Police Citizen Review Subcommittee
Regular MeetingPortland, ME · December 11, 2024
Minutes
Page 2 MINUTES
POLICE CITIZEN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
December 11, 2024
Meeting Held Remotely Via Zoom
Members present: Anne Hardcastle, Chair (left at 6:52); Xavier Botana; Gino Desruisseaux;
Joey Brunelle; Kaylin Kerina
Members absent: Reverend Lewis, Vice-Chair
Staff present: Associate Corporation Counsel Rachel Millette; Chief Mark Dubois; Major Dan
Hondo; Lt. Jacob Titcomb; Associate Corporation Counsel Nicole Albert; Tracy Boyd
6:02 Call to order.
Anne announced that she needed to leave the meeting early, thus the agenda was flipped
so that she could present the case that was carried forward from November.
Motion was made by Xavier and seconded by Gino to adopt the October 9, 2024 meeting
minutes. Passage 5-0.
6:05 Motion was made to enter into Executive Session pursuant to 1 M.R.S. Sec. 405(6)(F) to
discuss IA2024-017 by Gino and seconded by Xavier. Passage 5-0.
6:44 Out of Executive Session.
Motion was made by Kay to find that IA2024-017 was fair; seconded by Gino. Passage:
5-0, IA2024-017 was found to be fair.
Motion was made by Joey to find that IA2024-017 was objective; seconded by Gino.
Passage: 5-0, IA2024-017 was found to be objective.
Motion was made by Kay to find that IA2024-017 was timely; seconded by Gino. Passage:
5-0, IA2024-017 was found to be timely.
Motion was made by Xavier to find that IA2024-017 was thorough; seconded by Gino.
Passage: 5-0, IA2024-017 was found to be thorough.
No public comment was offered.
Standing of the new ordinance:
Rachel reported that there’s been an update to the City Council’s workshop schedule, the
new Civilian Police Review Board (“CPRB”) will be discussed on February 10, 2025.
The meeting will start in an executive session because the discussion will entail bargaining
related obligations and collective bargaining processes. After the executive session the City
Council may open up the workshop to the public depending on the outcome of the
meeting, or, they may announce that they are still bargaining. Joey asked when the public
might see the updated version of the ordinance. Rachel responded that once the City Council
has settled on the new version, the public will have a minimum of two and a half weeks to view
the new ordinance before the City Council votes on it. The item will be a two read item posted
ahead of the first read then public comment will be allowed during the second read.
6:52 Anne designated Xavier to lead the remainder of the meeting and left the meeting.
Use of Force Incident Review Presentation:
Associate Corporation Counsel Nicole Albert, legal counsel to the police department,
gave an overview of the Use of Force Incident Review process.
Questions arose around the Police Department’s separate Use of Force committee members;
who they are; how are they chosen; are there any disqualifiers for serving on the committee?
Nicole explained that her task was to inform the committee of the incident review process and
explained that she did not have information to answer the subcommittee members’ questions
regarding the separate Use of Force committee.
>> Acting Chair Xavier requested that staff provide answers to these question at the next
meeting.
Members discuss the possibility of making information about the Use of Force/Incident Review
information available to the public.
>> Rachel, Tracy and Nicole say they can put this information in the meeting’s
minutes/supporting documents, along with the Police Department’s relevant SOP.
Workshop – role/responsibilities of the PCRS Board and IA process overview:
Rachel gave a PowerPoint presentation around the roles and responsibilities of the
subcommittee members.
Rachel clarifies something from the previous meeting and says that PCRS members *can*
discuss their votes in a public session provided that the discussion does not in any way violate
the privacy rights of the employees or the individual making the complaint. Broad
generalizations are allowed, and questions can be asked during executive session regarding
what is allowable to say in the public meeting.
The Committee discussed the possibility of sending a letter to complainants *before* the PCRS
process, in addition to afterward (as currently happens), to better explain our purpose,
limitations and value, which happened in the early years of the committee. The Committee also
expressed interest in including vote totals in the letter sent to complainants.
>> It is suggested to put these on a future agenda.
Joey raised the concern that the PCRS annual reports from 2008-2013 are missing from the
City’s website.
>> Rachel says she will take a look into that.
The Committee discussed past and possible future training, including from the police
department and from NACOLE, and multiple members expressed interest in additional training.
No public comment was offered.
Topics for next month’s meeting:
Kay suggests that we have a forward-looking discussion of trainings offered by PPD and
NACOLE, or reaching out to USM (or other schools, e.g. Husson) to see if someone can give a
presentation on other models of citizen police review. Xavier suggests starting with a review of
past trainings.
Joey asks what the process is to develop the annual report. Gino says that it starts in spring and
sometimes drags into fall. It doesn’t take much, once we get the data.
>> Acting Chair Xavier suggests putting this topic on the January meeting agenda.
● Potential update on the new Civil Police Review Board ordinance
● Notice to complainant regarding PCRS review of their IA complaint
● An Outline of the Incident Review Process that could go along with the meeting
minutes and the SOP around incident review on the city’s website
● Previous trainings offered by PPD and NACOLE
● 2024 Report development
8:06 Motion was made by Joey and seconded by Kay to adjourn. Passage 4-0.
PORTLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Effective Date 06/29/2014 Number 90B
Subject Deadly Force Investigations
Amendment Date
I. Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to establish uniform procedures for the investigation of all incidents
involving the use of deadly force by police officers. These procedures will govern only the
investigative aspects of those incidents. Post incident procedures are addressed in SOP 90A.
II. Policy
It is the policy of the department to thoroughly, quickly and impartially investigate the use of
deadly force by an officer. This may involve several separate investigations. The investigations
will include:
a) a criminal investigation of the suspect’s actions by the department’s Criminal Investigations
Division. If the incident occurred in a different jurisdiction, the Chief of Police may request
a joint investigation with that jurisdiction’s police department.
b) a criminal investigation of the involved officer(s) conducted by the Office of the Attorney
General.
c) an administrative investigation conducted by the Internal Affairs Unit (IAU) and other
assigned personnel, to determine if there were any violations of department policy.
The procedures outlined in this policy are intended to elicit the information necessary to fully
review the officer’s use of force. These procedures are intended to facilitate the investigative
process by allowing all the investigative components to work in a cooperative and collaborative
fashion; while still respecting the rights of all of the involved parties.
III. Confidentiality of Investigations
Administrative investigations of the use of deadly force are conducted for the internal use of the
Portland Police Department and are to be kept confidential in accordance with state law. The
department reserves the right; however, to provide information regarding an investigation to the
department's legal counsel. An officer whose conduct is the subject of an investigation is entitled
to review the investigation upon its completion.
