on
 of the training / qualiﬁca on, and must not carry or use the ﬁrearm or less lethal response op on
 un l having demonstrated proﬁciency.

 E. Failure to qualify following remedial training will result in further review or evalua on of ﬁtness for
 duty, which may result in ac on up to and including termina on.

 F. An oﬃcer has a duty to intervene, at the earliest, safe opportunity, to prevent or stop the known or
 apparent use of excessive force by another oﬃcer when it is objec vely reasonable to do so. The
 incident must be immediately reported, verbally and in wri ng, to a supervisor.

V. RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE JUSTIFICATIONS

 Oﬃcers are authorized to use force to overcome a suspect’s resistance or to accomplish some other
 lawful law enforcement objec ve for which force is lawful, necessary and appropriate. Oﬃcers derive
 their authority to use force from applicable Maine State laws and guidelines. As such, oﬃcers
 should be familiar with the laws and guidelines contained in 17-A M.R.S.A. § 104, 105, 106(6), 107, 108
 and 110, as well as the ARREST Chapter of the Maine Law Enforcement Oﬃcer’s Manual. Oﬃcers shall
 only carry department-authorized weapons, and with the excep on of an authorized use of a op on of
 availability, should only use weapons a er being trained in their use.

 A. USE OF NON-DEADLY FORCE: An oﬃcer is jus ﬁed in responding to resistance using a reasonable
 degree of non-deadly force upon another person:

 1. when and to the extent the oﬃcer reasonably believes it is necessary to eﬀect an arrest or prevent
 the escape from custody of an arrested person, unless the oﬃcer knows the arrest or deten on is
 illegal; OR in self-defense or to defend a third person from what the oﬃcer reasonably
 believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force encountered while a emp ng to
 eﬀect such an arrest or while seeking to prevent such an escape; OR

 2. in self-defense or to defend a third person from what the oﬃcer actually and reasonably believes
 to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force, and the oﬃcer actually and reasonably
 believes that the oﬃcer’s use of non-deadly force is necessary; OR

 3. to prevent or thwart the commission of a person’s suicide, or a person’s self-inﬂic on of serious
 bodily injury; and / or to exercise protec ve custody of a person, consistent with 34-B M.R.S.A. §
 3862.


 B. USE OF DEADLY FORCE: An oﬃcer is jus ﬁed in responding to resistance using deadly force only when
 the oﬃcer reasonably believes such force is necessary:


 1A-5
 1. for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the oﬃcer reasonably believes is the
 imminent use of unlawful deadly force; OR

 2. to eﬀect an arrest or prevent the escape of a person when the oﬃcer reasonably believes the
 person has commi ed a crime involving the use or threatened use of deadly force, is using a
 dangerous weapon in a emp ng to escape, or otherwise indicates that the person is likely to
 seriously endanger human life or inﬂict serious bodily injury, unless apprehended without delay,
 AND the oﬃcer has made reasonable eﬀorts to advise the person that the oﬃcer is a law
 enforcement oﬃcer a emp ng to eﬀect an arrest or prevent the escape from arrest and the
 oﬃcer has reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of the advice, or the oﬃcer
 reasonably believes that the person otherwise knows that the oﬃcer is a law enforcement oﬃcer
 a emp ng to eﬀect an arrest or prevent an escape. The mere fact that a person is a “ﬂeeing
 felon” does NOT, in and of itself, jus fy the use of deadly force (Tennessee v. Garner). Deadly
 force may not be used against an unarmed, non-violent, property crime oﬀender; OR

 3. to destroy any animal that is obviously vicious or aggressive and presents a direct or poten al
 threat of killing or seriously injuring any person. Supervisory approval should be obtained,
 whenever possible. Dispatching or euthanizing an animal is not considered a use of force.

 Where reasonably prac cal and permi ed by the circumstances, oﬃcers should iden fy as a
 law enforcement oﬃcer and warn of their intent to use deadly force.

VI RESPONSE OPTION GUIDELINES

 A. Consistent with Maine state standards, the department has adopted the Situa onal Use of Force
 response model, the underlying principle of which is threat assessment. During any incident in which
 force is jus ﬁed to respond to resistance, oﬃcers are expected to use good judgment in
 assessing a situa on and determining which response op on would best defuse a situa on and
 bring it under control. The key to using the proper type of force is recognizing a threat.

 B. Consistent with the Graham v. Connor decision, oﬃcers must, on an ongoing basis, assess the totality
 of the circumstances, including but not limited to:
 1. The severity or seriousness of the crime or suspected oﬀense;
 2. The level of threat or resistance presented by the subject;
 3. The risk or apparent a empt by the subject to ﬂee or escape; and
 4. Whether the subject was posing an imminent threat to the oﬃcer(s) or others.

