LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE To: File From: Chief E. shies Date: March 28, 2022 Subject: PSU File 21-018 (On Sunday, April 18, 2021 a decision was made by LMPD officers to arrest an individual (Denorver Garrett) who was repeatedly standing in the roadway and yelling at motorists by Jefferson Square Park. During the arrest Garrett was struck multiple times by Officer Ambers, the arresting officer. When assessing the appropriateness and force that was used during a particular incident, reviewing the context is essential to ensuring that officers are utilizing best practices and allows for improvements in LMPD policy. ‘The first factor to be considered is the environment in which the incident was occurring: it was a Sunday, in the government center, during a pandemic, with a total of approximately 10 people in the park (Sergeant Nagle’s transcript, lines 123-124). ‘The second point for consideration is why Garrett was arrested, namely establishing the level of urgency for action to be taken. Garrett had been behaving in an attention seeking manner for much of the day, having been across from the police precinct at 2" and Jefferson for an extended period of time, yelling on a loudspeaker in an attempt to be noticed (Sergeant Beaven's transcript, lines 114-127). Eventually Garrett relocated to ‘the area of 6" and Jefferson (Jefferson Square Park) and began to walk into the roadway, carrying a cross and blocking traffic. Garrett's conduet was communicated by LMPD’s Real Time Crime Center (RTC) to the supervisory staff at the downtown precinct (Sergeant Beaven's transcript, lines 128-131; Sergeant Nagle’s transcript, lines 119-121). While First Division officers visually confirmed the hazardous condition that Mr. Garrett was creating, as reported by RTCC, no calls were made to 911 complaining of Garrett’s behavior. ‘The third, and arguably most critical point o be considered, is the pre-planning that the supervisory staff did prior to approaching Garrett. All three sergeants had prior knowledge of Garrett and ‘understood that arresting him had the potential of being volatile, 2911 Taylor Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40208 Office Phone 502574 7660 Fax 502.674.2450PSU File 21-018 March 28, 2022 Page 2 of 4 ‘© Sergeant Nagle stated during her interview with investigators that she had prior knowledge of Garrett: specifically, he had been involved in some of the more agitated protesting, that he was a registered sex offender and had a pending criminal case against him for trying to strangle a citizen during a prior protest (Sergeant Nagle's transcript, lines 426-429). «Sergeant Fowler stated that during an unrelated traffic stop he had witnessed Garrett ‘appear to attempt to provoke officers into some type of incident (Sergeant Fowler's transcript, lines 386-388). Sergeant Beavin stated to investigators that she knew from prior experience that Garrett jwas dangerous, had assaulted someone so severely that they were knocked unconscious, and he could potentially have a gun stored in his vehicle (Sergeant Beavin’s transcript, lines 146-153). This collective knowledge of Garrett’s history prompted the supervisors to develop a plan of action on how best to effect the arrest. The decision was made to call multiple officers to convene at the downtown police precinct prior to approaching Garrett. Pre-planning is crucial for critical decision-making, as after determining probable cause exists, officers have discretion on the appropriate action to take. In this instance, the officers had multiple factors to consider. Garrett is known to have a history of being violent and confrontation seeking, it was a Sunday, in the government district, ata time when Covid restrictions were still in place, and the downtown arca was lightly populated; there is no record of any 911 call to complain about his behavior; and the criminal charge would have been minor. ‘As officers arrived on scene to arrest Garrett, the body-wom camera video shows he was on the sidewalk. This became another factor to consider in whether to effect an arrest ~ as the primary goal was to get him out of the street. Unfortunately, the supervisors did not seize this opportunity to pivot toa posture of de-escalation. This decision, albeit legal, was not reflective of the extensive de-escalation training the department has received. Officer Ambers, with the assistance of his colleagues, proceeded to attempt to arrest Garrett as had been planned. Body-worn camera video shows almost immediate non-compliance by Garret, that eventually transitioned to both passive and active resistance. The officers ended up doing a takedown maneuver in an attempt to gain some leverage on Garrett. While on the ground Officer “Ambers landed several head strikes on Garrett to prompt him to release his one hand that was not handeuffed In establishing the appropriateness of Officer Ambers” actions, itis imperative to review multiple factors, beginning with Officer Ambers” perspective. In his statement to the department, Officer “Ambers indicated that he was a part of the arrest team assigned to take Garrett into custody. While struggling with Garrett, Officer ‘Ambers held concern that he had not been searched for weapons: 2911 Taylor Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40208 Office Phone 502.574.7660 Fax 502.574 2450PSU File 21-018 March 28, 2022 Page 3 of 4 and they could not see his one hand (it was under his body). Officer Ambers stated he administered several closed hand strikes (to the head) in an attempt to get Garrett handcuffed. Determining the appropriateness of the force used by Officer Ambers (specifically the strikes to Garrett’s head) requires examining the department's policy on force and a review of the incident by certified use of force instructors. LMPD’s Use of Force (UAF) SOP (9.1), includes a critical decision-making model that serves as the foundation for establishing force-appropriateness. Depending on where Garrett's resistance falls in the graphic creates the nexus as to what force is considered appropriate and taught by the academy. Unfortunately, the department’s Use of Force SOP currently does not include key definitions, such as; passive resistance, active resistance, soft empty hand control and hard empty hand. While these terms are defined and taught in the training academy, the absence of these definitions in policy allows internal investigations to be more subjective. Sergeant Joel Casse and Officer Allan Manganello were both interviewed as part of this investigation. At the time of their interviews, they were both assigned to the LMPD Training ‘Academy and served as Defensive Tactics instructors. Officer Allan Manganello, who taught Officer Ambers at least one block of defensive tactics training (Officer Manganello transcript (1), ines 403-413), is the lead Defensive Tactics Instructor for the police department. Officer Manganello’s analysis of the incident considers numerous factors, including the level of resistance by Garrett, the appropriateness of using OC spray or a taser as a force option, and the potential for officers to further be confronted by bystanders the longer the struggle went on. His: review of the incident eventually Ieads to the conclusion that Garrett went from being a passive resistor to an active resistor to a potentially combative resistor, thereby allowing hard empty hand strikes (Officer Manganello transcript (2), lines 518-529). Similarly, Sergeant Casse indicated that ‘under certain conditions, strikes to the head are allowable (Officer Casse transcript, lines 142-147). ‘The remainder of his interview with the Professional Standards Unit (PSU) did not provide any additional information necessary to this assessment. It is worth noting that as Garrett was being escorted away after being handcuffed, his comments to the police are along the lines of, I like that shit.’ And, ‘T've been waiting for this shit,’ This is relevant considering the broad — and apparently accurate — belief that he had been positioning to get arrested. While the actions of the officers complied with policy, and their training was consistent with practices at the time, based on the totality of the circumstances, these officers could have made better decisions. They accomplished nothing other than to play into the hands of an attention- seeking individual, who has a documented history of violence and is registered sex offender. But to lay the blame solely on Officer Ambers” shoulders misses the mark. Asa department, we strive to do better and recognize that there were multiple factors which contributed to this incident and need addressing. 2911 Taylor Boulevatd, Louisville, KY 40208 Office Phone 502.574 7660 Fax 502.574.2461PSU File 21-018 March 28, 2022 Page 4 of 4 Recommendations: Sergeants Beavin, Fowler and Nagle all receive formal counseling on the criticalness of de-escalation and the totality of the impact of their decision-making. De-Fscalation training refresher be mandated for supervisory staff as soon as possible. LMPD has invested an extensive amount of time into ICAT (Integrating Communications, ‘Assessment and Tactics) training for all its sworn employees. ICAT is predicated on leveraging critical thinking, crisis intervention, communication and tactics — with the end goal being de-escalation. The training, however, is only as good as its application and the supervisory staff neglected to apply critical teachings. The incident involving Garrett presented an opportunity to apply essential ICAT training, de-escalate a situation, and ultimately not empower an individual for the wrong reasons. LMPD's De-Escalation and Force Usage policies immediately get reviewed to ensure that critical definitions utilized in training are included within the policy. LMPD work to identify and retain external training for all employees who are a part of the Internal Affairs process to improve on the product. Ambiguities and leading questions within the files undermine the ability of leadership to develop informed decisions and are unfair to the employees and the public. LMPD Academy staff develop a mandatory ongoing Jiu-Jitsu curriculum for all sworn individuals who are serving in a patrol capacity or assigned to any formation of a tactical team. As law enforcement agencies we are expecting employees to use “appropriate force” in highly charged incidents but give them a few hours of training once a year (if that). It is unrealistic to think that they are going to be successful; better training, regardless of cost, must be prioritized. 2911 Taylor Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40208 Office Phone 502.574.7660 Fax 502.574.2450Psu ons S$) LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT CASE TRACKING RECORD CASE NUMBER: __ 21-018 CASE FILE TRACKING RECORD NAME TITLE DATE TIME Pe naaare 1 TT open UT. C= -aTF eS NOTES: wa TD ArrInL RK Owen Foe Rewiew 2] WCE Coe: eT lehapell ie 1) NOTES Jo Col. —SopnH Foe Bevictv 3 BT Raal ABST oh - NOTES: Reed z Toivtglc Lic Los _1687 | a alas NOTES: foy AGE. Te Legal S| J, Caltre, - | NOTES: Rreturey te PSV 6 NOTES: 7 ‘NOTES: RETURNED TO PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SIGNATURE DATE: [NOTES:FR fare) = LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT RECUSAL/CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM [ Investigator's Name (Printed) Code #: Immediate Supervisor (Printed): Code # Sergeant W. A. Wolf 7780 Lieutenant Jensen Godfrey 2129 ‘Case Number: 21-018 Requirement. In accordance with SOP 8.1.46, Recusal, and in order fo prevent a conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof, no member will become involved, either directly or indirectly, in the investigation, including internal investigations, of any crime or incident where either the Suspect, victim, witness, or complainant has any of the following relationships with the employee: + Family relationship; ‘Outside business or financial relationship; Romantic relationship; Personal friendship; Close work relationship (to be determined on case-by-case basis); or ‘The member's immediate subordinate or supervisor Describe, in the Declaration Narrative below, any past association, whether professional or social, with the subject of the investigation. Likewise, any association with the complainant or alleged victim should be disclosed. The immediate supervisor will make a decision as to whether the perception of bias is justified and reassign the investigation, ifnecessary. The immediate supervisor will record the decision in the Review Narrative below. Declaration: | have checked the appropriate response. __ | was directly involved in the incident. Describe in the Declaration Narrative below. __ | have a relationship with one or more of the involved parties which could be perceived to compromise the investigative process. Describe in the Declaration Narrative below. _X_| am not directly invoived inthe incident and do not have any relationship with any ofthe involved partes which Gould be perceived to compromise the investigative process. Declaration Narrative: | do not have direct involvement in the incident and do not have a relationship with the accused that would compromise this investigation. Investigator’ Signature: Date: \ fe ve Trmediate Supervisor Review: have met with the investigator and made the following determination: _ Reassigned (Detail reason below) Not reassigned Review Narrative: NO Conpucr Immediate Supervisor Signature: Date: eee J a Pt) |LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT From the desk of LT. COLONEL ANDY MCCLINTON ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE ZL umtohed te video. He ss clearly yilheg at? cars with his bvil- horn, Adding 4 C0035 Iv fu middle of 4 busy Wiehe. A fiw cars had te veer but cf Their lave * weid hin, Caufing hava dws dr ving yihvation, 4 fice 502.574. 