IV. Definitions
Administrative Investigation Team [AIT]: An investigative unit supervised by the Assistant Chief
and comprised of personnel from the Internal Affairs Unit, the assigned evidence technician(s) and
any other investigative resources deemed necessary by the Chief of Police. This unit is solely
responsible for the internal, administrative investigation of the use of force by the officer.
Deadly force Incident: Any incident involving the use of deadly force by an officer; the use of any
level of force which results in death; any departmental in-custody death or a use of force incident
that results in serious bodily injury.
Garrity warning: A warning given to a police officer who is interviewed by his/her employer in a
potentially disciplinary setting to advise the officer that he/she is part of an investigation, that the
officer is obligated to give statements for internal purposes, and these answers may not be used
9-90B-1
against the officer in the prosecution’s case in a criminal proceeding. Garrity statements may be
used in rebuttal.
V. Command Responsibilities
A. The Commander of the Uniformed Operations Group shall assume responsibility for the
oversight and management of the personnel assigned to the police headquarters after the
incident, including, but not limited to, involved officers, dispatch personnel, peer support
employees and union representatives.
B. The Assistant Chief shall assume responsibility for the oversight and management of
investigative personnel including, but not limited to, investigators, evidence technicians
and patrol officers and shall act as the liaison with personnel from the Attorney General’s
office.
VI. Investigative Responsibilities
A. The internal, administrative investigation of a deadly force incident shall be the
responsibility of the Administrative Investigations Team. If a member of the
Administrative Investigation Team is involved in the incident being investigated, a
supervisor of equal rank will replace that member. The Administrative Investigation Team
will work in coordination with the Criminal Investigation Division as they each conduct
parallel investigations. The AIT will share any investigative knowledge that is not a
product of compelled statements of involved officers. Investigative knowledge obtained
by CID is provided to the AIT. Examples include results of witness interviews, canvasses
and physical evidence collected.
B. The CID Lieutenant shall retain responsibility for the criminal investigation of the
suspect’s actions and assign CID personnel, as he/she deems necessary.
C. The Investigation Division of the Office of the Attorney General is designated as the
official representative of the Attorney General in the investigation of police-involved
deaths. The Attorney General’s Office is required by law to investigate any use of deadly
force by a law enforcement officer while acting in the performance of the officer's duties.
The sole purpose of the Attorney General’s investigation is to determine whether the force
used by the officer was legally justified by self-defense or the defense of others; and to rule
out criminal prosecution of the officer. Notification to the Attorney General and Office of
the Chief Medical Examiner shall be the responsibility of the Assistant Chief, acting in
his/her role as the supervisor of the Administrative Investigations Team.
VII. Investigative Duties
A. Upon notification, Administrative Investigations Team members shall respond to the
scene, the police department or other location as specified by the Assistant Chief.
B. The assigned evidence technician(s) shall respond to the scene to begin preliminary
processing of the scene and to ensure the preservation of evidence. The collection of
evidence from the involved officer shall be a priority and shall be accomplished as quickly
as possible. Processing may be done at the scene or at the police department.
C. The AIT shall receive a general briefing and walk-through by the scene supervisor
regarding the circumstances surrounding the shooting. The involved officer(s) may also be
asked at some point to participate in the scene walk-through, if they are able.
9-90B-2
D. In dealing with involved personnel, AIT members should be cognizant of the symptoms of
post traumatic stress including time and space distortions, confusion, hearing and visual
distortion and shock.
E. The involved officer(s) shall be relieved of the task of writing a Use of Force report. A
Blue Team entry shall be made by the AIT for statistical purposes.
F. An AIT member will be responsible for reviewing and collecting all of the video/audio
information connected with the incident; including cruiser video, interview video, car to
car messaging, email and dispatch audio recordings. The original material shall either
remain in the custody and control of the team for investigative purposes or be logged into
the evidence system. Copies will be made and/or released to CID and the Attorney
General’s office as needed, with the approval of the Assistant Chief.
G. An AIT member will review all of the information collected by the AIT during the course
of the investigation and be periodically briefed by the CID Lieutenant regarding the status
of the criminal investigation. Information gathered by the AIT, pursuant to the Garrity
warning, shall not be shared with CID investigators. The Assistant Chief will periodically
brief the Chief of Police.
H. If an autopsy occurs as a result of the incident, an AIT member will be assigned to attend.
I. Blood/Urine testing: It is the police department's policy not to request blood or urine
samples from the involved officer(s) unless the officer(s) requests the sample, the involved
officer(s) shows objective symptoms of alcohol or drug use or it is obtained pursuant to the
Fourth Amendment as part of the criminal investigation.
VIII. Officer Interviews
A. An AIT member or the Chief’s designee, will be responsible for conducting the formal
interview (if necessary) of the officer(s) involved in the incident as well as the witness
officers. The interviews shall be audio recorded. No more than two members of the
Administrative Investigations Team may be present at the interview but only one person
should question the officer.
B. Prior to the interview, the involved officer(s) and department witnesses shall be read and
provided with a copy of the Garrity warning. Garrity statements will not be released to
CID or the Attorney General’s office.
C. The interview will be limited to questions which are specifically, directly and narrowly
related to the incident. An officer may be questioned about off-duty conduct if it relates to
the incident.
D. The officer shall be advised that he/she has the right to have an attorney or union
representative present during the interview. An officer's request to have an attorney or
union representative present shall not unreasonably delay the interview.
E. An officer can be disciplined for refusing to participate in an internal interview.
F. If an officer chooses to participate in an interview with members of the Attorney General’s
office as part of their investigation of the incident, the AIT may request that the officer or
his/her attorney arrange for the interview to be recorded and voluntarily provided to the
AIT. An officer may refuse the request and will NOT face any discipline for refusing. If
an officer provides an audio recording of the interview to the AIT, it may serve to
9-90B-3
eliminate any additional interviews by the AIT. An officer or his/her attorney, who agrees
to provide this information, acknowledges that the interview is NOT being compelled by
the Garrity ruling.
IX. Administrative Findings
A. The Assistant Chief or his/her designee shall prepare a written report, which includes the
team's investigative conclusions about the incident and recommendations to the Chief
regarding discipline, policy revisions and training alternatives. The final investigative
report will be assigned an Internal Affairs case number and filed in the Internal Affairs
Unit.
B. The report shall be subject to command review to determine whether:
1. the use of force was justified,
2. the actions of the officer(s) were in accordance with department policy,
3. any training or policy modifications are necessary and
4. the Chief of Police should consider disciplinary action.