 C. An oﬃcer may assess or perceive a situa on based, in part, on the suspect’s individual ac ons and
 behaviors (i.e., coopera ve, resistant (passively or ac vely), assaul ve or posing a threat of death or
 serious bodily injury); the oﬃcer’s objec ve percep ons and tac cal considera ons; the
 environment; the number of individuals; the perceived abili es and knowledge of the individuals;
 the number of oﬃcers (or availability of backup); each oﬃcer’s unique skill levels and
 competencies; me and distance; and any objec ve indicators signaling an a ack.

 D. Use of physical force should terminate when resistance ceases or when it is objec vely reasonable that
 a subject is fully in the control of law enforcement.



 1A-6
E. Based upon that assessment, safety priori es, and the oﬃcer’s training, educa on and experience, an
 oﬃcer must decide upon a proper and reasonable response op on, either deadly or non-deadly force,
 as depicted and further described below:




F. Consistent with State and Federal laws, the response op ons available within the situa onal use of
 force matrix, and notwithstanding the jus ﬁed use of any Op on of Availability, in response to a given
 situa on, oﬃcers jus ﬁed to respond to resistance may consider the reasonableness, appropriateness
 and necessity to use one or more of the following authorized non-deadly or less lethal force response
 op ons:

 1. Oﬃcer Presence (Non-Verbal): The appearance of an oﬃcer who is willing and able to
 handle a situa on. Oﬃcers should use tac cal de-escala on techniques, such as distance, cover,
 and tac cal re- posi oning to gain me, as appropriate, and other alterna ves to higher levels of
 force, consistent with SOP and training. Remember the tac cal resolu on equa on of Distance +
 Cover = Time.

 2. Professional / Command Presence (Verbal): Whenever such delay will not compromise the safety
 of the oﬃcer or another and will not result in the destruc on of evidence, escape of a
 suspect, or commission of a crime, oﬃcers should make every a empt to achieve control through
 the use of tac cal de-escala on techniques, coupled with advisements, warnings, persuasion,
 appeals, and the use of clear, concise and direct advice or commands while using a tone
 that reﬂects control and professionalism, without the undue use of profanity or argument.
 Whenever feasible, an oﬃcer will allow the subject an opportunity to comply with the oﬃcer’s
 verbal commands prior to resor ng to a use of force.


 1A-7
3. Control / Compliance Techniques & Restraints: Includes the use of empty hands, impact tools
 and / or mechanical restraints (e.g., handcuﬀs and / or leg cuﬀs, and may include the applica on
 of strength, leverage, takedowns, control holds, and / or come-alongs, using hands, feet, ﬁsts,
 knees or baton. The purpose of these op ons is to gain control, forcing the suspect’s compliance
 while minimizing the risk of injury to the oﬃcer, bystanders, or the person being taken into
 custody. Neck holds are prohibited, unless deadly force is jus ﬁed.

4. Chemical Agents (OC Spray): Although not universal, chemical agents have displayed a high level
 of eﬀec veness and low poten al for las ng injury and may be used to supplement other
 means of controlling a subject:

 a. AUTHORIZED USE: OC spray may be a response op on:
 1) When physical force is jus ﬁed to control or subdue a person ac vely resis ng arrest; a
 person exhibi ng ac ve aggression; or whose individual ac ons are assaul ve (high
 risk) or life threatening, leading to a reasonable belief that the person poses an
 immediate threat to the oﬃcer or another person and it would be unsafe, ineﬀec ve
 or imprac cal for oﬃcers to approach within contact range, or a empt to subdue the
 person by other conven onal tac cs.

 2) When physical force is jus ﬁed to control or subdue a person who overtly poses an
 imminent and substan al threat of harm to themself.

 3) To defend oneself or another from a vicious or aggressive animal.

 b. RESTRICTIONS: Considera on should be given as to whether the use of chemical agents will
 help or hinder the opera on because of the physical limita ons and / or the need for
 decontamina on. The use of chemical agents should be avoided where it would aﬀect
 children or innocent bystanders, unless the exigency of the situa on dictates otherwise.
 Chemical agents shall not be used on a coopera ve or passively resistant person; on a
 person solely due to belligerence or verbal deﬁance; on anyone under eﬀec ve restraint; to
 punish, in midate or coerce a subject; for purposes of demonstra on, experimenta on
 or horseplay against any person, even a volunteer, unless as part of department sanc oned
 training; to rouse an unconscious, impaired, disabled or intoxicated person; or to elicit
 informa on or to threaten or in midate, without legal jus ﬁca on.

 c. POST APPLICATION: As soon as prac cal a er a chemical agent applica on, oﬃcers should
 assist with decontamina on by providing fresh air and water. Oﬃcers should monitor the
 exposed person’s health and should counsel and provide informa on about OC eﬀects to an
 exposed person.