7660 # Fax: 502.574.24 (23 Wes Jellerson Sect ® Low ve MeCinton@iousilehy 20 ‘Kentucky 40202WOR, Ese, BID $2 St —— yom. forsee Lea Fy $ 000.53° 963 JAN 07 2022 -ROMZIP CODE 40202 heh Eacka Shields MPR 633 WICfhus- lov, KY 40202 40202-277083 Nat NEM ypttedLaw Office of David B. Mour 513 South Second Street Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Phone 502.473.6464 Fax 502.473.6462 dmour@louisvillefirm.com January 7, 2022 Via regular and email: eshields@louisvilleky.gov, Chief Erika Shields Louisville Metropolitan Police Department 633 W Jefferson Street Louisville, KY 40202 RE: PSU Investigation RE: Aaron Ambers, et al. Dear Chief Shields: represent Mr. Denorver Garrett who as you know, was criminally assaulted by LMPD Officer Aaron Ambers, ef a., at the comer of 6" and Jefferson Streets in downtown Louisville on April 18, 2021. In addition, after being assaulted, Mr. Garrett was falsely charged with a number of crimes supposedly arising out of the incident. Those charges- ‘which were bogus and were brought by the officers involved in order to deflect from their own unlawful conduct and actions- were later dismissed by the Jefferson District Court on motion of the County Attorney, with no stipulation of probable cause. Itis my understanding a PSU investigation was initiated into the events in questions regarding the conduct of Officer Ambers and other officers on the scene. It is also my understanding you may have made statements to the effect of and/or suggested LMPD has had trouble reaching Mr. Garrett and/or that he is unwilling to participate in the PSU investigation. If in fact you have made any such statements, they are not accurate, Thave been in communication with Sgt. Cabe Crain of PSU for some time regarding this matter and as noted, there is a civil lawsuit pending against Officer Ambers and others regarding this incident. We have on numerous occasions, offered to meet with Sgt. Crain for the purpose of participating in the PSU investigation by furnishing information regarding the incident both from the view point of Mr. Garrett as well as numerous other individuals that were present. For a number of reasons (¢.g., the incident was capturedLAW OFFICE OF DAVID B. MOUR Chief Erika Shields January 7, 2022 Page Two by video recording by numerous cameras and sources; there isa civil lawsuit pending, eic.), the offer to meet contained certain conditions and restrictions. Just as LMPD has policy and procedure, so does my office. Sgt. Crain has repeatedly rejected those conditions which he has a perfect right to do, but he does not have a right to note in the file that my client has refused to cooperate or participate, which is of course misleading also note that immediately after Mr. Garrett was assaulted by Officer Ambers, you, the Mayor and the President of Metro Council made statements to media to the effect that the conduct of the officers involved did not comport with LMPD training, efc., and was concerning. Under the circumstances, since it is quite obvious LMPD policy and procedure, as well as Kentucky law, were violated by the officers involved, I'm not sure ‘what Mr. Garrett, or anyone else, can add in order for the conclusion to be reached that policy was violated. Nevertheless, this letter shall stand as an offer to meet with you to address and discuss the matter and assist in the PSU investigation. Mr. Garrett and I would of course both attend, along with the other witnesses I represent. Sgt. Crain is free to attend as well and I would also require the President of the Council, whom I have copied on this letter, to attend, since as a retired police officer, I believe he would have some valuable input. Please advise regarding a date this meeting may take place at your earliest convenience. want to ensure we squelch any suggestions that Mr. Garrett has refused to cooperate or fumish his side of this matter or that LMPD has been unable to reach him. Be sure that if public statements to the media to that effect are disseminated by LMPD, I will take steps to correct same. I’m sure if you check with Sgt. Crain, you will find correspondence and a record of telephone communication between us. Ifyou have any quesfions, please feel free to call my cell phone, —_—_i DBM/tlb ce: Mr, Denorver Garrett President David James, Louisville Metro CouncilCase File ChecklistComplainant(s) Name: Chief Erika Shields PSU-013, asi LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMEN’ PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT CASE CHECKLIST FORM CASE NUMBER: 21-018 Accused Employee(s) Name: Sergeant Lisa Nagle (7694) Officer Aaron Ambers (5173) Investigator’s Name: Sergeant W. A. Wolf gaoagegooaaaa QQRaagg 2.0 wa Case Tracking Form Findings/Conelusion/Summary Investigative Record Chief Initiation/Complainant Affidavit Complainant Identification Verification Complainant Sworn Statement Form. 48 hour Notice for Accused Notification Letters Blue Team AIR/AIR Photos Citation Offense Report Courtnet/Case Adjudication WVSIWVS Log CAD/CAD Log/Radio Transmissions SOP Accused Employee Statement Form Photo of Accused Employee Employee Official Statement Form Employee Statement Transcription/Transcription Accuracy Verified Applicable Disciplinary History to be Considered Documented Case Delay Letter Due: 10/20/2021 Sent: Click or tap to enter a date Case Reviewed by Additional Investigator _f. JavaieCase Progression Form Case Number: 20-018 Accused Employees: Sergeant Lisa Nagle Officer Aaron Ambers Complainant: Chief Erika Shields Investigator: Sergeant W. A. Wolf Case Initiation Date - (04/23/2021 Case Turned in to PSU Lieutenant = HY- 2 Case Turned in to SID Major G1 zi Case Disposition Date Anticipated 180-Day Date - 10/20/2021Psu-i7 Revised 1077 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT TO: Sergeant Lisa Nagle #7694 FROM: Sergeant W. A. Wolf DATE: October 20, 2021 RE: PSU CASE # 21-018 Emailed and Interdepartmental Mail Pursuant to FOP Contract Article 17, Section 2, when a PSU case goes beyond the time of 180 days, a written explanation is required to be given to the Member and the FOP. This memorandum is being provided in order to satisfy the contractual requirement. Due to the caseload at PSU, Protest Details and complexity of the review process, your case will ikely take more than 180 days to complete. The review process involves review by members of your chain of command all the way to the Chief of Police, who makes the final determination and disposition. During the review process, additional investigative steps may be required. If the case may involve discipline, the department may attempt to negotiate a settlement with you and your FOP representative which will take additional time. Because of these reasons, | anticipate PSU case # 21-018 will not be completed in the desired 180 days. ce: FOP Lodge 614 Page 1 of 1psuoir Revised 1017 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT TO: Officer Aaron Ambers #5173 FROM: Sergeant W. A. Wolf DATE: October 20, 2021 RE: PSU CASE # 21-018 Emailed and Interdepartmental M: Pursuant to FOP Contract Article 17, Section 2, when a PSU case goes beyond the time of 180 days, a written explanation is required to be given to the Member and the FOP. This memorandum is being provided in order to satisfy the contractual requirement. Due to the caseload at PSU, Protest Details and complexity of the review process, your case will ikely take more than 180 days to complete. The review process involves review by members of your chain of command all the way to the Chief of Police, who makes the final determination and disposition. During the review process, additional investigative steps may be required. f the case may involve discipline, the department may attempt to negotiate a settlement with you and your FOP representative which will take additional time Because of these reasons, | anticipate PSU case # 21-018 will not be completed in the desired 180 days. cc: FOP Lodge 614 Page 1 of 1Chief's Findingsmae LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT GREG FISCHER ERIKA SHIELDS MAYOR CHIEF OF POUCE March 28, 2022 Officer Aaron Ambers #5173 First Division Professional Standards Case: 21-018 Dear Officer Ambers: On April 22, 2021, an investigation was initiated pursuant to KRS 67C.326 concerning any violation of the Louisville Metro Police Department's rules, standards, policies and procedures in regarding your use of force during the arrest of Denorver Garrett on April 18, 2021. The Professional Standards Unit investigation has been completed. The following is the result and final action regarding this matter. Violations of: Standard Operating Procedure 9.1.3 De-Escalation -Exonerated Standard Operating Procedure 9.1.5 Use of Physical Force -Exonerated Due to my findings, as outlined in the attached memo, there will be no disciplinary action taken. Sincerely, SSE Erika Shields Chief of Police Ge: Lt. Colonel J. Judah ‘Adrienne Earley Lisa Jarrett Legal Division Professional Standards Uni Taylor Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40208 Office Phone 502.574.7660 Fax 502.574.2450LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE To: File Chief E. viet Date: Mareh 28, 2022 Subject: PSU File 21-018 On Sunday, April 18, 2021 a decision was made by LMPD officers to arrest an individual (Denorver Garrett) who was repeatedly standing in the roadway and yelling at motorists by Jefferson Square Park. During the arrest Garrett was struck multiple times by Officer Ambers, the arresting officer. When assessing the appropriateness and force that was used during a particular incident, reviewing the context is essential to ensuring that officers are utilizing best practices and allows for improvements in LMPD policy. ‘The first factor to be considered is the environment in which the incident was occurring: it was a Sunday, in the government center, during a pandemic, with a total of approximately 10 people in the park (Sergeant Nagle’s transcript, lines 123-124). ‘The second point for consideration is why Garrett was arrested, namely establishing the level of urgency for action to be taken. Garrett had been behaving in an attention seeking manner for much of the day, having been across from the police precinct at 2! and Jefferson for an extended period of time, yelling on a loudspeaker in an attempt to be noticed (Sergeant Beaven’s transcript, lines 114-127). Eventually Garrett relocated to the arca of 6 and Jefferson (Jefferson Square Park) and began to walk into the roadway, carrying a cross and blocking traffic. Garrett's conduet was communicated by LMPD’s Real Time Crime Center (RTCC) to the supervisory staff at the downtown precinct (Sergeant Beaven’ s transcript, lines 128-131; Sergeant Nagle’s transcript, lines 119-121). While First Division officers visually confirmed the hazardous condition that Mr. Garrett was creating, as reported by RTCC, no calls were made to 911 complaining of Garrett's behavior. ‘The third, and arguably most critical point to be considered, is the pre-planning that the supervisory staff did prior to approaching Garrett. All three sergeants had prior knowledge of Garrett and understood that arresting him had the potential of being volatile. 2911 Taylor Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40208 Office Phone 502.674 7660 Fax 502.574.2450PSU File 21-018 March 28, 2022 Page 2 of 4 * Sergeant Nagle stated during her interview with investigators that she had prior knowledge of Garrett: specifically, he had been involved in some of the more agitated protesting, that he was a registered sex offender and had a pending criminal case against him for trying to strangle a citizen during a prior protest (Sergeant Nagle’s transcript, lines 426-429). «Sergeant Fowler stated that during an unrelated traffic stop he had witnessed Garrett appear to attempt to provoke officers into some type of incident (Sergeant Fowler’s transcript, lines 386-388). «Sergeant Beavin stated to investigators that she knew from prior experience that Garrett ‘was dangerous, had assaulted someone so severely that they were knocked unconscious, and he could potentially have a gun stored in his vehicle (Sergeant Beavin’s transcript, lines 146-153). ‘This collective knowledge of Garrett’s history prompted the supervisors to develop a plan of action con how best to effect the arrest. The decision was made to call multiple officers to convene at the downtown police precinct prior to approaching Garrett. Pre-planning is crucial for critical decision-making, as after determining probable cause cxists, officers have discretion on the appropriate action to take. In this instance, the officers had multiple factors to consider. Garrett is known to have a history of being violent and confrontation seeking, it was a Sunday, in the ‘government district, at a time when Covid restrictions were still in place, and the downtown area was lightly populated; there is no record of any 911 call to complain about his behavior; and the criminal charge would have been minor. 'As officers arrived on scene to arrest Garrett, the body-worn camera video shows he was on the ‘Sidewalk. This became another factor to consider in whether to effect an arrest ~ as the primary ‘goal was to get him out of the street. Unfortunately, the supervisors did not seize this opportunity to pivot to a posture of de-escalation. This decision, albeit legal, was not reflective of the extensive de-escalation training the department has received. Officer Ambers, with the assistance of his colleagues, proceeded to attempt to arrest Garrett as had been planned. Body-worn camera video shows almost immediate non-compliance by Garrett, that eventually transitioned to both passive and active resistance. The officers ended up doing a takedown maneuver in an attempt to gain some leverage on Garrett. While on the ground Officer ‘Ambers landed several head strikes on Garrett to prompt him to release his one hand that was not handcuffed. In establishing the appropriateness of Officer Ambers” actions, it is imperative to review multiple factors, beginning with Officer Ambers’ perspective. In his statement to the department, Officer ‘Ambers indicated that he was a part of the arrest team assigned to take Garrett into custody. While struggling with Garrett, Officer Ambers_ held concern that he had not been searched for weapons 2911 Taylor Boulevard, Lowisvite, KY 40208 Office Phone 502.574.7660 Fax 502.574.2450PSU File 21-018 March 28, 2022 Page 3 of 4 and they could not see his one hand (it was under his body). Officer Ambers stated he administered several closed hand strikes (to the head) in an attempt to get Garrett handcuffed. Determining the appropriateness of the force used by Officer Ambers (specifically the strikes to Garrett's head) requires examining the department's policy on force and a review of the incident by certified use of force instructors. LMPD’s Use of Force (UAF) SOP (9.1), includes a critical decision-making model that serves as the foundation for establishing force-appropriatens Depending on where Garrett's resistance falls in the graphic creates the nexus as to what foree is considered appropriate and taught by the academy. Unfortunately, the department's Use of Force SOP currently does not include key definitions, such as: passive resistance, active resistance, soft ‘empty hand control and hard empty hand, While these terms are defined and taught inthe training ‘academy, the absence of these definitions in policy allows internal investigations to be more subjective. Sergeant Joel Case and Officer Allan Manganello were both interviewed as part of this investigation. At the time of their interviews, they were both assigned to the LMPD Training ‘Academy and served as Defensive Tactics instructors. Officer Allan Manganello, who taught Officer Ambers at least one block of defensive tactics training (Officer Manganello transcript (1), ines 403-413), is the lead Defensive Tactics Instructor for the police department. Officer Manganello’s analysis of the incident considers numerous factors, including the level of resistance by Garrett, the appropriateness of using OC spray or a taser as a force option, and the potential for officers to further be confronted by bystanders the longer the struggle went on. His Feview of the incident eventually leads to the conclusion that Garrett went from being a passive resistor to an active resistor to a potentially combative resistor, thereby allowing hard empty hand strikes (Officer Manganello transcript (2), lines 518-529). Similarly, Sergeant Casse indicated that under certain conditions, strikes to the head are allowable (Officer Casse transcript, lines 142-147). ‘The remainder of his interview with the Professional Standards Unit (PSU) did not provide any additional information necessary to this assessment, It is worth noting that as Garrett was being escorted away after being handcuffed, his comments to the police are along the lines of, ‘I like that shit." And, ‘I've been waiting for this shit.’ This is relevant considering the broad — and apparently accurate — belief that he had been positioning to get arrested. While the actions of the officers complied with policy, and their training was consistent with practices at the time, based on the totality of the circumstances, these officers could have made better decisions, They accomplished nothing other than to play into the hands of an attention- seeking individual, who has a documented history of violence and is a registered sex offender. But to lay the blame solely on Officer Ambers’ shoulders misses the mark. As a department, we strive to do better and recognize that there were multiple factors which contributed to this incident and need addressing 2911 Taylor Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40208 Office Phone 502.574.7660 Fax 502.574.2450PSU File 21-018 March 28, 2022 Page 4 of 4 Recommendations: Sergeants Beavin, Fowler and Nagle all receive formal counseling on the criticalness of de-escalation and the totality of the impact of their decision-making. De-Escalation training refresher be mandated for supervisory staff as soon as possible. LMPD has invested an extensive amount of time into ICAT (Integrating Communications, ‘Assessment and Tactics) training for all its sworn employees. ICAT is predicated on leveraging critical thinking, crisis intervention, communication and tacties — with the end goal being de-escalation. The training, however, is only as good as its application and the supervisory staff neglected to apply critical teachings. The incident involving Garrett presented an opportunity to apply essential ICAT training, de-escalate a situation, and ultimately not empower an individual for the wrong reasons. LMPD’s De-Escalation and Force Usage policies immediately get reviewed to ensure that critical definitions utilized in training are included within the policy. LMPD work to identify and retain external training for all employees who are a part of the Internal Affairs process to improve on the product. Ambiguities and leading questions within the files undermine the ability of leadership to develop informed decisions and are unfair to the employees and the public. LMPD Academy staff develop a mandatory ongoing Jiu-Jitsu curriculum for all sworn individuals who are serving in a patrol capacity or assigned to any formation of a tactical team, As law enforcement agencies we are expecting employees to use “appropriate force” in highly charged incidents but give them a few hours of training once a year (if that). Itis unrealistic to think that they are going to be successful; better training, regardless of cost, must be prioritized, 2911 Taylor Boutevard, Louisville, KY 40208 Office Phone 502 574.7660 Fax 502.574 2450LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT GREG FISCHER ERIKA SHIELDS MAYOR CHIEF OF POLICE March 28, 2022 Sergeant Lisa Nagle #7694 First Division Professional Standards Case: 21-018 Dear Sergeant Nagle: On April 22, 2021, an investigation was initiated pursuant to KRS 67C.326 conceming any violation of the Louisville Metro Police Department's rules, standards, policies and procedures in regard to your involvement in the arrest of Denorver Garrett on April 18, 2021. The Professional Standards Unit investigation has been completed. The following is the result and final action regarding this matter. Violations of: Standard Operating Procedure 9.1.6 Officer Intervention -Exonerated Due to my findings, as outlined in the attached meme, there will be no disciplinary action taken. Sincerely, SLITS Erika Shields Chief of Police Ce: Lt. Colonel J. Judah Adrienne Earley Lisa JarrettLa . Qa” LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE To: File From: Chief E. sie Date: March 28, 2022 Subject: PSU File 21-018 On Sunday, April 18, 2021 a decision was made by LMPD officers to arrest an individual (Denorver Garrett) who was repeatedly standing in the roadway and yelling at motorists by Jefferson Square Park. During the arrest Garrett was struck multiple times by Officer Ambers, the arresting officer. When assessing the appropriateness and force that was used during a particular incident, reviewing the context is essential to ensuring that officers are utilizing best practices and allows for improvements in LMPD policy. ‘The first factor to be considered is the environment in which the incident was occurring: it was a Sunday, in the government center, during a pandemic, with a total of approximately 10 people in the park (Sergeant Nagle’s transcript, lines 123-124). ‘The second point for consideration is why Garrett was arrested, namely establishing the level of urgency for action to be taken. Garrett had been behaving in an attention seeking manner for much of the day, having been across from the police precinct at 2™ and Jefferson for an extended period of time, yelling on a loudspeaker in an attempt to be noticed (Sergeant Beaven’s transcript, lines 114-127). Eventually Garrett relocated to the area of 6"" and Jefferson (Jefferson Square Park) and began to walk into the roadway, carrying a cross and blocking traffic. Garrett’s conduct was communicated by LMPD’s Real Time Crime Center (RTCC) to the supervisory staff at the downtown precinct (Sergeant Beaven’ transcript, lines 128-131; Sergeant Nagle’s transcript, lines 119—121). While First Division officers visually confirmed the hazardous condition that Mr. Garrett was creating, as reported by RTC, no calls were made to 911 complaining of Garrett’s behavior. The third, and arguably most critical point to be considered, is the pre-planning that the supervisory staff did prior to approaching Garrett. All three sergeants had prior knowledge of Garrett and understood that arresting him had the potential of being volatile. 2911 Taylor Boulevard, Louisville. KY 40208 Office Phone 502.574.7660 Fax 502.574.2450PSU File 21-018 March 28, 2022 Page 2 of 4 © Sergeant Nagle stated during her interview with investigators that she had prior knowledge of Garrett: specifically, he had been involved in some of the more agitated protesting, that he was a registered sex offender and had a pending criminal case against him for trying to strangle a citizen during a prior protest (Sergeant Nagle’s transcript, lines 426-429). © Sergeant Fowler stated that during an unrelated traffic stop he had witnessed Garrett appear to attempt to provoke officers into some type of incident (Sergeant Fowler's transcript, lines 386-388). * Sergeant Beavin stated to investigators that she knew from prior experience that Garrett was dangerous, had assaulted someone so severely that they were knocked unconscious, and he could potentially have a gun stored in his vehicle (Sergeant Beavin’s transcript, lines 146-153). This collective knowledge of Garrett’s history prompted the supervisors to develop a plan of action on how best to effect the arrest. The decision was made to call multiple officers to convene at the downtown police precinet prior to approaching Garrett. Pre-planning is crucial for critical decision-making, as after determining probable cause exists, officers have discretion on the appropriate action to take. In this instance, the officers had multiple factors to consider. Garrett is known to have a history of being violent and confrontation seeking, it was a Sunday, in the government district, at a time when Covid restrictions were still in place, and the downtown area was lightly populated: there is no record of any 911 call to complain about his behavior; and the criminal charge would have been minor. As officers arrived on scene to arrest Garrett, the body-worn camera video shows he was on the sidewalk. This became another factor to consider in whether to effect an arrest ~ as the primary goal was to get him out of the street. Unfortunately, the supervisors did not seize this opportunity to pivot to a posture of de-escalation. This decision, albeit legal, was not reflective of the extensive de-escalation training the department has received. Officer Ambers, with the assistance of his colleagues, proceeded to attempt to arrest Garrett as had been planned. Body-worn camera video shows almost immediate non-compliance by Garrett, that eventually transitioned to both passive and active resistance. The officers ended up doing a takedown maneuver in an attempt to gain some leverage on Garrett. While on the ground Officer Ambers landed several head strikes on Garrett to prompt him to release his one hand that was not handcuffed. In establishing the appropriateness of Officer Ambers’ actions, it is imperative to review multiple factors, beginning with Officer Ambers’ perspective. In his statement to the department, Officer Ambers indicated that he was a part of the arrest team assigned to take Garrett into custody. While struggling with Garrett, Officer Ambers held concern that he had not been searched for weapons 2911 Taylor Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40208 Office Phone 502.574.7660 Fax 502.574.2450PSU File 21-018 March 28, 2022 Page 3 of 4 and they could not see his one hand (it was under his body). Officer Ambers stated he administered several closed hand strikes (to the head) in an attempt to get Garrett handcuffed. Determining the appropriateness of the force used by Officer Ambers (specifically the strikes to Garrett’s head) requires examining the departments policy on force and a review of the incident by certified use of force instructors. LMPD’s Use of Force (UAF) SOP (9.1), includes a critical decision-making model that serves as the foundation for establishing force-appropriateness. Depending on where Garrett’s resistance falls in the graphic creates the nexus as to what force is considered appropriate and taught by the academy. Unfortunately, the department’s Use of Force SOP currently does not include key definitions, such as: passive resistance, active resistance, soft empty hand control and hard empty hand, While these terms are defined and taught in the training academy, the absence of these definitions in policy allows internal investigations to be more subjective. Sergeant Joel Casse and Officer Allan Manganello were both interviewed as part of this investigation. At the time of their interviews, they were both assigned to the LMPD Training Academy and served as Defensive Tactics instructors, Officer Allan Manganello, who taught Officer Ambers at least one block of defensive tactics training (Officer Manganello transcript (1), lines 403-413), is the lead Defensive Tactics Instructor for the police department, Officer Manganello’s analysis of the incident considers numerous factors, including the level of resistance by Garrett, the appropriateness of using OC spray or a taser as a force option, and the potential for officers to further be confronted by bystanders the longer the struggle went on. His review of the incident eventually leads to the conclusion that Garrett went from being a passive resistor to an active resistor to a potentially combative resistor, thereby allowing hard empty hand strikes (Officer Manganello transcript (2), lines 518-529). Similarly, Sergeant Casse indicated that under certain conditions, strikes to the head are allowable (Officer Casse transcript, lines 142-147). ‘The remainder of his interview with the Professional Standards Unit (PSU) did not provide any additional information necessary to this assessment. It is worth noting that as Garrett was being escorted away after being handcuffed, his comments to the police are along the lines of, ‘/ like that shit.’ And, ‘I've been waiting for this shit.’ This is relevant considering the broad ~ and apparently accurate ~ belief that he had been positioning to get arrested. While the actions of the officers complied with policy, and their training was consistent with practices at the time, based on the totality of the circumstances, these officers could have made better decisions. ‘They accomplished nothing other than to play into the hands of an attention- seeking individual, who has a documented history of violence and is a registered sex offender. But to lay the blame solely on Officer Ambers” shoulders misses the mark. As a department, we strive to do better and recognize that there were multiple factors which contributed to this incident and need addressing. 2911 Taylor Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40208 Office Phone 502 574. Fax 502 574.2450PSU File 21-018 March 28, 2022 Page 4 of 4 Recommendations: Sergeants Beavin, Fowler and Nagle all receive formal counseling on the criticalness of de-escalation and the totality of the impact of their decision-making De-Fscalation training refresher be mandated for supervisory staff as soon as possible, LMPD has invested an extensive amount of time into ICAT (Integrating Communications, Assessment and Tactics) training for all its sworn employees. ICAT is predicated on leveraging critical thinking, crisis intervention, communication and tactics ~ with the end goal being de-escalation. The training, however, is only as good as its application and the supervisory staff neglected to apply critical teachings. The incident involving Garrett presented an opportunity to apply essential ICAT training, de-escalate a situation, and ultimately not empower an individual for the wrong reasons. LMPD’s De-Escalation and Force Usage policies immediately get reviewed to ensure that critical definitions utilized in training are included within the policy. LMPD work to identify and retain external training for all employees who are a part of the Internal Affairs process to improve on the product. Ambiguities and leading questions within the files undermine the ability of leadership to develop informed decisions and are unfair to the employees and the public. LMPD Academy staff develop a mandatory ongoing Jiu-Jitsu curriculum for all swom individuals who are serving in a patrol capacity or assigned fo any formation of a tactical team, As law enforcement agencies we are expecting employees to use “appropriate force” in highly charged incidents but give them a few hours of training once a year (if that). Its unrealistic to think that they are going to be successful; better training, regardless of cost, must be prioritized. 2911 Taylor Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40208 Office Phone 602.574.7660 Fax 502.674.2450‘032021 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT Professional Standards Unit Case File Approval Ambers #5173 Case Number: 21-018 Name(s): Sergeant Lisa Nagle #7694, Officer Aaron Assignment. __1°-Di Special Investigations Commander Preliminary Findings: Agree W/ All] _ Partially Agree Disagree Comments’: Case file appears complete, see attached memorandum Recommendation: No discipline recommended Signed: ATE Date: 6/29/2021 *Additional comments may be attached in memorandum form. Division Commander Preliminary Findings: Agree W/ All LY _ Partially Agree Disagree Comments*: Aeter WEY LT. CoOFREL &« FEVOLSES. | Recommendation Wo QFSCE pave _ PE cumeW0eO | Signed: VK Date: 7J9-]702/ *Additional comments may be attached in memorandum form. Bureau Commander Preliminary Findings: Agree ‘” — Partially Agree [X]__ Disagree Comments*: Ags with Uk. bodbry's Yond une + v Recommendation:scat LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT Professional Standards Unit Case File Approval ‘Additional Approver (If Required) Preliminary Findings: Agree W/ All] _ Partially Agree Comments*: Disagree Recommendation: Signed: *Additional comments may be attached in memorandum form. Date:i001 Revised 0210 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: CHIEF ERIKA SHIELDS CHIEF OF POLICE FROM: ACTING MAJOR NICHOLAS OWEN {- SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS COMMANDER DATE: JUNE 29, 2021 RE: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS, CASE REVIEW PSU CASE # 21-018 ACCUSED: OFFICER AARON AMBERS #5173 SERGEANT LISA NAGLE #7694 COMPLAINANT: — CHIEF INITIATED Thave reviewed the file for PSU Case #21-018 including all associated materials contained therein. I concur with the preliminary findings of the PSU Commander and the majority of those of the primary investigator. Preliminary Findings Officer Aaron Ambers .EXONERATED EXONERATED LMPD SOP 9.1.3 DE-ESCALATION ....... LMPD SOP 9.1.5 USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE ..... Sergeant Lisa Nagle LMPD SOP 9.1.6 OFFICER INTERVENTION . -EXONERATED Case Review Officer Aaron Ambers De-Escalation: { concur with the findings of the primary investigator, as well as those of the PSU ‘Commander, and recommend a preliminary finding of EXONERATED regarding the