C. The Chief of Police shall have final approval of the disposition of the case in accordance
with the procedures established by SOP. The Chief may take action based on the
command staff recommendations at any time before or after the findings of the Incident
Review Team are completed.
D. The involved officer shall receive a copy of the written report, the command staff
recommendations and the Chief’s final disposition.
X. Incident Review Team
A. Pursuant to Maine law, within thirty (30) days of the completion of the Attorney General’s
investigation and the department's administrative investigation, the Chief of Police will
convene an Incident Review Team consisting of members appointed by the Chief.
B. The members appointed will include:
1. the Assistant Chief, Commander and Captain;
2. one member who is a commissioned officer of the Maine State Police;
3. one member of the public who is not and has not previously served as a sworn law
enforcement officer;
4. the police attorney;
5. the Use of Force Committee representatives from the PBA and the SOA;
6. a Chief of Police from an outside agency; and
7. any other individuals the Chief deems appropriate.
C. The investigator(s) assigned to the incident will make a presentation to the Incident
Review Team and answer any questions that may arise concerning the incident.
9-90B-4
D. The purpose of the Incident Review Team is to review both a factual reconstruction of the
event and the use of deadly force to advise the Chief of Police on the following issues:
1. Whether relevant policy was understandable and effective during the incident.
2. Whether changes in policies or procedures are necessary to increase public safety or
officer safety.
3. Whether training methods or protocols should be reviewed or revised.
4. Whether department equipment or other resources should be replaced, supplemented
or modified.
E. The police attorney will draft a report that reflects the findings of the Incident Review
Team on the above issues for delivery to the Chief of Police. The Incident Review Team
does not have the authority to determine whether an officer engaged in misconduct,
violated department policy or procedures or should be subject to discipline for his/her
actions.
F. The Chief of Police will determine whether training, equipment and/or policy revision is
needed.
G. At the conclusion of the review process, a copy of all relevant reports and information will
be filed with the Internal Affairs Unit.
H. The involved officer will be given a copy of the Incident Review Team’s report and may
meet with the Chief to discuss the team’s findings.
I. The report of the Incident Review Team is a public record as provided by law. The
following individuals will be provided with copies of the report: the City Manager, the
Mayor, Corporation Counsel, members of the Portland City Council and the Police Citizen
Review Subcommittee, members of the police department’s Training and Use of Force
Committees, the involved officer(s) and the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Maine
Criminal Justice Academy.
J. After the Incident Review Team has made its findings, the Training Sergeant will convene
the Training Committee, if necessary. At that meeting, a Command Staff member will
review the Incident Review Team report with the committee and discuss any training
concerns raised in the report.
Disclaimer: Any policy, procedure and/or rule shall not be construed as creating a higher legal
standard of care or safety in an evidentiary sense with respect to third party claims. Nothing in
this policy is intended to increase, modify or in any way affect current legal standards nor shall
any deviation from these guidelines be considered a breach of any legal standard. The
procedures articulated in this policy are for Department use only and do not apply in any criminal
or civil proceeding. When a conflict occurs with Federal laws or Maine statutes, the law or
statute will supersede the directive in conflict.
9-90B-5
PORTLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Subject: RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE/AID/REPORTING Policy #: 1A
Distribu on: Internal/External Effec ve: 10/22/2017
By Order of: Chief of Police Revised: 12/18/2022
I. PURPOSE
To establish guidelines governing response to resistance by Portland Police Officers and to describe requirements for
medical aid and repor ng.
II. POLICY
The Portland Police Department seeks to treat all people with dignity and respect and recognizes the value and
sanc ty of every human life. Inves ng officers with the trust and lawful authority to respond to use force in
response to resistance and to protect the public welfare, a careful balancing of all human interests is required. Since
there are too many variables that go into an officer's split-second decision to use force in what are o en mes
tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving situa ons, this procedure, although intended to provide clear direc on, is
unable to be all inclusive and does not a empt to describe in absolute terms and in every circumstance when an
officer should or should not use a par cular response op on. It is the policy of this agency for officers to consider
safety priori es and a empt to control an incident by the use of de-escala on whenever safe and reasonable to do
so, and to use only the degree of force that the officer reasonably and actually believes is necessary to effec vely
bring an incident under control while protec ng the officer or another. When necessary to respond to resistance,
the degree of force employed must be propor onal and in direct rela onship to the amount of resistance exerted,
or the immediate threat to the officers or others. Officers must respond in a way that does not violate the
Cons tu on or applicable law. Officers shall report their use of physical force, and shall take reasonable steps to
obtain appropriate medical a en on. Supervisors and command staff shall review all uses of force and control to
ensure compliance with legal requirements and this policy. Given this is a statutorily mandated policy, officers must
abide by this SOP as it applies to all standards of the MCJA Board of Trustees.
III. DEFINITIONS
A. Actual Belief: A subjec ve state of mind in which the officer holds a genuine or honest convic on.
B. Bodily Injury: Physical pain, physical illness or any impairment of physical condi on.
C. Canine (K-9): A department authorized dog, the training and cer fica on of which has included
handler protec on and suspect apprehension. This is considered the use of non-deadly force.
D. Chemical Agents: A response op on intended to disable a person with the use of chemicals,
inflammatory agents, or similar substances (e.g., OC or CS) that has an irrita ng or disabling effect
upon human beings. Incapacita ng agents are designed to produce temporary physiological or mental
effects, or both, which will render individuals incapable of concerted effort. This is considered the use
of non-deadly force.
E. Command / Officer Presence: The presence of a law enforcement officer who is willing and able to
handle a situa on, and the ability to speak clearly authorita vely, issuing concise commands
using a tone that reflects control and professionalism.
1A-1
F. Compliance Techniques: Methods of arrest, restraint and control that include the manipula on of
joints, pressure point applica ons, and take down techniques to control a resistant or aggressive
offender.
G. Conducted Electrical Weapon (CEW): An incapacita ng weapon that uses electricity against a
person, causing involuntary muscle contrac on, and overriding the person’s voluntary motor
responses. This is considered an intermediate level use of non-deadly force.
H. Deadly Force: Physical force which a person uses with the intent of causing, or which the person
knows to create a substan al risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury, including, but not limited
to the inten onal, knowing or reckless discharge of a firearm in the direc on of another person or at a
moving vehicle.