5. Canine (K-9):
 a. AUTHORIZED USE: A cer ﬁed police canine may be a response op on for instances in which
 non-deadly force is jus ﬁed to control or subdue a person ac vely resis ng arrest, to
 include any person suspected of ﬂeeing a er having commi ed a violent or other serious
 crime; a person displaying ac ve aggression; or a person whose individual ac ons are
 assaul ve (high risk) or life threatening towards the oﬃcer or another person present, leading
 to a reasonable belief that the person poses an immediate threat to the oﬃcer or another


 1A-8
 person and it would be unsafe, ineﬀec ve or imprac cal for oﬃcers to approach within
 contact range, or a empt to subdue the person by other conven onal tac cs; OR when
 physical force is jus ﬁed to control or subdue a person who poses an imminent and
 substan al threat of physical harm to that person, the oﬃcer, or another.

 b. RESTRICTIONS: Unless otherwise jus ﬁed, reasonable and necessary, a police canine
 shall not be deployed to apprehend a coopera ve or passively resistant person; a person
 solely due to belligerence or verbal deﬁance; a person ﬂeeing from a property or other
 non-violent crime; a person the oﬃcer knows or reasonably believes to be pregnant;
 elderly and / or visibly frail, to include persons known or believed to be over the age of
 sixty-ﬁve (65), a juvenile believed to be under the age of eighteen (18); or a person who is
 handcuﬀed and under eﬀec ve restraint.

 c. DEPLOYMENT: A warning should be given prior to the deployment of a canine, unless it
 would be tac cally unsafe to do so. The handler shall cause the canine to disengage
 immediately when it becomes reasonably apparent that the suspect has surrendered, readily
 complies with the oﬃcers’ direc ons, is no longer a threat, and / or when suﬃcient law
 enforcement personnel are available to safely take the suspect into custody.

6. Conducted Electrical Weapon (CEW):
 a. READINESS: Oﬃcers are responsible for immediately repor ng any issues (e.g., missing or
 damaged equipment) to the Shi Commander, who will be responsible for the overall
 accountability of the department’s CEW units.

 b. AUTHORIZED USE: A CEW may be a response op on:
 1) To control or subdue a person ac vely resis ng arrest, exhibi ng ac ve aggression, or
 whose individual ac ons are assaul ve (high risk) or life threatening, leading to a
 reasonable belief that the person poses an immediate threat to the oﬃcer or another
 person and it would be unsafe, ineﬀec ve or imprac cal for oﬃcers to approach within
 contact range, or a empt to subdue the person by other conven onal tac cs.

 2) To control or subdue a person who overtly poses an imminent and substan al threat of
 harm to themself, and it would be unsafe, ineﬀec ve or imprac cal for oﬃcers to
 approach within contact range, or a empt to subdue the person by other conven onal
 tac cs.

 3) To defend oneself or another from a vicious or aggressive animal.

 c. RESTRICTIONS: Unless otherwise jus ﬁed, reasonable, necessary and appropriate, oﬃcers
 SHALL NOT use a CEW:
 1) On a coopera ve or passively resistant person, or a person who is solely belligerent or
 verbally deﬁant;
 2) On a person merely because that person is ﬂeeing or a emp ng to escape;
 3) On a person the oﬃcer knows or reasonably believes to be pregnant, elderly and / or
 visibly frail, to include persons known or believed to be over the age of sixty-ﬁve (65), or
 young children, to include persons known or believed to be under the age of fourteen
 (14); or on a person who is handcuﬀed and under eﬀec ve restraint;



 1A-9
 4) On a person in a posi on where a fall would likely cause serious bodily injury or death
 (e.g., edge of a bridge, or body of water, in a body of water, or on top of a staircase, roof,
 tree, or other elevated structure), unless deadly force is otherwise jus ﬁed;
 5) On a person in control of a mode of transporta on (e.g., automobiles, motorcycles,
 bicycles, etc.) if the CEW use could reasonably result in the uncontrolled movement
 of the transport vehicle;
 6) To punish, in midate or coerce a subject, or to rouse an unconscious, impaired,
 disabled or intoxicated person;
 7) In the presence of poten ally ﬂammable, vola le or explosive materials, including
 alcohol-based OC Spray, gasoline, natural, and / or propane gas;
 8) For purposes of demonstra on, experimenta on or horseplay against any person,
 even a volunteer. Oﬃcers shall not be voluntarily or involuntarily “exposed” to a CEW
 discharge.