alleged violation of this SOP. Use of Physical Force: 1 concur with the findings of the PSU Commander and recommend a preliminary finding of EXONERATED regarding the alleged violation of this SOP. Page 1 of 2’ Special Investigations Division Memorandum Continued Sergeant Lisa Nagle Officer Intervention: 1 concur with the findings of the primary investigator, as well as those of the PSU Commander, and recommend a preliminary finding of EXONERATED regarding the alleged violation of this SOP. Note: All findings should be considered preliminary in nature and are based on the work of the investigator(s). These findings are presented to summarize and clarify key elements of the case but should not be interpreted as representing the final disposition for disciplinary maters. Page 2 of 2Lieutenant’s FindingsPSUOIT Revised 1077 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT LIEUTENANT FINDINGS TO: ACTING CAPTAIN NICHOLAS OWEN SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION COMMANDER FROM: LIEUTENANT JENSEN GODFREY att PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT DATE: JUNE 14, 2021 RE: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CASE NUMBER: 21-018 ACCUSED: OFFICER AARON AMBERS, #5173 SERGEANT LISA NAGLE, #7694 COMPLAINANT: — CHIEF ERIKA SHIELDS Thave reviewed PSU case #21-018 investigated by Sergeant Alan Wolf. I partially agree with Sergeant Wolf's preliminary findings. The following report is based on Sergeant Wolf's investigation. Preliminary Findings Officer Aaron Ambers EXONERATED EXONERATED © LMPD SOP 9.1.3 DE-ESCALATION. LMPD SOP 9.1.5 USE OF PHYSICAL FORCI Sergeant Lisa Nagle LMPD SOP 9.1.6 OFFICER INTERVENTION... .EXONERATED Synopsis Officers received information from RTCC that a person known to be Denorver Garrett was standing in the roadway near Jefferson Square Park holding a large wooden cross while blocking, traffic. Sergeants and officers from the LMPD Downtown Area Patrol (DAP) Unit and LMPD 1* Division met at the DAP office to formulate a plan to arrest Mr. Garrett. Subsequently, the officers and sergeants traveled to 6" Street and Jefferson Street, made contact with Mr. Garrett, and informed him he was under arrest. As officers were placing Mr. Garrett under arrest, they {elt physical resistance from Mr. Garrett in the form of “flexing” or tightening of his arms and hands in order to make it difficult for officers to place Mr. Garrett in handcuffs. Officers gave several commands to stop resisting and to bring his hands together. Mr. Garrett failed to follow instructions and continued resisting; therefore, officers took Mr. Garrett to the ground. Mr. Garrett fought against the takedown using his legs to create a wide base. He was able to free both of his hands from the officers’ grasps, one of which had a metal handcuff attached to it with Page 1 of Speur Revised 1017 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT LIEUTENANT FINDINGS an open cuff swinging freely. Mr. Garrett then brought his arms and knees under him to keep himself from being placed in a prone position and overpowered the officers who were attempting to control him. Officer Ambers used four closed-hand strikes to Mr. Garrett's head and face to gain compliance while giving loud verbal commands for Mr. Garrett to put his hands behind his back. Officer Ambers also articulated the consequences for not following instructions. The strikes were successful in gaining compliance. Officers were then able to place Mr. Garrett in handcuffs and place him in a marked LMPD vehicle for transport to Louisville Metro Corrections. Upon arrival at Corrections, officers called for LMEMS to check Mr. Garrett's: injuries. Sergeant Fowler took photos and completed an Administrative Incident Report. On April 22, 2021, Chief Shields initiated a PSU investigation into Officer Ambers’ Use of Foree during the arrest of Denorver Garrett, and Sergeant Lisa Nagle’s involvement in the incident. PSU Sergeant Alan Wolf was assigned the case on April 23, 2021. Conclusion oO icer Aaron Ambers LMPD SOP 9.1.3 De-Escalation states, “At times, policing requires that an officer must exercise control of a violent or resisting subject in order to make an arrest, or to protect the officer, other officers, or the public from the risk of imminent harm. De-escalation is a desired outcome achieved by utilizing decision-making, communication, and tactics to resolve conflict, or potential conflict, ethically based on the preservation of life per the safety priorities. Clearly, not every potentially violent confrontation can be de-escalated, but officers have the ability to impact the direction and the outcome of many situations that they encounter, based on their decision- ‘making and the tactics that they choose to employ.” SOP 9.1.3 continues, stating, “When reasonable under the totality of ciroumstances, officers should gather information about the incident, assess the risks, assemble resources, attempt to slow momentum, and communicate and coordinate a response. In their interaction with subjects, officers should use advisements, warnings, verbal persuasion, and other tactics as alternatives to higher levels of force. Officers should recognize that they may withdraw to a position that is tactically more secure or allows them greater distance in order to consider or deploy a greater variety of force options. Officers should perform their work in a manner that avoids unduly jeopardizing their own safety, or the safety of others, through poor tactical decisions.” Officer Ambers participated in a meeting called by DAP Sergeant Beaven to assess the situation and formulate a tactical plan to effect the arrest of Mr. Garrett. Because of the past experiences of the DAP and I* Division Units, it was known that time was not an ally when entering Jefferson Square Park. Historically, longer confrontations led to growing crowds and an increase in agitation and volatility from citizens present. Additionally, Sergeants Nagle and Fowler were aware of past situations where onlookers at Jefferson Square Park attempted to interfere with officers effecting arrests (Sergeant Fowler's transcript, lines 218-219; Sergeant Nagle’s transcript, lines 142-143). Sergeants Beaven and Nagle were aware that Mr. Garrett had Page 2 of SPsu.oi7 Revised 10/17 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT LIEUTENANT FINDINGS a violent history and recently injured another person in the area of Jefferson Square park, rendering the victim unconscious, Additionally, CIC Detective Claxton had informed Sergeant Beaven that Mr. Garrett may have been in possession of a firearm (Sergeant Beaven’s transcript, lines 151-153; Sergeant Nagle’s transcript, lines 426-430). Based on the totality of the factors, the Sergeants came up with a tactical plan to utilize an arrest team to swifily effect the arrest of ‘Mr. Denorver and a security team to form a safety perimeter around the arrest team. When Officer Ambers came in contact with Mr. Garrett, Sergeant Nagle informed Mr. Garrett why he was under arrest. Mr, Garrett physically resisted the officers. Officer Ambers attempted verbal instructions, commands, and control holds in an effort to avoid a higher level of force, however these techniques were unsuccessful. Officer Ambers’ WVS shows his de-escalation attempts, which were met with continued resistance by Mr. Garrett, I recommend a preliminary finding of EXONERATED for the violation of LMPD SOP 9.1.3, De-Escalation for Officer Aaron Ambers. LMPD SOP 9.1.5 Use of Physical Force states, “Justification for the use of force must be limited 10 what reasonably appears to be the facts known, or perceived, by an officer under the circumstances, Facts not known to an officer, no matter how compelling, cannot be considered in later determining whether the use of force was justified. When an officer is confronted with a situation that may necessitate the use of physical force, he/she should call for additional officers, when practicable. Should physical force be necessary in order to gain control of a situation, an officer will only use that force which is reasonable to gain control of the subject (NOBLE). Once a person is restrained or under control, the use of force is restricted to that which is reasonable to maintain control. Good judgment is extremely important in deciding which tactics to use and how much ‘force to apply.” SOP 9.1.5 continues, stating, “Officers are not required to allow any suspect to be the first to exercise force and gain an advantage in a physical confrontation. Officers are not required to ‘engage in prolonged hand-to-hand combat before resorting to the use of force that will more quickly, humanely, and safely bring a resisting subject under physical control. ‘The use of physical force by an officer upon another person is justifiable when the officer, acting under official authority, is assisting in, or making, an arrest and he/she: + Believes such force is necessary to effect the arrest (KACP 1.3a), and + Makes known the purpose of the arrest or believes that it is otherwise known, or cannot reasonably be made known, to the person to be arrested, and believes the arrest to be lava An officer may also use physical force at any level when he/she believes such force is reasonable in order to defend himselfherself or to defend another person.” Page 3 of SPsuorr Revised 1017 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT LIEUTENANT FINDINGS Mr. Garrett gave Officer Ambers reason to believe that Mr. Garrett was fully able to understand and comply with verbal instructions and commands because Mr. Garrett complied with instructions upon initial contact with officers. Following initial contact, Mr. Garrett began to resist officers by balling his fists and flexing his arms when they attempted to place him under arrest, Officer Ambers was able to place one handcuff on Mr. Garretts’s left wrist but was unable to secure the other handcuff due to Mr, Garrett’s resistance. The officers then struggled to take Mr. Garrett to the ground as he fought against their attempt. Mr. Garrett freed his arms, used his body to create a strong base, and pulled his legs under him to keep himself from being placed in prone position. Multiple officers were unable to overpower him and gain control. Throughout the encounter numerous officers, including Officer Ambers, used verbal commands, wamings, and advisements to de-escalate Mr. Garrett into compliance. Several officers also attempted soft empty hand control including armbars, to no avail. ‘The Use of Force diagram in LMPD SOP 9.1.4 illustrates that “Soft Empty’ Hand Controt” ‘There is no definitive delineation. Light yellow blends to dark yellow, meeting in an approximate 50/50 mix at “Active Resistance.” Currently there is no definition for Active Resistance in LMPD SOP. Past versions (e.g. 2019 LMPD SOP 9.1.2 Use of Force--Definitions) defined “Active Resistance” as: “When a subject's physical actions are intended to prevent an officer from placing the subject in custody or taking control, but are not directed at harming the officer (e.g. pulling, walking or running away, or breaking an officer's grip).”” Based on this definition, and LMPD’s current understanding of Active Resistance, Mr. Garrett's actions fall under the definition, for which hard empty hand strikes are permissible. Officer Ambers’ may be considered a higher degree of force because of the placement of the strikes to Mr. Garrett's head and face. Yet, Mr. Garrett demonstrated he was physically able to overpower multiple officers’ attempts to use lesser force, and he was in possession of a metal object (a handcuff attached to his wrist with the other cuff unsecured) that had the potential to cause serious physical injury to the officers, Moreover, Officer Ambers” alternatives were limited; the CEW would've been ineffective because of range, and OC would've contaminated the group of officers leaving them vulnerable to agitated on-lookers. Officer Ambers’ time was also limited; all officers that responded, including Officer Ambers, were aware of the need for a quick arrest, due to the potential for hostility and volatility from others present at the park. Additionally, Officer Ambers had knowledge of Mr. Garrett’s previous violent actions and had ‘been informed that Mr. Garrett was possibly in possession of a firearm and had not yet been checked for weapons. & According to LMPD SOP 9.1.5, Officer Ambers was not required to allow Mr. Garret to elevate his resistance before Officer Ambers ‘sedge hand wkes, ‘Nor was he required to engage in prolonged hand-to-hand combat before resorting to the use of force that more quickly, humanely, and safely brought Mr. Garrett-a resisting subject--under physical control. Officer Ambers” strikes were affective in swifly bringing Mr. Garrett under control, enabling the officers to detain and move Mr. Garrett quickly from Jefferson Square Park to LMDC. Furthermore, once Mr. Garrett was restrained and under control, Officer Ambers restricted his foree to that which Page 4 of §Psv0i7 Revised 1017 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTME] PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT LIEUTENANT FINDINGS was reasonable to maintain control. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it appears that Officer Ambers* use of force fell within LMPD's Use of Force policy guidelines. Therefore, I recommend a preliminary finding of EXONERATED for the violation of LMPD SOP 9.1.5 Use of Physical Force. Sergeant Lisa Nagle At the time the incident occurred, Sergeant Nagle did not find Officer Ambers’ actions unlawful nor his use of force excessive. A review of the incident in comparison to LMPD SOP indicates Officer Ambers’ use of force appeared to fall within policy guidelines. ‘Therefore, I recommend a preliminary finding of EXONERATED for the violation of LMPD SOP 9.1.6 Officer Intervention. Page 5 of SFindings/Conclusion/ SummaPsu.oi7 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT - tevises1o17 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT INVESTIGATOR FINDINGS TO: LIEUTENANT JENSEN GODFREY COMMANDER, PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT FROM: SERGEANT W. A. WOLF INVESTIGATOR, PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT DATE: MAY 14, 2021 RE: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CASE NUMBER: 21-018 ACCUSED: SERGEANT LISA NAGLE (7694) OFFICER AARON AMBERS (5173) COMPLAINANT: CHIEF ERIKA SHIELDS (5345) PRELIMINARY FINDINGS: SERGEANT LISA NAGLE (7694) LMPD SOP 9.1.6 OFFICER INTERVENTION. EXONERATED OFFICER AARON AMBERS (5173) LMPD SOP 9.1.3 DE-ESCALATIO! LMPD SOP 9.1.5 USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE... (CASE SUMMARY: Officers received information from RTCC that a person, known to be Denorver Garrett was standing in the roadway near Jefferson Square Park holding a large wooden cross while blocking traffic, Sergeant Beaven (Downtown Area Patrol) requested assistance from the 1** Division sergeants, Sergeants and officers from DAP and the 1 Division met at the DAP office and developed a plan to arrest Garrett. Officers arrived at JSP and informed Garrett he was under arrest and instructed him to place his hands behind his back. While placing a handcuff around Page 1 of 13Psu-o17 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT tevisess0/17 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT INVESTIGATOR FINDINGS Garrett’s left wrist, officers instructed Garrett to stop flexing his arms/resisting their arrest, which Garrett denied doing. Several times, officers gave commands to Garrett to “stop” and to “bring your hands together.” Officers performed a takedown on Garrett while continuing to give verbal commands to stop resisting and to place his hands behind his back. When officers took Garrett to the ground, Ambers