I. De-escala on: Coupled with the considera on of safety priori es, the use of verbal or non-verbal
ac ons and tac cs, whenever feasible and possible, preceding a poten al force encounter. This may
include, but is not limited to the use of distance, cover, tac cal re-posi oning, and communica on in
order to stabilize the situa on, reduce the immediacy of the threat, and allow for more me and
op ons for resolu on. The goal of these tac cs is to slow down the situa on, allowing access to
addi onal resources (e.g., personnel, supervisors, specialized officers or teams) that may
mi gate the intensity of the encounter, help gain voluntary compliance, or otherwise allow for
control of the situa on and the safety of the officer, subject and others without the need to use force,
or with the use of a lower level of force.
J. Excessive Force: Physical force that is unreasonable, unnecessary or inappropriate given the
facts and circumstances known to the officer at the me the force was used.
K. Firearm: Any weapon whether loaded or unloaded, which is designed to expel a projec le by the
ac on of an explosive and includes a pistol, rifle, revolver, gun, machine gun or shotgun, but
not including the PepperBall system or a CEW device. Any weapon that can be made into a firearm
by the inser on of a firing pin, or other similar thing, or by repair, is a firearm.
L. Imminent: Impending, immediate or appearing as if about to happen or occur.
M. Impact Projec les (Less Lethal Muni ons): Specialty, low-kine c energy projec les, approved by the
MCJA Board of Trustees, designed to be discharged from a firearm and have a disabling effect upon
human beings. Law enforcement use of such muni ons is considered the use of non-deadly force.
N. Impact Tool / Weapon: A tool or device designed for use by an officer in close quarter physical
defense of the officer or another and / or control of an aggressive offender. The issued baton is a
department-approved impact tool.
O. Individual Ac ons: As a part of the Situa onal Use of Force assessment process, the categories below
can be used to describe an individual subject’s behavior:
● Coopera ve: Compliant and willing to obey, posing minimal threat to the officer(s) or others.
● Resis ve (Passive): Non-compliance, defiance or failure to cooperate with lawful verbal direc on,
but offering no resis ve or evasive bodily movement to prevent the officer’s a empt at physical
1A-2
control (e.g., a passive demonstrator, a person going limp, prone or refusing to stand up, lie down,
enter / exit vehicle, leave the scene, etc.).
● Resis ve (Ac ve): Physically resis ve or evasive bodily movement, including but not limited to
muscle tension, bracing, pushing, pulling, flailing or flight, to avoid or defeat an officer’s a empt
at physical control, or to prevent being taken into or retained in custody. Verbal
statements, defiance and belligerence alone do not cons tute ac ve resistance.
● Ac ve Aggression: A threat of an assault, coupled with any pre-a ack indicators (e.g., clenched
fists, flanking, figh ng stance, etc.) and the present ability to carry out the threat or
assault, reasonably indica ng that an assault or injury to the officer or another person is
imminent.
● Assaul ve (High Risk): An overt act of an assault, or highly agitated or comba ve ac ons or
behavior posing an imminent threat of injury to the officer or another. Such ac ons may include,
but are not limited to hos le physical or ac ve resistance, kicking, punching or spi ng, whether
an assault occurs or not.
● Life Threatening: Ac ons or behavior that could cause death or serious bodily injury,
poten ally jus fying the use of deadly force.
P. Less Lethal Force: Response op ons that are not designed or used with the inten on of causing (and
have less poten al for causing) death or serious bodily injury, including but not limited to
chemical agents, PepperBall, impact projec les or muni ons, or a CEW.
Q. Less than Lethal Muni ons: A low-kine c energy projec le designed to be discharged from a 40 mm
launcher that is approved by the Board of Trustees of the Maine Criminal Jus ce Academy that has
been designed to have a disabling effect upon human beings. The use of a less-than-lethal muni ons
weapon is considered to be the use of non-deadly force.
R. Neck (“choke”) hold: One of the following types of holds: (1) arm-bar control hold, a hold that
inhibits breathing by compression of the airway in the neck; (2) caro d restraint hold, a hold that
inhibits blood flow by compression of the blood vessels in the neck; (3) lateral vascular neck
constraint; or (4) a hold with a knee or other object to the back of a prone subject's neck, all of which
are considered lethal force.
S. Non-Deadly Force: Any physical force that is not deadly force.
T. Officer Response Op ons: Choices available to an officer concerning the type of force to be used in
response to resistance in a given situa on, including but not limited to officer / command presence,
voice commands, de-escala on, compliance techniques, CEWs, chemical agents, impact weapons,
canines, and deadly force.
U. PepperBall Projec les: Plas c spheres that are filled with pelargonic acid vanillylamide (PAVA)
and are delivered by a special launching device. With the excep on of specialized (e.g glass-breaking
rounds) use of PepperBall projec les is considered the use of non-deadly force.
V. Physical Force: Any physical power or kine c energy exerted by an officer to coerce, overcome,
control or restrain another individual to comply or submit. The actual exercise of some form of Kine c
energy (one person to another) of such a nature as to create an imminent and substan al risk of
causing bodily harm.
1A-3
W. Reasonable Belief: When facts or circumstances provided to or known to the officer are such as to
cause an ordinary and prudent officer to act or think in a similar way under similar circumstances.
X. Safety Priori es: A decision-making process which provides the framework for making tac cally
sound decisions, u lizing objec ve criteria based on an individual’s current or likely risk of suffering
serious bodily injury or death and their ability to remove themselves from that danger. Those
exposed to the greatest poten al of injury with the least ability to escape the situa on are placed at
the top of the priori es (e.g., a hostage held against their will who has li le ability to control the
situa on). On the other end of the con nuum is the suspect or subject who has li le threat
of injury by others and is in control over the situa on. The safety priori es value all life and its
intent is to assist law enforcement in making tac cal decisions to assist in saving lives.
Y. Serious Bodily Injury: Bodily injury which creates a substan al risk of death, or which causes
serious, permanent disfigurement or loss or substan al impairment of the func on of any bodily
member or organ, or extended convalescence for recovery of physical health.
Z. Situa onal Use of Force Op ons: A dynamic process by which an officer assesses, plans and responds
to situa ons that threaten public and officer safety and require the use of force and control. The
process includes an assessment of the situa on and circumstances immediately confron ng the
officer, including but not limited to the severity of the crime or suspected offense, the level and
imminence of any threat to the officers or public, the level of resistance, the risk or apparent a empt
to flee or escape; the suspect’s behavior and individual ac ons (coopera ve, resis ve (passively or
ac vely), assaul ve / high risk, or posing a threat of death or serious bodily injury); and to the officer’s
percep ons and tac cal considera ons. Based on this assessment, the officer selects from the
available officer response op ons while con nuing to evaluate the evolving situa on, adap ng a
plan and ac ons that are appropriate and effec ve in bringing the situa on under control.