d. DEPLOYMENT:
 1) Oﬃcers responding to or at an incident where a CEW is used - or is an cipated - shall
 no fy dispatch, the on-duty supervisor and EMS.
 2) Oﬃcers may consider using the CEW, consistent with this SOP and their training, in any of
 the following modes:
 a) Laser Only – with verbal warning (non-contact)
 b) Spark Check – with verbal warning (non-contact)
 c) Probe Deployment – temporary incapacita on (primary / preferred) op on.
 d) Drive (Touch) Stun – less eﬀec ve (secondary / non-preferred) op on.
 3) Unless it would be unsafe to do so, prior to deploying the CEW, oﬃcers should
 verbally announce, “Taser-Taser” so that other oﬃcers are aware that a CEW is about to
 be deployed. This will also provide the suspect an addi onal opportunity to cease the
 conduct that has given rise to the intended CEW deployment.
 4) The primary aiming point is a person’s back. Since it is not always possible to get
 behind a person, secondary targe ng areas may include lower, front center mass / torso
 or legs. Oﬃcers shall not target the face, neck, groin or upper chest areas, where
 possible.
 5) Only one oﬃcer should ac vate a CEW on a person at any one me, deploying the CEW for
 one standard cycle (5 seconds) and then re-assessing. Oﬃcers must use the minimum
 number of cycles necessary to accomplish the legi mate opera onal goal. If a CEW
 remains ineﬀec ve a er three (3) cycles, or a er a con nuous cycle of more than 15
 seconds, oﬃcers should avoid con nued cycling and consider alterna ve response
 op ons.
 6) Verbal commands should be provided throughout the contact. Back-up oﬃcers should
 begin to take control of the subject while temporarily incapacitated.
 7) Any accidental CEW deployments, or other unusual occurrences, should be documented in
 a memo to the Major. That report must be forwarded through the Chain of Command to
 the Lead CEW Instructor for considera on of future training needs.

e. POST-DEPLOYMENT: A er appropriate medical aid and clearance, whenever a person
 has been exposed to a CEW:
 1) If that person is transported to a deten on facility, the transpor ng oﬃcer shall
 advise that facility’s staﬀ of the CEW exposure.



 1A-10
 2) The CEW cartridge, lead wires and probes shall be collected and submi ed as evidence.
 The probes should be treated as a biohazard.
 3) The supervisor shall coordinate access to the CEW’s download discharge data that
 will be forwarded as part of the report for the administra ve review.

7. Pepperball Projec les: In addi on to the above Chemical Agent guidelines:
 a. The department has authorized PepperBall launchers as a less lethal force system,
 combining chemical irritants (PAVA) and kine c energy (impact force), which may be a
 response op on:
 1) To control or subdue any person being taken into custody who is exhibi ng ac ve
 aggression, or whose individual ac ons are assaul ve (high risk) and / or life
 threatening, leading to a reasonable belief that the person poses an imminent threat to
 the oﬃcer or another person and it would be unsafe, ineﬀec ve or imprac cal for oﬃcers
 to approach within contact range, or a empt to subdue the person by other conven onal
 tac cs.
 2) To control or subdue a person who overtly poses an imminent and substan al threat of
 harm to themself, and it would be unsafe, ineﬀec ve or imprac cal for oﬃcers to
 approach within contact range, or a empt to subdue the person by other conven onal
 tac cs.
 3) To defend oneself or another from a vicious or aggressive animal.

 b. Pepperball projec les are considered target accurate at up to 60 feet and can create a cloud of
 O.C. powder at up to 150 feet. There is no minimum deployment stand-oﬀ distance. Oﬃcers
 should target center mass and the extremi es and shall not target the face, neck, groin or
 spine.
 c. The PepperBall launcher may also be used to deploy specialty rounds, as authorized. Such
 rounds shall not be deployed at a human being, unless deadly force is otherwise jus ﬁed.
 d. PepperBall deployment should be part of a coordinated response. Oﬃcers should
 advise other oﬃcers prior to deployment in order to prevent sympathe c reac onary ﬁre.