delivered a hard empty hand strike to the left side of Garrett’s head. Two officers (Galloway and Payne) were on Garretts right side and were able to use their combined strength to control his right arm and place it behind his back. Officer Ambers, on Garretts left side, attempted to place Garrett’s left arm behind his back, but was overpowered. Garrett was able to keep his arm/hand in front of his body and on the ground. From the witness cell phone video, it appears that Garrett was pushing off the ground with his hands and had his left leg extended. After giving several commands to Garrett to “put your hands behind your back”, Ambers delivered another hard empty hand strike to the left side of Garrett's head which appears to either miss or be a glancing strike. Ambers and other officers continued to give verbal commands when Ambers delivered two more hard empty hand strikes to the left side of Garretts head. At this point, Garrett stops resisting with officers and they are able to finish handcuffing Garrett behind his back. Once placed in handcuffs, officers stood Garrett on his feet and walked him to aLMPD vehicle for transportation to LMDC. When officers arrived at LMDC with Garrett, they called for EMS to check Garrett for a laceration to his eye. SUMMARY OF ERVIEWS SERGEANT LISA NAGLE ‘The following is a summary of an interview with Sergeant Lisa Nagle on May 06, 2021, conducted at the Professional Standards Unit office. The interview in its entirety can be located within PSU file 21-018. Sergeant Nagle stated RTCC came up on radio stating that Garrett was standing in the middle of 6" and Jefferson St, in traffic holding a cross. After meeting at DAP, the sergeants decided if they did not take action, the situation could escalate into larger issues. They developed a plan to ‘g0 to the park and place Garrett under arrest including arrest teams, and other officers to provide security for officers effecting the arrest. Upon arrival, Ambers and Galloway made contact with Garrett who was then standing on the sidewalk speaking to someone inside a vehicle on the side of the roadway. Officers told Garrett that he was under arrest, which Garrett does not resist. Garrett initially placed his hands behind his back, then spread his shoulders to move his wrists from the center of his back. Officers gave verbal commands to stop resisting. Officers performed controlled takedown and the crowd became “more rambunctious.” Nagle tuned to face the Page 2 of 13,Psu.o17 Revised 10/17 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTME) PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT INVESTIGATOR FINDINGS person(s) present to provide security for the arresting officers. Payne and Galloway, using their combined strength, were able to place Garretts right arm behind his back, and Ambers was the only officer on Garrett's left arm. Garrett was not complying with officer's verbal commands and was attempting to get up off the ground. Ambers delivered hard empty hand strikes and was able to place Garrett into custody. Nagle stated she believed that officers were justified in performing the takedown. When asked about witnessing Ambers delivering strikes, Nagle stated she observed this as it was happening and stated she believed that the strikes were necessary and justifiable. Nagle believes officers followed the progression of force, including the hard empty hand strikes utilized by Ambers. Officers started with officer presence, verbal direction, soft empty hand; she added, chemical agents and CEW would not have been appropriate in this situation. Chemical agents potentially would have contaminated all persons present, and the CEW would have not been effective from that distance. OFFICER AARON AMBERS ‘The following is a summary of an interview with Officer Aaron Ambers on May 06, 2021, conducted at the Professional Standards Unit office. The interview in its entirety can be located within PSU file 21-018. ‘Ambers stated he was called to the DAP office by sergeants and was briefed on the situation with Garrett. Upon arrival at the park Ambers made verbal contact with Garrett and instructed him to place his hands behind his back. Garrett complied and placed his hands behind his back with his knuckles touching, then immediately pulled his hands apart. Ambers stated he could feel Garrett flexing, attempting to keep his hands apart, Officers gave multiple warnings to stop resisting to allow them to place him in handcuffs, Ambers was able to place one handcuff around Garrett's left wrist but stated he could feel Garrett pressing his wrist against his back to make it harder to be placed into cuffs. He then felt Garrett start to bring his arm around to the front of his body. ‘Ambers stated officers continued to give verbal commands to stop resisting and instructed Garrett he was under arrest, Ambers realized Garrett was stronger than him and he was going to be unable to control him enough to place him into custody, so he told Galloway to take Garrett to the ground. Once on the ground, Ambers stated Garrett brought his hands to the front of his body, started pushing off the ground, had one of his legs out to the side and was attempting to get back to his feet. Ambers said he believes that if Garrett had gotten back to his feet, he would have either attempted to flee or become combative. Ambers realized at this point; Garrett had not, been searched or frisked and added Garrett had one cuff around his left wrist which could be used as weapon against officers, Ambers said that Garrett was actively resisting officers and he continued to give verbal commands to stop resisting, He described “three officers my size or larger, were ineffective at getting in handcuffs.” Ambers continued “we were still having a pretty Page 3 of 13,Psuoi7 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT | tevsess0/17 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT INVESTIGATOR FINDINGS hard time while he was on the ground because he was still coming up, you know, trying to get his legs under him, trying to get his arms under him.” Ambers stated he delivered one closed hand strike to Garrett's face then continued to give commands to stop resisting. Ambers said Garrett continued to resist officers, so he told Garrett “I'm going to have to punch you again if you don’t stop.” Garrett continued to not comply with officers” verbal commands and resisted officers, Ambers stated he then delivered 1 or 2 more strikes. Garrett continued to move around attempting to get back to his feet, when Ambers delivered one last strike. At this point, officers were able to get Garrett’s hands behind his back and place him into custody. Ambers stated he believes the force he used was justifiable and necessary because Garrett was actively resisting the officers arrest and Ambers feared if Garrett was able to get to his feet, it would have led to a fight. ‘Ambers stated he received defensive tactics training before graduating the academy in November of 2018. Since then, he has only been offered 8-16 hours (verified to be 8 hours) of defensive tactics training from the department. SERGEANT MIKE FOWLER (2128) ‘The following is a summary of an interview with Sergeant Mike Fowler on May 05, 2021, conducted at the Professional Standards Unit office. The interview in its entirety can be located within PSU file 21-018. Fowler stated officers and sergeants met at the DAP office and developed a plan to deal with Garrett who was standing in the roadway. Upon their arrival to the park, Garrett was standing on the sidewalk and leaning into a vehicle talking to an unknown person. As Fowler was getting out of his vehicle, Ambers and Galloway had already made contact with Garrett and were placing his hands behind his back. Fowler directed his attention toward a female that was yelling profanities at the officers. Fowler could hear officers giving verbal commands to, “stop. Don’t flex on me” (181-182). Fowler stated he only witnessed the first contact between the officers and Garrett, he did not witness the arrest or any use of force (257-261). SERGEANT CHRISTINA BEAVEN (7852) ‘The following is a summary of an interview with Sergeant Christina Beaven on May 05, 2021, conducted at the Professional Standards Unit office. The interview in its entirety can be located within PSU file 21-018. Page 4 of 13Psu.oi7 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT evsess017 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT INVESTIGATOR FINDINGS Beaven stated Garrett had been out protesting that day near the DAP office. She received a call (from either an overtime unit or RTCC) stating Garrett was standing in the middle of the road blocking traffic. She contacted 1 Division Sergeant Nagle requesting assistance from her and her officers; they developed a plan to arrest Garrett. She stated she received information from Detective Claxton that he believed Garrett was either armed with a gun or had it nearby in a vehicle. She also mentioned that she had dealt with Garrett on a previous date, when he knocked someone unconscious and possibly broke his orbital bone, stating, “I know how dangerous Mr. Garrett is and his propensity for violence” (152-153). Once officers arrived at the park, Garrett ‘was standing on the sidewalk speaking to a unknown person inside a vehicle. Upon contact with Garrett, Beaven said she was just getting out of her vehicle and she heard officers giving verbal commands. Garrett was “jerking his arms up, actively resisting” (230). Beaven witnessed officers take Garrett to the ground, but Beaven stated her attention was directed toward a female who was yelling at the officers. She stated, “what I witnessed was an isometric contraction from him where he first of all, was jerking his arms up, arcing his arms so they couldn’t get his hands behind his back” (295-297). Once on the ground she believed that Garrett was in a position to get back on his feet and was attempting to get back on his feet. Beaven did not witness the empty hand strikes by Ambers, but did hear verbal commands. OFFICER MARC CHRISTIANSEN (7823) ‘The following is a summary of an interview with Officer Marc Christiansen on May 05, 2021, conducted at the Professional Standards Unit office. The interview in its entirety can be located within PSU file 21-018, Christiansen stated that previously in the shift Garrett was standing outside the DAP office carrying a cross and yelling at officers as they were at the office. He was told that Garrett was dangerous and can be violent. Later that day, RTCC advised officers that Garrett was standing in the roadway for approximately 40 minutes at the intersection of 6" and Jefferson St. Officers were called to the DAP office and developed a plan to move into the area of the park and place Garrett under arrest. Upon their arrival, Galloway and Ambers were the first to contact Garrett. Christiansen stated the officers told Garrett he was under arrest and to place his hands behind his back. He could hear officers giving verbal commands and realized that he was not cooperating with the arrest. Galloway, Ambers and Payne took Garrett to the ground when Marshall jumped in to help. Christiansen and other officers were giving verbal commands to Garrett to stop resisting and place his hands behind his back. Christiansen then got on the ground and attempted to control Garrett’s legs because he was attempting to roll over instead of going face down like he was instructed. He added that Garrett was on all fours pushing himself off the ground attempting to get up. Christiansen heard Ambers continually give verbal commands, “to place his Page 5 of 13Psuoi7 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT tevses:0n7 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT INVESTIGATOR FINDINGS hands behind his back and punched him a couple times. In between each punch, he would give him commands to place his hands behind his back and quit resisting” (130-133). Christiansen stated he had previous contact with Garrett and was advised that Garrett was under investigation for punching and knocking a person unconscious and another case where he is under investigation for strangulation. OFFICER STEPHEN PAYNE (7216) ‘The following is a summary of an interview with Officer Stephen Payne on May 06, 2021, conducted at the Professional Standards Unit office. The interview in its entirety can be located within PSU file 21-018. Payne stated they received a run for Garrett blocking traffic at 6 and Jefferson St. while holding a cross. Officers and sergeants met at the DAP office and developed a plan to move in and arrest Garrett. He added that they wanted to make the arrest as quick as possible because they had information that Garrett was either armed or had a weapon close by. As officers pull into the park, Garrett was talking to someone inside a vehicle at the comer of 6" and Jefferson St. Upon contact with Garrett, officers utilized empty hand control holds in an attempt to place Garrett under arrest. As officers were attempting to handcuff Garrett, he began to resist being cuffed. Payne stated, “We gave verbal commands the entire time,” and “He definitely knew he was under arrest.” At that point, officers took Garrett to the ground and Garrett had both arms underneath of him. Payne believed that Garrett was attempting to get back to his feet to either get away or cause harm to the officers. When asked about the hard empty hand strikes Payne stated ‘Ambers was first attempting armbars and, “iryin’ all kinds of things,” and, “eventually strikes had to be thrown.” He added he didn’t see too much as his attention was directed toward attempting to control Garrett’s right arm. OFFICER CURTIS CALHOUN (2661) ‘The following is a summary of an interview with Officer Curtis Calhoun on May 05, 2021, conducted at the Professional Standards Unit office. The interview in its entirety can be located within PSU file 21-018. Cathoun stated RTCC advised officers that Garrett was standing in the roadway at 6" and Jefferson St. and Sergeant Beaven called officers to the DAP office to effect an arrest. Calhoun stated when they arrived at Jefferson Square Park, he was one of the last officers to arrive and exit his vehicle. Officers had already approached Garrett and told him he was under arrest. As ‘Ambers started to handcuff Garrett, Garrett began resisting officers. Officers took Garrett down Page 6 of 13Psu-o17 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT _ eeises:07 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT INVESTIGATOR FINDINGS to the ground, Calhoun tumed toward the right to provide security for the arresting officers. Calhoun did not observe any use of force, aside from the take down. He did recall hearing verbal commands during the interaction. OFFICER CORY GALLOWAY (5187) The following is a summary of an interview with Officer Cory Galloway on May 05, 2021, conducted at the Professional Standards Unit office. The interview in its entirety can be located within PSU file 21-018. Galloway stated Garrett was out protesting most of the day and they had received multiple calls for service on him standing in the roadway and blocking traffic. Officers met at the DAP office and planned to move into Jefferson Square Park to effect an arrest. As they arrived at Jefferson ‘Square Park, officers made contact with Garrett and asked him to step over to the side and place his arms behind this back. Galloway said Garrett was compliant with this request. When Ambers began to handeuff Garrett, officers had control of Garrett's arms, and had his wrists overlapping. Garrett started to flex his arms and pulled them from the center of his back. Galloway said it took all of his strength to keep Garrett from pulling his arms back in front of his body. At this time, officers performed a take down on Garrett