AA. Op on of Availability: Flashlights, vehicles, tools, implements, objects or other devices or techniques
that are not necessarily issued, intended or normally authorized as response op ons, but that may be
used in extraordinary circumstances when their use would be jus fiable and no other adequate
or suitable defensive op on is immediately available.
IV. TRAINING / PROFICIENCY / DUTY TO ACT
A. Only sworn and cer fied personnel, who have been trained on this SOP and demonstrate proficiency
in the use of the department’s authorized firearms and less lethal force op ons, as may be
established by the department or the Maine Criminal Jus ce Academy, will be permi ed to carry or
use them on or off-duty.
B. Ini al weapons proficiency will be achieved through training and qualifica on during the Field
Training program. Training will include instruc on on safe handling, storage and maintenance
procedures. Con nued proficiency with all authorized firearms (both lethal and impact projec les)
and the CEW will be demonstrated by successful comple on of annual training and qualifica on.
Annual training should include relevant review of this SOP. All firearms and less lethal force response
op ons training and qualifica ons will be documented and supervised by trained and / or cer fied
instructors.
1A-4
C. Training in other less lethal response op ons (O.C., PepperBall, impact baton and defensive tac cs)
must be conducted at least biennially.
D. If an officer fails to qualify with a firearm as outlined in SOP 1B, or demonstrate proficiency with
another less lethal response, the instructor shall no fy the Chief of Police, in wri ng, on the same
date, and will develop a remedial training (lesson) plan, subject to approval by the Chief of Police or
designee, to include the type of remedial training and the metable to address the deficiencies.
The officer will be placed on an altered or administra ve assignment pending successful comple on
of the training / qualifica on, and must not carry or use the firearm or less lethal response op on
un l having demonstrated proficiency.
E. Failure to qualify following remedial training will result in further review or evalua on of fitness for
duty, which may result in ac on up to and including termina on.
F. An officer has a duty to intervene, at the earliest, safe opportunity, to prevent or stop the known or
apparent use of excessive force by another officer when it is objec vely reasonable to do so. The
incident must be immediately reported, verbally and in wri ng, to a supervisor.
V. RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE JUSTIFICATIONS
Officers are authorized to use force to overcome a suspect’s resistance or to accomplish some other
lawful law enforcement objec ve for which force is lawful, necessary and appropriate. Officers derive
their authority to use force from applicable Maine State laws and guidelines. As such, officers
should be familiar with the laws and guidelines contained in 17-A M.R.S.A. § 104, 105, 106(6), 107, 108
and 110, as well as the ARREST Chapter of the Maine Law Enforcement Officer’s Manual. Officers shall
only carry department-authorized weapons, and with the excep on of an authorized use of a op on of
availability, should only use weapons a er being trained in their use.
A. USE OF NON-DEADLY FORCE: An officer is jus fied in responding to resistance using a reasonable
degree of non-deadly force upon another person:
1. when and to the extent the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to effect an arrest or prevent
the escape from custody of an arrested person, unless the officer knows the arrest or deten on is
illegal; OR in self-defense or to defend a third person from what the officer reasonably
believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force encountered while a emp ng to
effect such an arrest or while seeking to prevent such an escape; OR
2. in self-defense or to defend a third person from what the officer actually and reasonably believes
to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force, and the officer actually and reasonably
believes that the officer’s use of non-deadly force is necessary; OR
3. to prevent or thwart the commission of a person’s suicide, or a person’s self-inflic on of serious
bodily injury; and / or to exercise protec ve custody of a person, consistent with 34-B M.R.S.A. §
3862.
B. USE OF DEADLY FORCE: An officer is jus fied in responding to resistance using deadly force only when
the officer reasonably believes such force is necessary:
1A-5
1. for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the officer reasonably believes is the
imminent use of unlawful deadly force; OR
2. to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a person when the officer reasonably believes the
person has commi ed a crime involving the use or threatened use of deadly force, is using a
dangerous weapon in a emp ng to escape, or otherwise indicates that the person is likely to
seriously endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury, unless apprehended without delay,
AND the officer has made reasonable efforts to advise the person that the officer is a law
enforcement officer a emp ng to effect an arrest or prevent the escape from arrest and the
officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of the advice, or the officer
reasonably believes that the person otherwise knows that the officer is a law enforcement officer
a emp ng to effect an arrest or prevent an escape. The mere fact that a person is a “fleeing
felon” does NOT, in and of itself, jus fy the use of deadly force (Tennessee v. Garner). Deadly
force may not be used against an unarmed, non-violent, property crime offender; OR
3. to destroy any animal that is obviously vicious or aggressive and presents a direct or poten al
threat of killing or seriously injuring any person. Supervisory approval should be obtained,
whenever possible. Dispatching or euthanizing an animal is not considered a use of force.
Where reasonably prac cal and permi ed by the circumstances, officers should iden fy as a
law enforcement officer and warn of their intent to use deadly force.
VI RESPONSE OPTION GUIDELINES
A. Consistent with Maine state standards, the department has adopted the Situa onal Use of Force
response model, the underlying principle of which is threat assessment. During any incident in which
force is jus fied to respond to resistance, officers are expected to use good judgment in
assessing a situa on and determining which response op on would best defuse a situa on and
bring it under control. The key to using the proper type of force is recognizing a threat.
B. Consistent with the Graham v. Connor decision, officers must, on an ongoing basis, assess the totality
of the circumstances, including but not limited to:
1. The severity or seriousness of the crime or suspected offense;
2. The level of threat or resistance presented by the subject;
3. The risk or apparent a empt by the subject to flee or escape; and
4. Whether the subject was posing an imminent threat to the officer(s) or others.
C. An officer may assess or perceive a situa on based, in part, on the suspect’s individual ac ons and
behaviors (i.e., coopera ve, resistant (passively or ac vely), assaul ve or posing a threat of death or
serious bodily injury); the officer’s objec ve percep ons and tac cal considera ons; the
environment; the number of individuals; the perceived abili es and knowledge of the individuals;
the number of officers (or availability of backup); each officer’s unique skill levels and
competencies; me and distance; and any objec ve indicators signaling an a ack.
D. Use of physical force should terminate when resistance ceases or when it is objec vely reasonable that
a subject is fully in the control of law enforcement.