8. Impact Force: Impact force, including the use of hands, feet, ﬁsts, knees and the department
 approved baton, provides oﬃcers with defensive op ons to defend themselves or others from
 injury:
 a. AUTHORIZED USE: Ac ve resistance, ac ve aggression, assaul ve (high risk) and / or life
 threatening circumstances may warrant impact-type force.

 b. APPLICATION: Baton strikes may be delivered to the person’s Weapon Delivery System, which
 is the center mass of the arm, leg or body of the presented threat. The arms and the legs are
 vehicles which transport force against the oﬃcer and are the preferred targets at a downward
 45-degree angle. A center mass straight strike can also be used to create distance, or the
 baton can be held at both ends and used with the length of the baton.

 c. RESTRICTIONS: The baton shall not be used to strike any coopera ve or passively resistant
 person; on a person solely due to belligerence or verbal deﬁance or any person who is under
 eﬀec ve restraint; nor to rouse an unconscious, impaired, disabled or intoxicated person, or
 to punish, in midate or coerce a subject, elicit informa on or to threaten or in midate,
 without legal jus ﬁca on. Blows to the head, neck, spine, groin, solar plexus or rib cage may



 1A-11
 cause death or serious injury and should not be used, unless deadly force is otherwise
 jus ﬁed.

9. Impact Projec les: To the extent that the law enforcement use of impact projec les deployed
 from a ﬁrearm is considered non-deadly force under Maine law (17-A MRSA, § 101(5)), it will also
 be considered non-deadly force under this SOP:
 a. READINESS:
 1) Authorized and dedicated ﬁrearms must be maintained for deployment.
 2) Deploying oﬃcers are responsible for verifying the weapon is loaded only with less lethal
 impact projec les. Any oﬃcer who discovers lethal rounds in a designated less
 lethal ﬁrearm shall immediately take correc ve ac on and report the discrepancy to a
 supervisor.

 B. AUTHORIZED USE: Impact projec les are intended to provide oﬃcers with another less
 lethal response op on. Impact projec les may be appropriate:
 1) To defend against what the oﬃcer actually and reasonably believes is the
 imminent use of deadly force; and / or a person who is armed or appears /
 alleges to be armed and / or is a emp ng to arm themselves with a poten ally
 deadly weapon, and refuses to comply with or submit to the oﬃcer's lawful authority.
 2) On a person who overtly poses an imminent and substan al threat of harm to
 themself, and it would be unsafe, ineﬀec ve or imprac cal for oﬃcers to approach
 within contact range, or a empt to subdue the person by other conven onal tac cs.
 3) As a "door knocker” or window opener during high-risk tac cal incidents.

 c. RESTRICTIONS: Impact projec les should generally be used a er other conven onal
 tac cs have been, or likely will be, ineﬀec ve or imprac cal under the circumstances.
 Without legal authority, jus ﬁca on and / or exigent circumstances, oﬃcers SHALL NOT
 use impact projec les:
 1) On a coopera ve or resistant person; a person solely due to belligerence or verbal
 deﬁance; or on any person whose ac ons are not life threatening to that person or
 another person; or on any person the oﬃcer knows or reasonably believes to be
 pregnant, elderly and / or visibly frail, to include persons known or believed to be over
 the age of sixty-ﬁve (65), or persons known or believed to be juveniles under the age
 of eighteen (18).
 2) In a crowd or crowd control situa on, including against subjects who are physically
 engaged with other oﬃcers or not isolated from bystanders.
 3) On a person in a posi on where a fall would likely cause serious bodily injury or death
 (e.g., edge of a bridge or body of water or top of a staircase, roof, tree, or elevated
 structure), unless deadly force is otherwise jus ﬁed.
 4) On a person in control of a mode of transporta on (e.g., automobiles, motorcycles,
 bicycles, etc.), if the deployment could reasonably result in the uncontrolled
 movement of the vehicle.
 5) To punish, in midate or coerce a subject.
 6) Against any person, even a volunteer, for purposes of training, demonstra on or
 horseplay.

 d. DEPLOYMENT: With supervisory approval, impact projec les may be used as part of a
 coordinated and planned eﬀort and response to a cri cal incident:


 1A-12
 1) The intended deployment of impact projec les should be communicated to other
 oﬃcers within the area of the incident in order to avoid sympathe c reac onary ﬁre.
 2) Unless deadly force is jus ﬁed, impact projec les should be deployed within their
 op mal range, generally between 15 feet and 75 feet.
 3) When deploying impact projec les, oﬃcers should target the extremi es, speciﬁcally
 including the thigh, lower leg, bu ock or lower arm. If impacts to these areas
 are ineﬀec ve, inappropriate or too dangerous, and the circumstances jus fy a
 poten ally higher risk of injury, oﬃcers may target the lower abdomen. Oﬃcers shall
 not target the head, neck, center mass, spine or groin.
 4) In order to reduce the likelihood of injury, only one oﬃcer should deploy impact
 projec les on a person at any one me. Deploying oﬃcers should a empt verbal
 dialogue, sight a proper target loca on, ﬁre a single round and then assess the
 results. This sequence should be repeated, as deemed reasonably necessary
 and appropriate under the circumstances, with considera on being given to
 alterna ve tac cs when it appears that the technique is not working, and the
 injury risk of mul volleys outweighs the value of con nuing the deployment.