to have more leverage to control his arms and place him under arrest. When on the ground, Garrett tried to get to his knees and was using his arms to push himself up off the ground. Galloway and Payne utilized their combined strength to overpower Garrett and place his right hand behind his back. Galloway did see Ambers strike Garrett adding that he does not believe Ambers would have been able to control Garrett's arm ‘without using force and that Garrett was armed with a weapon having one handcuff locked around that wrist and the other cuff dangling. OFFICER ERIK MARSHALL (7056) The following is a summary of an interview with Officer Erik Marshall on May 05, 2021, conducted at the Professional Standards Unit office. The interview in its entirety can be located within PSU file 21-018. Marshall stated he had just arrived to work when Sergeant Beaven informed him of their intent to g0 to the park and arrest Garrett for blocking traffic. Officers arrived at Jefferson Square Park and went hands-on with Garrett and he started actively resisting and asked “whats going on?” Marshall described this active resistance by saying Garrett is a, “good sized guy” and, “they was trying to put his hands behind his back. When they was trying to put his hands behind his back, he kind of -he kind of flexed and tensed up like he wasn’t really trying to put his hands behind his back. And they were struggling, try to get his hands behind his back” (127-128). Marshall Page 7 of 13Psu-o17 Revised 30/17 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTM PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT INVESTIGATOR FINDINGS told investigators that he did not see the use of force, he only heard a female yell about the strikes. He also stated that he believed Garrett was attempting to protect himself from the strikes, but he could not see exactly what was going on because he was near Garrett's feet. Marshall told investigators he did hear officers giving verbal commands when they made contact with Garrett but did not recall hearing any commands once they were on the ground, He said he attempted to ‘grab Garrett by the feet when he was still standing, however his WVS does not show this attempt, instead it shows Marshall attempting to keep Garrett on the ground by pushing him down and attempting to control his legs. OFFICER ALLAN MANGANELLO (2681) The following is a summary of an interview with Officer Allan Mangenello on May 06, 2021, conducted at the Professional Standards Unit office. The interview in its entirety can be located within PSU file 21-018, ‘Manganello stated he was the defensive tactics instructor for Ambers when Ambers was a recruit in the LMPD Training Academy. He stated that Ambers went through an introduction week of Gracie Survival Training (GST), plus remedial training throughout the academy (approximately 50 hours total). Manganello did not witness the arrest of Garrett but did review the witnesses cell phone video that was posted to social media after the incident. Manganello stated that from the video he believes Garrett was only a passive resistor by refusing to put his hands behind his back. Manganello defined passive resistance, “is when a person, either verbally or physically refuses to follow the officers instructions, but they are not using physical force towards the officer,” and active resistance is, “when a physical force is being used to either try to get away from an officer, swatting the hands, trying to run, flee, maybe push off of them, trying to escape, but no intent to injure the officer.” Manganello stated he believed the takedown was appropriate based on their training. He stated from watching the video he believes the level after the takedown was initially passive resistance, but it would be hard to say whether it was active or passive. ig the CI When asked about the hard empty hand, Manganello stated, “that’s a difficult one right there for the fact according to our progression of force here, fe continued, “I saw Officer Ambers tryin’ to control the Page 8 of 13Psu.oi7 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT tevsesion7 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT INVESTIGATOR FINDINGS ‘wrist initially, tryin’ to get the hand behind the back, and he wasn’t being successful. So he resorted to hard, empty hand strikes. That is somewhat understandable because of the amount of training that he’s had”, “ Ambers had only received 8 hours of defensive tactics training since graduating in 2018, WEARABLE VIDEO SYSTEM SERGEANT LISA NAGLE’S WVS ‘The following is a summary of the video captured on Sergeant Nagle’s WVS. The entire video and Wearable Video System Event Log can be located inside PSU file 21-018. Sergeant Nagle activated her WVS prior to arriving at Jefferson Square Park. Upon arrival, her WVS captured officers making contact with Garrett, instructing him he is under arrest, and giving verbal commands for direction. Officers take Garrett to the ground and Nagle directs her attention toward an agitated female in the crowd and her WVS does not capture any use of force beyond the controlled takedown, OFFICER AARON AMBERS ‘The following is a summary of the video captured on Officer Ambers’s WVS. The entire video and wearable video system event log can be located inside PSU file 21-018. Officer Ambers activated his WVS prior to arriving at Jefferson Square Park. Upon arrival, WVS captured officers as they approached Garrett, Officers instructed Garrett to place his hands behind his back and informed him he was under arrest. Officers give commands to stop flexing and stop resisting, which Garrett denies doing. Officers perform a takedown on Garrett and continue to give verbal commands. Ambers performs hard empty hand strikes to the left side of Garrett's head. Officers were then able to place Garrett in custody. Garrett was transported to Louisville Metro Department of Corrections where he was checked by Louisville Metro Emergency Medical Services before being booked. Page 9 of 13,psu.o17 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT _ eeisesion7 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT INVESTIGATOR FINDINGS CITIZEN CELL PHONE VIDEO ‘The following is a summary of a witness cell phone video. The video, provided by RTCC ean be located in PSU file 21-018. ‘The cell phone video starts after officers make contact with Garrett. An officer can be heard informing Garrett he is under arrest, followed by verbal commands to “stop.” Officers take Garrett to the ground and Garrett places his arms out in front of himself, pushing himself off the ground. Ambers delivers one hard empty hand strike to Garrett's head and then attempted to contro! his left arm behind his back. Officers continue to give verbal commands for Garrett to “put your hand behind your back.” Ambers delivered another hard-empty hand which appears to miss, followed by two more hard empty hand strikes to Garrett's head. Officers were able to place Garrett into custody, OFFICER MARC CHRISTIANSEN ‘The following is a summary of the video captured on Officer Christiansen’s WVS. The entire video and Wearable Video System Event Log can be located inside PSU file 21-018. Officer Christiansen activated his WVS prior to arriving at Jefferson Square Park. Upon arrival Officers Ambers and Galloway had already made contact with Garrett. Officers give verbal commands to stop flexing which Garrett denies doing. Officers take Garrett to the ground and continue to issue commands to stop resisting and instruct Garrett to place his hands behind his back. Christiansen leans over and assists by controlling Garrett's legs. Ambers can be observed performing two hard empty hand strikes and offices are able to place Garrett into custody. OFFICER CORY GALLOWAY ‘The following is a summary of the video captured on Officer Galloway's WVS. The entire video and Wearable Video System Event Log can be located inside PSU file 21-018. Officer Galloway activated his WVS prior to arriving at Jefferson Square Park. Upon arrival, Galloway and Ambers make contact with Garrett and instruct him he is under arrest and to place his hands behind his back. Officers continue to give verbal commands to Garrett before performing a controlled takedown. Once on the ground, officers continue to give verbal commands, No empty hand strikes are captured on Galloways WVS. Page 10 of 13Psuoi7 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT _ tevises:on7 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT INVESTIGATOR FINDINGS SERGEANT MIKE FOWLER The following is a summary of the video captured on Officer Galloway’s WVS. The entire video and Wearable Video System Event Log can be located inside PSU file 21-018. Sergeant Fowler activated his WVS prior to arriving at Jefferson Square Park. As Fowler arrived on scene, his WVS captured officers making contact with Garrett. As officers were attempting to handcuff Garrett, Fowlers attention was directed toward an agitated female on the sidewalk. Fowler's WVS does not capture and use of force from the incident. CONCLI SERGEANT LISA NAGLE (7694) LMPD SOP 9.1.6 OFFICER INTERVENTION. All officers should act to prevent or stop any member, regardless of rank or assignment, from using unlawful or excessive force. Intervention may be verbal and/or physical. Officers should immediately report any incidents of unlawfiul or excessive force 10 their supervisor. Members inhibited from reporting violations through the appropriate chain of command are required to submit the information directly to the Chief of Police or the Special Investigations Division (SID) Commander. All officers are required to prevent or stop any member from using unlawful or excessive force. Sergeant Nagle stated during her interview that she believed Ambers use of force to be necessary and justifiable. Because this investigator found Ambers use of fore NOT SUSTAINED as a result of their articulation of the incident and meeting the requirements of the progression of force. This investigator believes a recommendation of EXONERATED would appropriate for this charge. OFFICER AARON AMBERS (5173) LMPD SOP 9.1.3 DE-ESCALATION. When reasonable under the totality of circumstances, officers should gather information about the incident, assess the risks, assemble resources, attempt to slow momentum, and communicate and coordinate a response. In their interaction with subjects, officers should use advisements, warnings, verbal persuasion, and other tactics as alternatives to higher levels of force. Page 11 of 13,Psu.ow7 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT tevises1o17 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT INVESTIGATOR FINDINGS Officers and sergeants gathered information about the incident and made plans for an arrest team and security officers prior to making contact with Garrett. Because of previous incidents at the park being escalated with officer presence alone, officers did not feel they had the time or opportunity to move at a slower momentum, During the physical arrest of Garrett, officers attempted each level of force prior to moving to the next higher level of force. Officers did not attempt to utilize chemical agents for the fear of cross contamination and did not utilize their CEW’s because they did not have time to create the distance needed for the CEW to be effective. Because of the officers’ articulation of force that was utilized and the level of active resistance described by officers, this investigator believes an recommendation of EXONERATED would be appropriate for this charge. LMPD SOP 9.1.5 USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE... ..1:: NOT SUSTAINED ‘Should physical force be necessary in order to gain control of a situation, an officer will only use that force which is reasonable to gain control of the subject (NOBLE). Once a person is restrained or under control, the use of force is restricted to that which is reasonable to maintain control. Good judgment is extremely important in deciding which tactics to use and how much ‘force to apply. Officers are not required to allow any suspect to be the first to exercise force and gain an advantage in a physical confrontation. Officers are not required to engage in prolonged hand-to- hand combat before resorting to the use of force that will more quickly, humanely, and safely bring a resisting subject under physical control. The use of physical force by an officer upon another person is justifiable when the officer, acting under official authority, is assisting in, or making, an arrest and he/she: * Believes such force is necessary to effect the arrest (KACP 1.3a), and + Makes known the purpose of the arrest or believes that it is otherwise known, or cannot reasonably be made known, to the person to be arrested, and believes the arrest to be lavfil. An officer may also use physical force at any level when he/she believes such force is reasonable in order to defend himselfherself or to defend another person. Several officers articulated a level of active resistance as they attempted to place Garrett into. custody. They described flexing, pulling, tensing up, and Garrett not allowing officers to place handeuffs on him, Officers performed a controlled takedown on Garrett accompanied by continuous commands as they continued to struggle with Garrett to place his arms behind his back. Once on the ground, officers described Garrett's resistance as active resistance, stating he ‘was pushing himself off the ground, attempting to get to his feet and refusing to place his arms behind his back. Officers attempted to utilize lower force options with verbal direction, followed by empty hand controls, which failed to control Garrett. LMPD SOP 9.1.5 states “should physical force be necessary in order to gain control of a situation, an officer will only use that Page 12 of 13PsuoI7 Revised 10/17 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMEN PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT INVESTIGATOR FINDINGS force which is reasonable to gain control of the subject.” Officers followed the progression of force in an attempt to use the lowest amount of force to control Garrett. They attempted verbal commands and soft empty hand control until they were met with resistance. Once on the ground, officers feared Garrett was going to get to his feet and attempt to flee or become combative. Per policy, “officers are not required to allow any subject to be the first to exercise force and gain an advantage in a physical altercation.” The only use(s) of force which would have fallen between soft empty hand and hard empty hand ‘would have been chemical agent and CEW. Officers articulated chemical agents would have potentially cross contaminated all officers present and the CEW would have not been effective because they were too close. It is recommended to have 7-15 feet of separation for the X2 CEW to achieve neuromuscular ineapacitation. (On SOP 9.1.4, the diagram soft empty hand (in light yellow) transitions into hard empty hand (dark yellow) at the active resistance portion of the sliding scale. This scale does not give officers a definitive starting or stopping point for soft empty hand or hard empty hand. The policy, as it currently reads, leaves question as to when hard empty hand would be appropriate level of force. 