1A-6
E. Based upon that assessment, safety priori es, and the officer’s training, educa on and experience, an
officer must decide upon a proper and reasonable response op on, either deadly or non-deadly force,
as depicted and further described below:
F. Consistent with State and Federal laws, the response op ons available within the situa onal use of
force matrix, and notwithstanding the jus fied use of any Op on of Availability, in response to a given
situa on, officers jus fied to respond to resistance may consider the reasonableness, appropriateness
and necessity to use one or more of the following authorized non-deadly or less lethal force response
op ons:
1. Officer Presence (Non-Verbal): The appearance of an officer who is willing and able to
handle a situa on. Officers should use tac cal de-escala on techniques, such as distance, cover,
and tac cal re- posi oning to gain me, as appropriate, and other alterna ves to higher levels of
force, consistent with SOP and training. Remember the tac cal resolu on equa on of Distance +
Cover = Time.
2. Professional / Command Presence (Verbal): Whenever such delay will not compromise the safety
of the officer or another and will not result in the destruc on of evidence, escape of a
suspect, or commission of a crime, officers should make every a empt to achieve control through
the use of tac cal de-escala on techniques, coupled with advisements, warnings, persuasion,
appeals, and the use of clear, concise and direct advice or commands while using a tone
that reflects control and professionalism, without the undue use of profanity or argument.
Whenever feasible, an officer will allow the subject an opportunity to comply with the officer’s
verbal commands prior to resor ng to a use of force.
1A-7
3. Control / Compliance Techniques & Restraints: Includes the use of empty hands, impact tools
and / or mechanical restraints (e.g., handcuffs and / or leg cuffs, and may include the applica on
of strength, leverage, takedowns, control holds, and / or come-alongs, using hands, feet, fists,
knees or baton. The purpose of these op ons is to gain control, forcing the suspect’s compliance
while minimizing the risk of injury to the officer, bystanders, or the person being taken into
custody. Neck holds are prohibited, unless deadly force is jus fied.
4. Chemical Agents (OC Spray): Although not universal, chemical agents have displayed a high level
of effec veness and low poten al for las ng injury and may be used to supplement other
means of controlling a subject:
a. AUTHORIZED USE: OC spray may be a response op on:
1) When physical force is jus fied to control or subdue a person ac vely resis ng arrest; a
person exhibi ng ac ve aggression; or whose individual ac ons are assaul ve (high
risk) or life threatening, leading to a reasonable belief that the person poses an
immediate threat to the officer or another person and it would be unsafe, ineffec ve
or imprac cal for officers to approach within contact range, or a empt to subdue the
person by other conven onal tac cs.
2) When physical force is jus fied to control or subdue a person who overtly poses an
imminent and substan al threat of harm to themself.
3) To defend oneself or another from a vicious or aggressive animal.
b. RESTRICTIONS: Considera on should be given as to whether the use of chemical agents will
help or hinder the opera on because of the physical limita ons and / or the need for
decontamina on. The use of chemical agents should be avoided where it would affect
children or innocent bystanders, unless the exigency of the situa on dictates otherwise.
Chemical agents shall not be used on a coopera ve or passively resistant person; on a
person solely due to belligerence or verbal defiance; on anyone under effec ve restraint; to
punish, in midate or coerce a subject; for purposes of demonstra on, experimenta on
or horseplay against any person, even a volunteer, unless as part of department sanc oned
training; to rouse an unconscious, impaired, disabled or intoxicated person; or to elicit
informa on or to threaten or in midate, without legal jus fica on.
c. POST APPLICATION: As soon as prac cal a er a chemical agent applica on, officers should
assist with decontamina on by providing fresh air and water. Officers should monitor the
exposed person’s health and should counsel and provide informa on about OC effects to an
exposed person.
5. Canine (K-9):
a. AUTHORIZED USE: A cer fied police canine may be a response op on for instances in which
non-deadly force is jus fied to control or subdue a person ac vely resis ng arrest, to
include any person suspected of fleeing a er having commi ed a violent or other serious
crime; a person displaying ac ve aggression; or a person whose individual ac ons are
assaul ve (high risk) or life threatening towards the officer or another person present, leading
to a reasonable belief that the person poses an immediate threat to the officer or another
1A-8
person and it would be unsafe, ineffec ve or imprac cal for officers to approach within
contact range, or a empt to subdue the person by other conven onal tac cs; OR when
physical force is jus fied to control or subdue a person who poses an imminent and
substan al threat of physical harm to that person, the officer, or another.
b. RESTRICTIONS: Unless otherwise jus fied, reasonable and necessary, a police canine
shall not be deployed to apprehend a coopera ve or passively resistant person; a person
solely due to belligerence or verbal defiance; a person fleeing from a property or other
non-violent crime; a person the officer knows or reasonably believes to be pregnant;
elderly and / or visibly frail, to include persons known or believed to be over the age of
sixty-five (65), a juvenile believed to be under the age of eighteen (18); or a person who is
handcuffed and under effec ve restraint.
c. DEPLOYMENT: A warning should be given prior to the deployment of a canine, unless it
would be tac cally unsafe to do so. The handler shall cause the canine to disengage
immediately when it becomes reasonably apparent that the suspect has surrendered, readily
complies with the officers’ direc ons, is no longer a threat, and / or when sufficient law
enforcement personnel are available to safely take the suspect into custody.
6. Conducted Electrical Weapon (CEW):
a. READINESS: Officers are responsible for immediately repor ng any issues (e.g., missing or
damaged equipment) to the Shi Commander, who will be responsible for the overall
accountability of the department’s CEW units.
b. AUTHORIZED USE: A CEW may be a response op on:
1) To control or subdue a person ac vely resis ng arrest, exhibi ng ac ve aggression, or
whose individual ac ons are assaul ve (high risk) or life threatening, leading to a
reasonable belief that the person poses an immediate threat to the officer or another
person and it would be unsafe, ineffec ve or imprac cal for officers to approach within
contact range, or a empt to subdue the person by other conven onal tac cs.
2) To control or subdue a person who overtly poses an imminent and substan al threat of
harm to themself, and it would be unsafe, ineffec ve or imprac cal for officers to
approach within contact range, or a empt to subdue the person by other conven onal
tac cs.