 10. Deadly Force: Consistent with State and Federal laws and the situa onal use of force concept
 depicted above, and notwithstanding the jus ﬁed use of any incapacita ng force method, to
 include any op on of availability, oﬃcers’ response to resistance may require the need to
 resort to the use of deadly force. Oﬃcers may use departmental ﬁrearms, as trained, and
 consistent with state and federal laws, this SOP, and SOP #1-1B. In recogni on of the sanc ty
 of human life, although oﬃcers should make every a empt to exhaust all other means prior
 to the applica on of deadly force, any oﬃcer otherwise jus ﬁed in using deadly force should
 but is not required to a empt the use of any alterna ve, less lethal or non-deadly force
 response op ons prior to the appropriate and reasonable applica on of deadly force.

VII. EMS RESPONSE / MEDICAL AID:

 A. Whenever an oﬃcer uses force, either deadly or non-deadly, that results in injury, or otherwise
 requires an EMS response or hospital transport, as outlined below, the oﬃcer shall ensure that
 appropriate medical aid is rendered as soon as prac cal. Appropriate medical aid may include
 increased observa on, decontamina on of chemical agents, applying ﬁrst aid, EMS evalua on or
 transport and / or, for more serious or life-threatening incidents, immediate aid by emergency
 room medical staﬀ.

 B. Oﬃcers shall request that EMS respond and evaluate any subject a er the following uses of force:
 1. Any applica on of deadly force, or deployment of a ﬁrearm or impact projec le;
 2. Any police K-9 bite;
 3. Any baton strike resul ng in injury or complaint of injury, or as otherwise deemed appropriate by
 the oﬃcer or supervisor.
 4. Any chemical agent applica on, including O.C. and Pepperball, as the supervisor deems
 appropriate for decontamina on and / or medical assessment;
 5. Any CEW deployment or contact:
 a. In general, the on-scene supervisor, another oﬃcer not involved in the use of force, or MedCU
 staﬀ is authorized to remove CEW probes from a person’s body. If the person was struck in
 the eyes, head, genitals, female breasts, or another sensi ve area, the person should be



 1A-13
 transported to the hospital, as only medical personnel will be authorized to remove such
 probes.
 b. The Shi Commander or on-scene supervisor shall ensure that any person who falls into one
 of the restricted / vulnerable classes (e.g., pregnant woman, elderly or visibly frail person, or
 young child), OR who is believed to have been exposed to a consecu ve or cumula ve CEW
 applica on of ﬁ een (15) seconds or more, OR who is believed to have been exposed to
 simultaneous applica ons by more than one CEW, is transported to the hospital for a medical
 evalua on.
 6. Any other me an oﬃcer or supervisor deems it to be appropriate and / or prudent under
 the circumstances, to include if requested by the subject, if the subject is exhibi ng signs of
 excited delirium, or if the subject does not appear to fully recover – or maintains symptoms of
 physical distress – shortly a er any use of force / control applica on.

 C. Whenever an oﬃcer arrests or detains an individual and that person, loses consciousness, is injured or
 claims to be injured during the course of the arrest or deten on in a manner that is unrelated to a use
 of force, the oﬃcer shall immediately render aid, call for Medcu, and no fy a supervisor, who shall
 immediately respond to the scene. If an incident or force report is not required to be completed, the
 oﬃcer shall complete a casualty report, documen ng the injury. The supervisor shall complete a
 supplement documen ng their ac ons and review. Any incident involving a death while in police
 custody shall be handled in accordance with SOP 90A.

 D. In situa ons that require a casualty report, the subject must be photographed in order to document
 the injury. Any and all visible injuries to a subject and the scene must be photographed. An oﬃcer or
 supervisor other than the oﬃcer who placed the subject in custody will be assigned to take the
 photographs and should document any relevant statements made by the subject while being
 photographed. The photos should be noted in the casualty report. If a person alleges an injury, but it
 is not visible to the oﬃcer, photograph the area that the person claims is injured and document the
 allega on and the fact of no visible injury.