9.1.5 provides that physical force is justifiable “when the officer, acting under official authority, is assisting in, or making an arrest and he/she: believes such force is necessary to effect the arrest and makes known the purpose of the arrest or believes that it is otherwise known.” Thus, the officers” subjective belief is the basis. Through interviews, officers told investigators they informed Garrett he was under arrest and several officers, including Ambers, believed the level of force used to be reasonable and appropriate. It should be noted, several officers described levels of active resistance and passive resistance given by Garrett, however the LMPD SOP USE OF FORCE does not give definitions for either passive or active resistance. Because of officers’ articulation into the level of resistance offered by Garrett and the vagueness of the progression of force, this investigator was unable to either prove or disprove if a policy violation oceurred. This investigator finds a recommendation of NOT SUSTAINED would be appropriate for this charge. PRIOR DISCIPLINE TO- BE CONSIDER] SERGEANT LISA NAGLE (7694)..... .NO DISCIPLINE TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICER AARON AMBERS (5173)... ss DISCIPLINE TO BE CONSIDERED Page 13 of 13,Psu.o17 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT eiseas0i17 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT INVESTIGATOR FINDINGS TO: LIEUTENANT JENSEN GODFREY COMMANDER, PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT FROM: — SERGEANT CABE cranes?” INVESTIGATOR, PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT DATE: SEPTMEBER 28™, 2021 RE: ADDENDUM FOR CASE NUMBER 21-091 ACCUSED: Officer Aaron Ambers (5173) Sergeant Lisa Nagle (7694) COMPLAINANT: Chief Erika Shields ADDENDU! This Investigator was directed by Professional Standards Unit (PSU) Commander Jensen Godfrey to conduct follow-up investigation on PSU case 21-018. It was determined a second interview with Training Instructor Officer Allan Manganello (Manganello) was needed in addition ot having him review officers’ wearable video (WVS.) Discussions with Denorver Garrett's (Garrett) attomey, David Mour (Mou), also took place during this follow-up investigation. On September 20" 2021, phone contact with Mour took place at approximately 1530 hours. This investigator and Mour discussed arranging a date and time to conduct an interview with Garrett. The interview process was described to Mour as were open dates on my calendar to perform the interview. The conversation was concluded with Mour saying he intended on calling back after speaking with Garrett. No call was received on September 21". A follow-up call was placed to Mour on September 224 at 1243 hours to check the status of the interview request. Mour advised he was at Junch and he would call back when he was near his work calendar, No retum call has been received at the time of this writing. Page 1 of 3Training Instructor Officer Manganello was interviewed a second time on September 27" after reviewing all WVS contained within the file, During the interview, Manganello was questioned about specific parts of the incident captured on Officers Galloway, Payne, and Ambers’ WVS. While reviewing Payne’s video, Mangenello was questioned about Garrett’s body movement prior to him being taken to the ground, Mangenello explained he could sce officers were putting Garrett’s hands together to apply handcuffs while Garrett moved his elbows away from his body. In Manganello’s assessment, this was done to prevent the officers from cuffing Garrett. It was also noted on Payne's video that an officer can be heard giving loud verbal commands to Garrett. While reviewing Galloway’s video, Manganello was asked if he could hear Garrett being advised he was under arrest. Manganello stated he did hear that, and it happened at least twice. During a review of Marshall’s WVS, Manganello pointed out that Garrett can be seen trying to get his knees under his body by elevating his hips. He said in defensive tacties this is called building the house and it is a necessary motion required to stand. While reviewing Amber's video, Manganello noted one handcuff was placed on Garrett’s wrist as he resisted. He also said in the video you can see Garrett is clearly resisting by keeping his left palm planted on the ground, When asked if this was compliant behavior, Manganello said that it was not. Manganello was also questioned about dialogue between Ambers and Garrett as the two walked to a marked patrol car following the use of force incident. In the video, Manganello observed Garrett proclaiming; he had “...been waiting for this shi,” that a war was just started, and that he (Garrett) “liked that.” (Amber WVS 04:00) ‘Manganello said this interaction appeared it was something Garrett had planned. Manganello was questioned if watching WVS changed his interpretations of Amber's use of force or Garreit’s actions from his first interview. He stated it did not. Manganello was asked if there was anything he wished to add as it pertained to LMPD's Use of Force policy. He responded by saying on video you could clearly hear officers giving verbal commands for Garrett to stop resisting and for him to place his hands behind his back. Manganello explained that Garrett started off with passive resistance but escalated to active resistance when he attempted to take a position to get up. He also explained that one could articulate an anticipated level of resistance was coming and it was escalating. Manganello said in the progression of force, that hard empty hand becomes available between a person displaying active resistance or is combative. Manganello was also questioned about chemical agent(), i.e. Pepper spray, and Taser deployment. He explained pepper spray would have been reasonable in this instance but not practical. He further explained that several officers were within close proximity and would have resulted in multiple officers being exposed and potentially incapacitating them had a chemical agent been deployed. Concer ind Tas) eploymen, Manganello said the optimum distance is 7 to 15 feet from the subject. He said officers were much closer to Garrett and the desired effect would not have been achieved. He also noted Taser deployments are allowed for combative subjects and that Garrett wasn’t combative at that point. Page 2 of 3Manganello was asked if he had anything to add prior to closing the interview. He took this time ing and that officers need the appropriate amount to replace to reiterate the importance of trai instinctive reactions, For further detail about this interview, please refer to the transcribed statement included with this file. Page 3 of 3Investigative RecordPsU-022 07/04 LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT CASE INVESTIGATIVE RECORD CASE NUMBER: __ 21-018 Complainant’s Name __| Chief Frika Shields Address 633 W. Jefferson St. Phone Number 502-574-7660 Officer(s) Involved Sergeant Lisa Nagle _| Officer Aaron Ambers _ Location/Date/Time __| 04/18/2021 1615 DATE | TIME EVENT 04/22/2021 | __1300__| Case assigned to Sergeant Wolf 04/26/2021 | _ 1408 _| Request CAD and radio transmissions from Metrosafe 04/26/2021 | 1530 _| Sergeant Nagle and Officer Ambers served case initation letters and 48 hour notices at LMPD 1st Division 04/29/2021 Downloaded and reviewed WVS from all officers present 04/29/2021 | 1322 _| Request for RTCC camera video of incident 05/03/2021 Review of WVS 05/04/2021 05/04/2021 | 1600 __| Picked up RTCC video from MetroSafe 05/05/2021 | __0957__| Interview with Sergeant Fowler 05/05/2021 | __1032__| Interview with Officer Calhoun 05/05/2021 | 11116 _| Interview with Officer Christiansen 05/05/2021 | 1523 _| Interview with Sergeant Beaven 05/05/2021 | _1551__| Interview with Officer Galloway 05/05/2021 | 1610 _| Interview with Officer Marshall 05/06/2021 | 0914 _| Interview with Officer Payne 05/06/2021 | 1044 _| Interview with Sergeant Nagle 05/06/2021 | 1139 _| Interview with Officer Ambers 05/06/2021 | _1243 _| Interview with Officer ManganelloLOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT CASE INVESTIGATIVE RECORD CASE NUMBER: 21-018 Psu-022 07104 Complainant’s Name _| Chief Erika Shields Address 633 W. Jefferson St. Phone Number 502-574-7660 Officer(s) Involved Sergeant Lisa Nagle Officer Aaron Ambers | Location/Date/Time 04/18/2021 1615 DATE | TIME EVENT 9/20/21 1530__ | Spoke with Attomey David Mour by phone. 9/22/21, 1243 _| Follow-up phone call with David Mour. | 927/21 | 1338 _ | Interview with Officer Manganetlo. | 9/29/21 1130__| Addedum completed.Chief’s InitiationMEMORANDUM LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT GREG FISCHER ERIKA SHIELDS: MAYOR CHIEF OF POLICE To: Lieutenant J. Godfrey Professional Standards Unit FROM: Erika Shields. Chief of Police DATE: April 22, 2021 RE: Initiation of Investigation Officer Aaron Ambers #5173 Sergeant Lisa Nagle #7694 You are directed to initiate a Professional Standards investigation conceming any violation of the Louisville Metro Police Department rules, standards, policies and procedures. This investigation should include examining any potential violation(s) regarding the following: Officer Aaron Ambers' use of force during the arrest of Denorver Garrett on April 48, 2021. This investigation shall also include Sergeant Lisa Nagle's involvement in this incident. This investigation should be conducted in accordance with the current collective bargaining agreements and KRS 67C.326. Any potential violations of criminal law should be referred to the Public Integrity Unit. Additional violations of policies and procedures outside the scope of this investigation should be directed to the ‘Special Investigations Commander for appropriate action. CC: Deputy Chief Bureau Commander Legal Advisor Special Investigations Unit Commander 633 WEST JEFFERSON STREET LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40202 OFFICE PHONE: 502-574-7660 FAX. 502-574-2450dosLouisville Metro Police Department 94 04/08/03 Standard Operating Procedures _Prv. Rev. Date: 06/27/20 Revised Date: 09/21/20 Accreditation Standards: KACP: 1.3, 1.8, 1.11 Chapter: Use of Force Subject: Use of Force | ot USE OF FORCE 944 POLICY utlizing qualified 8) ‘harm, ‘Commanding officers are required to complete an Administrative Incident Report (AIR), via the BlueTeam link, located on the LMPD Intranet, on all use of force incidents resulting in any injury, or the complaint of any injury, to either the officer or subject or when physical force other than a control hold is used (refer to SOP 3.1). All use of force incidents resulting in any injury, or the complaint of any injury, to either the officer or subject, the use of physical force other than a control hold, or a fresh arrest resulting in a charge of Resisting Arrest and/or ‘Assault 3" Degree on a Police Officer requires the involved officer to immediately notify his/her commanding cfficer. The commanding officer will respond to the scene, investigate the incident, and complete the AIR and other necessary paperwork, pursuant to section 9.1.14 of this SOP, Ifthe primary officer is off-duty at the time of the incident, a commanding officer from the division where the incident occurred is responsible for responding to the scene, investigating the incident, and completing the AIR and other necessary paperwork. ‘An AIR will be completed to document the use of force. The commanding officer will complete the AIR, via the BlueTeam link, located on the LMPD Intranet, and comment on the appropriateness of the use of force in the given situation. This report wil be forwarded, via BlueTeam, through the appropriate chain of command. For the purposes of this policy, an acting sergeant is considered a commanding officer. 942 DEFINITIONS: ‘Activate: Depressing the trigger or Arc display, Re-energize and Cartridge advance (ARC) switch of a Conducted Electrical Weapon (CEW) causing a CEW to arc or to fire probes.Louisville Metro Police Department SOP Number: 9.1 Effective Date: 04/08/03 Standard Operating Procedures _| Prv. Rev. Date: 06/27/20 Revised Date: 09/21/20 Accreditation Standards: Chapter: Use of Force KACP: 1.3, 1.8, 1.11 Subject: Use of Force 942 DEFINITIONS (CONTINUED) Chemical Agent: A departmentally-approved less-lethal weapon, which consists of a chemical compound that imitates the eyes to cause tears, discomfort, and a temporary loss of visual capacity (e.g. pepper spray, Mace, Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) spray}. Conducted Electrical Weapon (CEW): Departmentally-approved less-lethal weapons designed to disrupt 2 subject's central nervous system by means of deploying battery powered electrical energy, sufficient to cause intense muscle contractions, affecting the individual's motor nervous system andlor disruption of the individual's sensory nervous system and central nervous system. A CEW provides the user with the capabilty of discharging probes, drive-stunning, or a combination of both during a use of force encounter. Control Hold: A technique with a low probability of injury to the officer or subject, utlized to maintain physical ‘contol of a subject (e.g. transport wrist-lock, straight arm-bar, leg sweep). Deadly Force: Force, which the officer knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury. Head, neck, throat, or clavicle injuries caused by an impact weapon, of any sort, can lead to death or serious physical injury. fer a Drive-Stun: Making direct contact with the CEW to any part of an individual's body (X26 model on! CEW cartridge has been expended or removed) and activating the CEW without a probe deployment. Excited Delirium: State of extreme mental and physiological excitement, characterized by extreme agitation, hyperthermia, hostiity, and exceptional strength and endurance without fatigue. Causes include, but are not limited to, drug use, hypoxia, hypoglycemia, stroke, or intracranial bleeding, Hyperthermia: Unusually high body temperature. Hypoglycemia: Lower than normal level of blood glucose. Hypoxia: An inadequacy in the oxygen reaching the body's tissues. Immediate Danger: When a subject's actions are likely to cause immediate injury to an officer or another person, Intervene: To verbally or physically act to prevent or alter a result or course of events. Mental Iliness: A medical condition that disrupts a person's thinking, feeling, mood, abilty to relate to others, ‘and daily functioning, Mental illnesses are medical conditions that often result in a diminished capacity for ‘coping with the ordinary demands of life. Neuro-Muscular Incapacitation: The desired effect of a successful CEW probe deployment causing intense muscle contractions affecting the individual's motor nervous system and/or disruption of the individual's sensory nervous system and central nervous system. Persons of Diminished Capacity: Encompasses all persons encountered in the field who exhibit unusual behaviors commonly referred to as irrational, bizarre, or unpredictable. These outward observable symptomsLouisville Metro Police Department SOP Number: 9.1 Effective Date: 04/08/03 Standard Operating Procedures _Prv. Rev. Date: 06/27/20 Revised Date: 09/21/20 Accreditation Standards: (Chapter: Use of Forces KACP: 1.3, 1.8, 1.11 | Subject: Use of Force O12 DEFINITIONS (CONTINUED) could be the result of intoxication, drug use, suicidal indication, mental illnessidisabilty, or medical complications. Physical Force: Force used upon, or directed toward the body of, another person. Positional Asphyxia: Occurs when the position of the body interferes with normal breathing. The inability to breathe creates a lack of oxygen in the body which may result in unconsciousness or suffocation. The inabilty to breathe properly may result from the body's position interfering with the muscular or mechanical function of breathing, from compromise or blocking of the airway, or from some combination of the following: ‘+ The body position most likely to contribute to positional asphyxia is that of being “hog-tied” (handcuffed behind the back, feet bound and raised towards hands, and placed face down). However, positional ‘asphyxia may occur even though the subject is not restrained in this manner, + Additional factors that may contribute to positional asphyxia include: ©The mental condition of the subject. ©The presence