3) To defend oneself or another from a vicious or aggressive animal.
c. RESTRICTIONS: Unless otherwise jus fied, reasonable, necessary and appropriate, officers
SHALL NOT use a CEW:
1) On a coopera ve or passively resistant person, or a person who is solely belligerent or
verbally defiant;
2) On a person merely because that person is fleeing or a emp ng to escape;
3) On a person the officer knows or reasonably believes to be pregnant, elderly and / or
visibly frail, to include persons known or believed to be over the age of sixty-five (65), or
young children, to include persons known or believed to be under the age of fourteen
(14); or on a person who is handcuffed and under effec ve restraint;
1A-9
4) On a person in a posi on where a fall would likely cause serious bodily injury or death
(e.g., edge of a bridge, or body of water, in a body of water, or on top of a staircase, roof,
tree, or other elevated structure), unless deadly force is otherwise jus fied;
5) On a person in control of a mode of transporta on (e.g., automobiles, motorcycles,
bicycles, etc.) if the CEW use could reasonably result in the uncontrolled movement
of the transport vehicle;
6) To punish, in midate or coerce a subject, or to rouse an unconscious, impaired,
disabled or intoxicated person;
7) In the presence of poten ally flammable, vola le or explosive materials, including
alcohol-based OC Spray, gasoline, natural, and / or propane gas;
8) For purposes of demonstra on, experimenta on or horseplay against any person,
even a volunteer. Officers shall not be voluntarily or involuntarily “exposed” to a CEW
discharge.
d. DEPLOYMENT:
1) Officers responding to or at an incident where a CEW is used - or is an cipated - shall
no fy dispatch, the on-duty supervisor and EMS.
2) Officers may consider using the CEW, consistent with this SOP and their training, in any of
the following modes:
a) Laser Only – with verbal warning (non-contact)
b) Spark Check – with verbal warning (non-contact)
c) Probe Deployment – temporary incapacita on (primary / preferred) op on.
d) Drive (Touch) Stun – less effec ve (secondary / non-preferred) op on.
3) Unless it would be unsafe to do so, prior to deploying the CEW, officers should
verbally announce, “Taser-Taser” so that other officers are aware that a CEW is about to
be deployed. This will also provide the suspect an addi onal opportunity to cease the
conduct that has given rise to the intended CEW deployment.
4) The primary aiming point is a person’s back. Since it is not always possible to get
behind a person, secondary targe ng areas may include lower, front center mass / torso
or legs. Officers shall not target the face, neck, groin or upper chest areas, where
possible.
5) Only one officer should ac vate a CEW on a person at any one me, deploying the CEW for
one standard cycle (5 seconds) and then re-assessing. Officers must use the minimum
number of cycles necessary to accomplish the legi mate opera onal goal. If a CEW
remains ineffec ve a er three (3) cycles, or a er a con nuous cycle of more than 15
seconds, officers should avoid con nued cycling and consider alterna ve response
op ons.
6) Verbal commands should be provided throughout the contact. Back-up officers should
begin to take control of the subject while temporarily incapacitated.
7) Any accidental CEW deployments, or other unusual occurrences, should be documented in
a memo to the Major. That report must be forwarded through the Chain of Command to
the Lead CEW Instructor for considera on of future training needs.
e. POST-DEPLOYMENT: A er appropriate medical aid and clearance, whenever a person
has been exposed to a CEW:
1) If that person is transported to a deten on facility, the transpor ng officer shall
advise that facility’s staff of the CEW exposure.
1A-10
2) The CEW cartridge, lead wires and probes shall be collected and submi ed as evidence.
The probes should be treated as a biohazard.
3) The supervisor shall coordinate access to the CEW’s download discharge data that
will be forwarded as part of the report for the administra ve review.
7. Pepperball Projec les: In addi on to the above Chemical Agent guidelines:
a. The department has authorized PepperBall launchers as a less lethal force system,
combining chemical irritants (PAVA) and kine c energy (impact force), which may be a
response op on:
1) To control or subdue any person being taken into custody who is exhibi ng ac ve
aggression, or whose individual ac ons are assaul ve (high risk) and / or life
threatening, leading to a reasonable belief that the person poses an imminent threat to
the officer or another person and it would be unsafe, ineffec ve or imprac cal for officers
to approach within contact range, or a empt to subdue the person by other conven onal
tac cs.
2) To control or subdue a person who overtly poses an imminent and substan al threat of
harm to themself, and it would be unsafe, ineffec ve or imprac cal for officers to
approach within contact range, or a empt to subdue the person by other conven onal
tac cs.
3) To defend oneself or another from a vicious or aggressive animal.
b. Pepperball projec les are considered target accurate at up to 60 feet and can create a cloud of
O.C. powder at up to 150 feet. There is no minimum deployment stand-off distance. Officers
should target center mass and the extremi es and shall not target the face, neck, groin or
spine.
c. The PepperBall launcher may also be used to deploy specialty rounds, as authorized. Such
rounds shall not be deployed at a human being, unless deadly force is otherwise jus fied.
d. PepperBall deployment should be part of a coordinated response. Officers should
advise other officers prior to deployment in order to prevent sympathe c reac onary fire.
8. Impact Force: Impact force, including the use of hands, feet, fists, knees and the department
approved baton, provides officers with defensive op ons to defend themselves or others from
injury:
a. AUTHORIZED USE: Ac ve resistance, ac ve aggression, assaul ve (high risk) and / or life
threatening circumstances may warrant impact-type force.
b. APPLICATION: Baton strikes may be delivered to the person’s Weapon Delivery System, which
is the center mass of the arm, leg or body of the presented threat. The arms and the legs are
vehicles which transport force against the officer and are the preferred targets at a downward
45-degree angle. A center mass straight strike can also be used to create distance, or the
baton can be held at both ends and used with the length of the baton.
c. RESTRICTIONS: The baton shall not be used to strike any coopera ve or passively resistant
person; on a person solely due to belligerence or verbal defiance or any person who is under
effec ve restraint; nor to rouse an unconscious, impaired, disabled or intoxicated person, or
to punish, in midate or coerce a subject, elicit informa on or to threaten or in midate,
without legal jus fica on. Blows to the head, neck, spine, groin, solar plexus or rib cage may
1A-11
cause death or serious injury and should not be used, unless deadly force is otherwise
jus fied.
9. Impact Projec les: To the extent that the law enforcement use of impact projec les deployed
from a firearm is considered non-deadly force under Maine law (17-A MRSA, § 101(5)), it will also
be considered non-deadly force under this SOP:
a. READINESS:
1) Authorized and dedicated firearms must be maintained for deployment.
2) Deploying officers are responsible for verifying the weapon is loaded only with less lethal
impact projec les. Any officer who discovers lethal rounds in a designated less
lethal firearm shall immediately take correc ve ac on and report the discrepancy to a
supervisor.