 E. All serious in-custody injuries require command staﬀ no ﬁca on; as outlined in SOP 48.

VIII. REPORTING:

 A. Whenever an oﬃcer ac ng in an oﬃcial capacity response op ons that include deadly, less-lethal or
 non- deadly force against another person, including physical force greater than un-resisted
 handcuﬃng, the oﬃcer shall immediately call a superior oﬃcer to the scene or, if that is not
 prac cal, contact a superior oﬃcer as soon as possible following the incident. If a superior oﬃcer is
 unable to respond to the scene, that fact shall be noted in the Use of Force report.

 B. All reportable uses of force must be documented in a Use of Force report. The following are reportable
 uses of force:
 1. applica on of deadly force;
 2. physical force that involves physical force techniques to overcome resistance;
 3. the applica on of force by a ﬁrearm, Taser, baton, O.C. Spray, impact projec le, canine,
 pepperball, striking an individual with hands, feet, knees or elbow or any other weapon or
 implement;
 4. any me the Shi Commander, a er consulta on with the supervisor and oﬃcer using force,
 deems it reportable.


 1A-14
 C. In all situa ons that require a Use of Force report, the subject must be photographed in order to
 document injury or lack of injury. Any and all visible injuries to a suspect or an oﬃcer, whether or not
 the injuries are caused by the use of force, must be photographed. An oﬃcer or supervisor,
 other than the oﬃcer who applied the force, shall be assigned to take photographs and document
 any relevant statements made by the subject during the photographing. If a person alleges an
 injury, but it is not visible to the oﬃcer, photograph the area that the person claims is injured,
 documen ng the allega on and the fact that no injury was visible.

 D. All blank spaces on the Use of Force report shall be completed by the oﬃcer who has used force. The
 oﬃcer shall make a diligent a empt to obtain all informa on necessary to complete the report. If
 informa on remains unknown a er a diligent a empt, the oﬃcer shall mark such space “unknown.”
 An oﬃcer who is a witness to a use of force may be required to complete a supplement and a ach it
 to the Use of Force report. Upon comple on of the report, it shall be forwarded to the immediate
 supervisor of the oﬃcer wri ng the report. The Use of Force report must be completed and forwarded
 to the oﬃcer's immediate superior oﬃcer by the end of the shi in which the force is used.

 E. In the case of an SRT or other specialty type call-out, the Major, SRT Commander, or their
 designee shall ﬁle an a er-ac on report on behalf of the en re team documen ng the ac vi es of
 the team in detail and addressing any areas of concern related to department policy, training,
 equipment or tac cs. Any team member that engaged in a reportable use of force during the
 call-out shall complete a Use of Force report or supplement at the direc on of the Major or
 supervisor. The a er ac on report shall be reviewed by the command staﬀ and use of force
 commi ee, as applicable.

IX. REVIEW:

 A. The immediate supervisor of the involved oﬃcer(s) will interview the oﬃcer(s), any other oﬃcer(s)
 present at the use of force, the subject upon whom force was used, and any witnesses.

 B. The interviews will be recorded and geared towards determining the facts and the subject’s
 understanding of the situa on. The interviews must be recorded and then summarized by the
 supervisor in the review por on of the Use of Force report or related supplement.

 C. The responding supervisor should addi onally ensure that any injured individuals receive immediate
 medical a en on. If treatment at a medical facility is necessary, the supervisor should ensure that
 the involved oﬃcer does not transport or maintain custody of the injured individual during the
 medical treatment process.

 D. If the use of force results in serious bodily injury, the Shi Commander will ini ate a command
 no ﬁca on. The Assistant Chief will no fy the Internal Aﬀairs Lieutenant who will assign an
 inves gator to begin an immediate inves ga on. All uses of deadly force shall be inves gated as
 outlined in SOP 52A.

 E. The use of a ﬁrearm, the delivery of a hit or strike to a subject’s head with a baton or other Heavy
 object or the use of a neck hold will be reviewed by the department as the use of deadly force. In
 cases involving these types of force that do not result in serious bodily injury, the on-duty Shi
 Commander will arrange for command staﬀ no ﬁca on; as outlined in SOP 48.


