In Custody Death in California

My question involves search and seizure law in the State of: CA
Are the dangers of forceful prone restraint well known to police? A young man died at the scene following 15 Taser strikes, pepper-spray, baton strikes. He was handcuffed, shackled and conscious when paramedics strapped him to a medical backboard. He told medics, "I can't breathe." While loading him into the ambulance they noticed he wasn't breathing. He went into full cardiac arrest and could not be resuscitated. This PD uses Lexipol policy but didn't follow it. They are suppose to place the suspect in the supine position or on his side; they are suppose to inform medics of the possibility of sudden death; ride with the suspect; keep constant watch for signs of respiratory failure. When paramedics arrive do police just turn everything over to them? I talked to a nurse in the ER at the hospital he was taken to and he never heard of restraint asphyxia.
Some of the scientific research has been labled junk science.

Are we really gonna go another round with this poor horse?

We weren't there. You weren't there. There may have been a reason they left him on his stomach. I don't know. You don't know.

All anyone can do is speculate.

I bet if you had asked the nurse about positional asphyxia, which is the more common term, he would have recognized it.

If he was conscious and breathing when the medics took custody of him, then perhaps the MEDICS did something wrong. The officers are under no legal obligation nor requirement to ride int he ambulance with the suspect/patient.

And it is "positional asphyxia" we are told about, not "restraint asphyxia" though the two may be interchangeable, I suppose. And while not "junk science," there is some debate as to whether or not the positioning of a restrained person actually contributes significantly to death. But, this is a concept that law enforcement is trained to address.

If the officers did not adhere to policy that MIGHT open them up to potential civil litigation, but the plaintiff might have to show that failure to adhere to that policy clearly contributed to the fatal situation.

As Free9man stated, none of us were there. The DA has ruled that no crime has occurred. Any civil litigation will have to run its course. At this point, if I had to guess I'd say that the matter will settle out of court with no admission of fault.

"perhaps the MEDICS did something wrong." That's what I was thinking. The police violated their policy, as well.

(d) Once secured, the person should be placed in a seated or upright position and shall not be placed on his/her stomach for an extended period as this may potentially reduce the person’s ability to breathe.

(e) The restrained person should be constantly watched by an officer while in the restraint.The officer is to ensure the person does not roll onto and remain on his/her stomach.

(f) The officer should look for signs of labored breathing and, where practical, take appropriate steps to relieve and minimize any obvious factors contributing to this condition.

(b) When taken by ambulance/paramedic unit, the restrained person shall be accompanied by an officer. The transporting officer should inform medical personnel that positional asphyxia is a concern and that the person should remain in an upright position where practicable.

"All anyone can do is speculate." We can do alot more than that. We still haven't found the truth.

Quote:

---

Quoting huntsab

---

"perhaps the MEDICS did something wrong." That's what I was thinking. The police violated their policy, as well.

(d) Once secured, the person should be placed in a seated or upright position and shall not be placed on his/her stomach for an extended period as this may potentially reduce the person’s ability to breathe.

(e) The restrained person should be constantly watched by an officer while in the restraint.The officer is to ensure the person does not roll onto and remain on his/her stomach.

(f) The officer should look for signs of labored breathing and, where practical, take appropriate steps to relieve and minimize any obvious factors contributing to this condition.

(b) When taken by ambulance/paramedic unit, the restrained person shall be accompanied by an officer. The transporting officer should inform medical personnel that positional asphyxia is a concern and that the person should remain in an upright position where practicable.

---

Those actions are for when the POLICE transport someone in their car, not when the medics take them. The police policy does not override the medics'.

And even if the officers failed to make proper notification or accompany a prisoner to as in section (b), that's a policy issue and not a criminal one. It might play against the city in the lawsuit, but that's it. Once again, unless the restraint can be shown to have positively contributed to the death, then it is not likely to be a huge issue.

But, most these matters settle out of court. If not, then the agency stands a great chance of winning. Most these cases that go to trial go well for the agency and ot the plaintiff. But, since few go to trial and most are settled, chances are this, too, will settle out of court since it is often cheaper and less of a public relations issue to settle early.

Quote:

---

Quoting huntsab

---

"All anyone can do is speculate." We can do alot more than that. We still haven't found the truth.

---

No, that is all that you are doing. Speculating.

One investigation found no wrongdoing.

I think it is safe to say that if "the truth" showed that the officers did nothing wrong, you would not buy into it anyway. In short, the guy was messed up, he fought with the cops, and his actions resulted in his death. Should it have happened? No. Did the guy who died share a great deal of blame for what transpired? Yep. Were their policy violations? Maybe. Is there criminal culpability? Not according to the DA.

What "the truth" is can be subjective to some people. There are still people that believe OJ was framed. It is easy to discount a telling of an event if it runs counter to one's personal paradigm. In fact, it is human nature to do so.

"I think it is safe to say that if "the truth" showed that the officers did nothing wrong, you would not buy into it anyway." That is unfair. I have read the coroner's report and summary of the case 50 times. Until we had those reports, we had three logs with en route and arrival times of the police.
I have no involvement or much interest in lawsuits and there will not be any criminal charges. You even said it shouldn't have happened. We can do better. If they didn't hate us so much maybe they would care about doing better.
This case really got to me. I think about it too much. Maybe I need to back off.

free9man: As in beating the dead horse?

While they might have done better, it does not mean that anything was done horribly wrong. Sometimes stuff happens. And when drugged or drunken idiots fight with the cops, bad things can happen. It is not uncommon for people to die from drug related problems after they are involved in a prolonged fracas with the police. It is tragic, but it is something that could have been presented had the suspect not been under the influence.

I am not saying that everything was done right or that there is not any liability - I do not know. But, I am familiar with a great number of similar cases and they tend to unravel in much the same way.

In the end, the family will get an award for the tragic death, the city will likely not admit any complicity, and the world will go on.

"And when drugged or drunken idiots fight with the cops, bad things can happen." That's the kind of talk that will lead to bad things happening, too.

Quote:

---

Quoting huntsab

---

"And when drugged or drunken idiots fight with the cops, bad things can happen." That's the kind of talk that will lead to bad things happening, too.

---

It's a fact of life. Drugs and alcohol have negative interactions on the body. People that are drunk or drugged also tend not to feel some or all of their pain, they tend to think they are undefeatable, and can fight fiercely. Fighting fiercely results in a fierce response. If someone is trying to hurt me, I'm going to hurt them first.

That's what I mean by it.

There is a difference between retribution and understandable consequences.

You would have done things differently. You would not have your girlfriend in your patrol unit at 4AM. You would have called for backup. Three EC police officers were on their way and they cancelled them.
He had traces of pot in his system and he was drunk.
The police officer was never justified in his use of the Taser. The suspect is moving away from him calling for help. He's down on his knees, already handcuffed. He never moves toward the cop. In CA, I think police can only use the Taser when they or someone else is in immediate danger. Isn't that one of Lexipol's big selling points: staying current on court decisions?