of cocaine or other drugs/alcohol in the subject's system. © The body typelphysical size of a subject. oe ee facts or circumstances the officer knows are such to cause an ordinary and prudent a similar way under similar circumstances. Safety Priorities: Are used to evaluate risks as part of the decision-making process and include: Hostage(s)/Victim(s) Giulian(s) Officer's) Suspects) Serlous Physical Injury: A bodily injury that: ‘© Creates a substantial risk of death to the victim. © Creates a prolonged impairment of health or prolonged disfigurement. ‘© Creates a prolonged loss or impairment of a bodily organ. Special Impact Munitions Systems (SIMS): Departmentally-approved launchers and projectiles, with the ability to incapacitate, with reduced potential for death or serious injury. Standard CEW Cycle: A five (5) second electrical discharge occurring when a CEW trigger is pressed and released. +The standard five (5) second cycle may be shortened by turning the CEW off at any time during the cycle. ‘+ Ifa CEW trigger is pressed and held beyond five (5) seconds, the CEW may continue to deliver an electrical discharge until the trigger is released.Louisville Metro Police Department SOP Number: 9.1 Effective Date: 04/08/03 Standard Operating Procedures _ Pv. Rev. Date: 06/27/20 Revised Date: 09/21/20 Accreditation Standards: ———— Chapter: Use of Force KACP: 1.3, 1.8, 1.11 Subject: Use of Force 942 DEFINITIONS (CONTINUED) + Any electrical discharge over five (5) seconds would not be considered a standard CEW cycle under LMPD policy and procedure. Stapling: A technique utlized to complete a circuit to induce a neuro-muscular incapacitation following 4 one (1)-probe hit or close-probe spread. Vascular Restraint: Also known as a “choke hold" or “choking techniques.” Any application of pressure to the neck or throat that compromises or obstructs blood flow to the brain, or obstructs air flow and the ability to respire. Vehicle Ramming Attack: A form of attack in which a perpetrator deliberately rams, or attempts to ram, 2 motor vehicle into a building, person, crowd of people, or another vehicle with the intent of inflcting serious injuries andior causing the deaths of others. Verbal Non-Compliance: A subject's refusal to comply with an officer's orders or commands. When considering de-escalation techniques appropriate to the individual situation, officers should recognize they may be dealing with a person of diminished capacity. People suffering from intoxication, suicidal tendencies, medical complications, or mental illness may present members with a wide range of behaviors usually different than those exhibited by other persons in the community or persons involved in criminal ‘activity. Persons of diminished capacity may display conduct that is bizarre, irrational, unpredictable, and/or threatening, They may not receive or comprehend commands or other forms of communication in the manner that the member would expect. These persons often do not respond to authoritative persons or the display of force. It is the primary task of the members of the LMPD who confront these special needs persons to resolve the encounter in the safest manner possible. Officers should refer to SOP 12.20 (Persons of Diminished Capacity) if the circumstances lead the officer to believe he/she may be encountering a person of diminished capacity. Officers should refer to SOP 12.11 (Crisis Intervention Team (CIT)) if the circumstances lead the offices to believe he/she may be encountering a situation requiring a CIT response. Ifthe circumstances lead the officer to believe he/she may be encountering a subject who is experiencing excited delirium, he/she will refer to ‘SOP 12.21 (Excited Delirium).Louisville Metro Police Department 9.1 04/08/03 . 06/27/20 Revised Date: 09/21/20 Accreditation Standards: Chapter: Use of Force KACP: 1.3, 1.8, 1.11 Subject: Use of Force Standard Operating Procedures ‘The prospect of a favorable outcome is often enhanced when supervisors become involved in the management of an overall response to potential violent encounters by coordinating resources and officers’ tactical actions. ‘Supervisors should possess a good knowledge of tactics and supervise officers under their command in regard to proper training standards. As a good practice, supervisors will acknowledge and respond to incidents in a timely manner where law enforcement use of force is probable. 944 PROGRESSION OF FORCE DEESCALATION oom SeaLouisville Metro Police Department SOP Number: 9.1 Effective Date: 04/08/03 Standard Operating Procedures _| Prv. Rev. Date: 06/27/20 Revised Date: 09/21/20 ‘Accreditation Standards: Chapter: Use of Force KACP: 1.3, 1.8, 1.11 Subject: Use of Force ‘Choking techniques (Le. vascular restraints), even i ied appropriately, may cause a risk of death or serious physical injury, because they may restrict the flow of blood or oxygen to a person's brain. Choking techniques are only an approved force option in a situation where the use of deadly force would be allowed. ‘The inappropriate placement of a person may obstruct the airway and cause positional asphyxia. A person in the face down position or leaning over may experience trouble breathing. The person's body type/physical size, mental condition, and/or drug and alcohol use may also Increase the risk of breathing difficulty. These ‘conditions, coupled with a prior violent struggle and the prisoner being handoutfed behind the back, can make him/her vulnerable to death by positional asphyxia. ‘A prisoner will not be placed in control restraints and allowed to remain lying on his/her back or stomach. A prisoner will not be placed leaning forward in a sitting position with hands and legs restrained together. Either of these positions can contribute to obstruction of the airway, resulting in positional asphyxia. Officers should not put weight on a person's back or head, such as with their knees or arms, for a prolonged period of time. Due to the increased risk of injury, officers should avoid placing weight on a person's neck. In order to minimize the potential for positional asphyxia death, officers should take the following precautions: ‘As soon as a person is handcuffed, move him/her off of hisfher stomach, ‘Ask if he/she has used drugs or alcohol or suffers from a disease that can cause breathing difficulties. Monitor the person carefully and obtain medical treatment, if necessary. Monitor the person by watching the three (3) ABCs: alrway, breathing, and circulation: © Airway — path Is free of obstruction and allows the flow of air to the lungs ‘© Breathing ~ air flows to, and from, the lungs (© Circulation — heartbeat and pulse are present + When the prisoner is turned over to the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections (LMDC) facility or another authority, the officer will notify the receiving authority of existing medical problems. ‘The use of physica force by an officer upon another person is justifiable when the officer, acting under oficialLouisville Metro Police Department SOP Number: 9.1 Effective Date: 04/08/03 Standard Operating Procedures _| Prv. Rev. Date: 06/27/20 Revised Date: 09/21/20 Accreditation Standards: Chapter: Use of Force KACP: 1.3, 1.8, 1.11 Subject: Use of Force 945 USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE (CONTINUED) authority, Is assisting in, or making, an arrest and he/she: . such force is necessary to effect the arrest (KACP 1.3a), and . the purpose of the arrest or believes that itis otherwise known, or cannot reasonably be m to the person to be arrested, and believes the arrest to be lawful. o use physical force at any level when he/she believes such force Is reasonable in order to F to defend another person. Officers may use physical force to protect a person if, under the circumstances reasonably perceived to be true, the person would have been justified in using such force to protect himself/herself. Officers may also use physical force: To prevent the escape of an arrested person when the force could justifiably have been used to make the arrest under which the person is in custody. «To move or remove any person who is obstructing a lawful police action in such a manner that the lawful police action cannot be accomplished. «To prevent a person from committing suicide or inflicting serious physical injury upon himseit herself. OFFICER INTERVENTION a tas pont oy pan an ae Hoe nko seston am ur iva force. Intervention may be verbal andlor physical. Officers should immediately report any incidents of unlawful or excessive force to their supervisor. Members inhibited from reporting violations through the appropriate chain of command are required to submit the information directly to the Chief of Police or the Special Investigations Division (SID) Commander. Members are prohibited from retaliation against any individual because he/she has prevented, intervened, or reported the unlawful or excessive use of force. Any member who engages in retaliation against an individual who has prevented, intervened, or reported the unlawful or excessive use of force may be subject to discipline, ‘Any member who feels he/she has been subjected to such retaliation should report this action through the appropriate chain of command, to the division commander, who will then forward the information to the SID Commander or directly to the Chief of Police. Any member who is inhibited from reporting retaliation through histher chain of command should report the retaliation directly to the SID Commander or the Chief of Police. 947 INTERMEDIARY OPTIONS (KACP 1.8) Intermediary options may assist officers in de-escalating potentially violent confrontations and provide additional alternatives to the use of deadly force. Uniformed officers and sergeants will wear the CEW and are stronglyLouisville Metro Police Department SOP Number: 9.1 Effective Date: 04/08/03 Standard Operating Procedures _Prv. Rev. Date: 06/27/20 Revised Date: 09/21/20 Accreditation Standards: Chapter: Use of Force KACP: 1.3, 1.8, 1.11 Subject: Use of Force OAT INTERMEDIARY OPTIONS (CONTINUED) ‘encouraged to wear both a departmentally-approved Impact weapon and OC spray as intermediate weapons. However, if an officer is physically unable to fit all of the equipment on the duty belt or if wearing all three (3) weapons causes physical discomfort or problems with weapon accessibility, he/she will carry the CEW and a departmentally-approved impact weapon. If not carried, the chemical agent must be readily available in the officer's vehicle. On-duty plainclothes officers and sergeants will have, on their person, a departmentally- ‘approved impact weapon, chemical agent, or CEW. Having these alternatives available to all on-duty personne! wil increase an officer's options regarding the level of force used when confronted with the necessity to gain control of a suspect. CEWs are optional equipment for the ranks of lieutenants or above. Off-duty officers, while not in uniform, are not required to carry any intermediary weapons, but will be armed with a departmentally-approved firearm and their credentials, 91.8 USE OF CEWS (KACP 1.8) Officers are permitted to carry and use only CEWs that have been issued by the department. The use of CEWs will be consistent with departmental training and is authorized on subjects who present an immediate danger to the safety of the officers, of others, when the officer reasonably believes the use of the CEW may mitigate the immediate danger. For the purposes of this policy, Immediate danger is when a subject's actions are likely to cause immediate injury to an officer or another person. Officers should refer to SOP 4.21 for more detailed procedures regarding the use of CEWs. Officers should not intentionally target the chest, eyes, neck, head, breasts, and/or groin areas. When activating the CEW on an individual, the officers will activate the device the least number of times and for no longer than What is reasonable to mitigate the immediate danger. Ifa probe deployment occurs, and no window of opportunity to restrain the subject presents itself because helshe is not reasonably incapacitated enough to allow physical restraint, following three (3) standard CEW cycles, the officer wil attempt another reasonable force option(s) to apprehend the subject. Activation cycles will not exceed the standard CEW cycle of five (5) seconds. ‘Standard CEW cycles given by drive-stun need not be considered when counting the three (3) standard CEW cycles discussed above; however, any drive-stun activation will not exceed the standard CEW cycle of five (5) ‘seconds. Drive-stuns will be used the least number of times and for no longer than what is reasonable. The drive stun requires the same level of justification as a probe deployment. Officers may utilize the CEW on aggressive animals which present a physical threat to the officer or any other person (refer to SOP 8.33). Emergency Medical Services (EMS) will be contacted to respond to all incidents involving the application of a CEW. Officers should not transport the subject prior to the arrival of EMS.Louisville Metro Police Department | SOP Number: 9.1 Effective Date: 04/08/03 Standard Operating Procedures _Prv. Rev. Date: 06/27/20 Revised Date: 09/21/20 | — Accreditation Standards: [Chapter: Use of Force KACP 1.5, 1.8, 1.11 Subject: Use of Force 949 USE OF CHEMICAL AGENTS (KACP 1.8) Officers are permitted to carry and use only chemical agents approved by the department. The use of chemical agents should be consistent with departmental training. The use of a chemical agent is authorized in Circumstances when the officer reasonably believes that a degree of force is necessary to overcome actual, oF anticipated, resistance by the suspect (NOBLE). Chemical agents may also be used: + On actively aggressive persons who are combative and present a physical danger to themselves, the officer, or any other person. ‘+ On prisoners who attempt to escape, cause physical injury to themselves, or attempt to damage the property of others. ‘+ In defense of any person, Pepper ball guns can be utilized for a dual purpose, both as a chemical agent dispersal system and as an impact weapon. Unlike SIMS (e.g. 40mm launcher/sock round), the pepper ball guns, when used as an impact ‘weapon, should not cause death, even when striking prohibited areas. However, the head, neck, and face should be avoided, unless exigent circumstances exist “The use of chemical agents by the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team and Special Response Team (SRT) wil be in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and the team’s operations manual. The Use of chemical agents for crowd control or civil disturbance will be pursuant to SOP 12.6.5, 94.40 POST-USE OF CHEMICAL AGENTS (KACP 1.8) Contaminated areas of the body will be treated in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations and departmental training, as soon as practical Officers are required to contact appropriate medical personnel if the subject displays unusual reactions to the chemical agent. 9444 USE OF SPECIAL IMPACT MUNITIONS SYSTEMS (SIMS) (KACP 1.8) SIMS should only be utilized by officers trained and qualified in their use. These include the 40mm launcher and the sock round, which is fired from designated shotguns. ‘The potential exists for SIMS projectiles to inflict injury or death when they strike the face, eyes, and neck. Officers should avoid intentionally striking these body areas, unless deadly force is authorized. SIMS projectiles are designed to be direct impact munitions. Officers are prohibited from deploying sock rounds through intermediate barriers, such as glass, unless deadly force is authorized, due to the potential for serious injury or death. Each SIMS should be used consistently with the training for that particular system.