 1A-15
F. A er the inves ga on is completed; the Shi Commander shall review the completed Use of Force
 report and any supplemental reports to ensure that the Use of Force report and inves ga on is
 thorough and complete. If in the Shi Commander’s judgment, the oﬃcer or supervisor has not
 provided suﬃcient details regarding the incident, they shall return the report for further clariﬁca on.
 Once the Use of Force report is complete, it shall be forwarded through the command review process.
 The Use of Force report shall not accompany nor be ﬁled with any arrest or incident report. A er a
 report is reviewed administra vely, if it is determined that a viola on may have occurred
 warran ng inves ga on, the ma er will be referred to Internal Aﬀairs. If it is believed that the
 oﬃcer engaged in criminal conduct, the Police Chief is mandated to forward the report to the Oﬃce
 of the District A orney or the Oﬃce of the A orney General and the Director of the Maine
 Criminal Jus ce Academy. Any such ma ers will be handled through the Internal Aﬀairs in lieu of
 the below described commi ee process.

G. The Professional Standards lieutenant will maintain all Use of Force reports. This will allow for the
 tracking and analyzing of all such incidents.

H. The Use of Force Review Commi ee, chaired by the Professional Standards lieutenant, will meet
 monthly to review use of force incidents in detail. In addi on, the commi ee will consist of the
 Command staﬀ, the Internal Aﬀairs Sergeant(s), a PBA representa ve, a SOA representa ve, the
 Police A orney, any subject ma er experts as deemed appropriate by the Chair or Command staﬀ,
 and a neutral member of the public, who is a resident of the City of Portland, appointed by the City
 Manager in consulta on with the Police Chief. The appointee may be removed by the City Manager
 for any reason that is not arbitrary, to include non- par cipa on in mee ngs or requisite training
 and viola ng conﬁden ality. Prior to par cipa ng in the commi ee, the civilian member will be
 required to a end training, provided by the city and the department, related to conﬁden ality
 requirements, legal principles in use of force review, as well as this and other relevant police
 department policies, training and procedures. The civilian must also par cipate in at least one
 “ride-along” within the ﬁrst six months of appointment, and will annually par cipate in at least one
 ride- along and observe and par cipate in police department use of force and response to resistance
 training. The civilian member is expected to par cipate equally in the commi ee discussions,
 providing an addi onal perspec ve.

I. The Chair shall schedule the commi ee mee ngs and provide the commi ee with all per nent
 informa on covering the incident and oﬃcer(s) in ques on.

J. The Command staﬀ and the Use of Force Review Commi ee shall use the following criteria in
 reviewing use of force incidents:
 1. Did the oﬃcer u lize an appropriate level of force for the situa on;
 2. Were the oﬃcer's ac ons reasonable;
 3. Did the oﬃcer use department-authorized weapon systems and tools in an appropriate manner;
 4. Was the force promptly reported and correctly documented;
 5. Was the use of force consistent with the oﬃcer's training and experience;
 6. Did the oﬃcer a empt to de-escalate the situa on prior to the use of force (if feasible);
 7. Did the oﬃcer place other members of the public at risk by the their ac ons;
 8. Did the oﬃcer's ac ons contribute to the necessity to use force;
 9. Did the use of force policy eﬀec vely address the situa on;
 10. Was department training adequate;


 1A-16
 11. Were the use of force op ons available to the oﬃcer adequate to control the situa on;
 12. Is there a pa ern of misuse of this type of force, either by a par cular oﬃcer or department-wide;
 13. Was the use of force within Department policy?

K. A er reviewing each incident, the commi ee will seek to iden fy ac ons that may indicate a
 policy or procedure viola on, a training need, a policy or procedure modiﬁca on or an equipment
 deﬁciency.

L. If the Commi ee does iden fy a problema c event, it shall recommend such steps to be taken
 as are necessary to correct the problem. This shall include, but not be limited to: ordering a wri en
 clariﬁca on of the incident; the ﬁling of an internal complaint; ordering remedial training or
 counseling; recommending a change in standard opera ng procedure or recommending modiﬁca ons
 to issued equipment. The Police Chief and Command staﬀ retain full authority for all opera onal
 decisions, including training and discipline.

M. By April 1 of the following year, the Professional Standards lieutenant, shall review and compile
 sta s cs and complete an annual analysis and report to the command staﬀ of all response to
 resistance repor ng incidents and complaints for the preceding year. The purpose of the annual
 review is to iden fy long-term pa erns or trends, which may be of concern to the Department.

N. All use of force incidents for the past calendar year will be analyzed by the Professional Standards
 Lieutenant. A trending analysis of force incidents for the whole organiza on and units within the
 organiza on will also be completed.

O. Consistent with Maine State law and with the unions’ approval, all Use of Force reports may be
 maintained electronically. Reports will be maintained for seven years.




 1A-17