B. AUTHORIZED USE: Impact projec les are intended to provide officers with another less
lethal response op on. Impact projec les may be appropriate:
1) To defend against what the officer actually and reasonably believes is the
imminent use of deadly force; and / or a person who is armed or appears /
alleges to be armed and / or is a emp ng to arm themselves with a poten ally
deadly weapon, and refuses to comply with or submit to the officer's lawful authority.
2) On a person who overtly poses an imminent and substan al threat of harm to
themself, and it would be unsafe, ineffec ve or imprac cal for officers to approach
within contact range, or a empt to subdue the person by other conven onal tac cs.
3) As a "door knocker” or window opener during high-risk tac cal incidents.
c. RESTRICTIONS: Impact projec les should generally be used a er other conven onal
tac cs have been, or likely will be, ineffec ve or imprac cal under the circumstances.
Without legal authority, jus fica on and / or exigent circumstances, officers SHALL NOT
use impact projec les:
1) On a coopera ve or resistant person; a person solely due to belligerence or verbal
defiance; or on any person whose ac ons are not life threatening to that person or
another person; or on any person the officer knows or reasonably believes to be
pregnant, elderly and / or visibly frail, to include persons known or believed to be over
the age of sixty-five (65), or persons known or believed to be juveniles under the age
of eighteen (18).
2) In a crowd or crowd control situa on, including against subjects who are physically
engaged with other officers or not isolated from bystanders.
3) On a person in a posi on where a fall would likely cause serious bodily injury or death
(e.g., edge of a bridge or body of water or top of a staircase, roof, tree, or elevated
structure), unless deadly force is otherwise jus fied.
4) On a person in control of a mode of transporta on (e.g., automobiles, motorcycles,
bicycles, etc.), if the deployment could reasonably result in the uncontrolled
movement of the vehicle.
5) To punish, in midate or coerce a subject.
6) Against any person, even a volunteer, for purposes of training, demonstra on or
horseplay.
d. DEPLOYMENT: With supervisory approval, impact projec les may be used as part of a
coordinated and planned effort and response to a cri cal incident:
1A-12
1) The intended deployment of impact projec les should be communicated to other
officers within the area of the incident in order to avoid sympathe c reac onary fire.
2) Unless deadly force is jus fied, impact projec les should be deployed within their
op mal range, generally between 15 feet and 75 feet.
3) When deploying impact projec les, officers should target the extremi es, specifically
including the thigh, lower leg, bu ock or lower arm. If impacts to these areas
are ineffec ve, inappropriate or too dangerous, and the circumstances jus fy a
poten ally higher risk of injury, officers may target the lower abdomen. Officers shall
not target the head, neck, center mass, spine or groin.
4) In order to reduce the likelihood of injury, only one officer should deploy impact
projec les on a person at any one me. Deploying officers should a empt verbal
dialogue, sight a proper target loca on, fire a single round and then assess the
results. This sequence should be repeated, as deemed reasonably necessary
and appropriate under the circumstances, with considera on being given to
alterna ve tac cs when it appears that the technique is not working, and the
injury risk of mul volleys outweighs the value of con nuing the deployment.
10. Deadly Force: Consistent with State and Federal laws and the situa onal use of force concept
depicted above, and notwithstanding the jus fied use of any incapacita ng force method, to
include any op on of availability, officers’ response to resistance may require the need to
resort to the use of deadly force. Officers may use departmental firearms, as trained, and
consistent with state and federal laws, this SOP, and SOP #1-1B. In recogni on of the sanc ty
of human life, although officers should make every a empt to exhaust all other means prior
to the applica on of deadly force, any officer otherwise jus fied in using deadly force should
but is not required to a empt the use of any alterna ve, less lethal or non-deadly force
response op ons prior to the appropriate and reasonable applica on of deadly force.
VII. EMS RESPONSE / MEDICAL AID:
A. Whenever an officer uses force, either deadly or non-deadly, that results in injury, or otherwise
requires an EMS response or hospital transport, as outlined below, the officer shall ensure that
appropriate medical aid is rendered as soon as prac cal. Appropriate medical aid may include
increased observa on, decontamina on of chemical agents, applying first aid, EMS evalua on or
transport and / or, for more serious or life-threatening incidents, immediate aid by emergency
room medical staff.
B. Officers shall request that EMS respond and evaluate any subject a er the following uses of force:
1. Any applica on of deadly force, or deployment of a firearm or impact projec le;
2. Any police K-9 bite;
3. Any baton strike resul ng in injury or complaint of injury, or as otherwise deemed appropriate by
the officer or supervisor.
4. Any chemical agent applica on, including O.C. and Pepperball, as the supervisor deems
appropriate for decontamina on and / or medical assessment;
5. Any CEW deployment or contact:
a. In general, the on-scene supervisor, another officer not involved in the use of force, or MedCU
staff is authorized to remove CEW probes from a person’s body. If the person was struck in
the eyes, head, genitals, female breasts, or another sensi ve area, the person should be
1A-13
transported to the hospital, as only medical personnel will be authorized to remove such
probes.
b. The Shi Commander or on-scene supervisor shall ensure that any person who falls into one
of the restricted / vulnerable classes (e.g., pregnant woman, elderly or visibly frail person, or
young child), OR who is believed to have been exposed to a consecu ve or cumula ve CEW
applica on of fi een (15) seconds or more, OR who is believed to have been exposed to
simultaneous applica ons by more than one CEW, is transported to the hospital for a medical
evalua on.
6. Any other me an officer or supervisor deems it to be appropriate and / or prudent under
the circumstances, to include if requested by the subject, if the subject is exhibi ng signs of
excited delirium, or if the subject does not appear to fully recover – or maintains symptoms of
physical distress – shortly a er any use of force / control applica on.
C. Whenever an officer arrests or detains an individual and that person, loses consciousness, is injured or
claims to be injured during the course of the arrest or deten on in a manner that is unrelated to a use
of force, the officer shall immediately render aid, call for Medcu, and no fy a supervisor, who shall
immediately respond to the scene. If an incident or force report is not required to be completed, the
officer shall complete a casualty report, documen ng the injury. The supervisor shall complete a
supplement documen ng their ac ons and review. Any incident involving a death while in police
custody shall be handled in accordance with SOP 90A.
D. In situa ons that require a casualty report, the subject must be photographed in order to document
the injury. Any and all visible injuries to a subject and the scene must be photographed. An officer or
supervisor other than the officer who placed the subject in custody will be assigned to take the
photographs and should document any relevant statements made by the subject while being
photographed. The photos should be noted in the casualty report. If a person alleges an injury, but it
is not visible to the officer, photograph the area that the person claims is injured and document the
allega on and the fact of no visible injury.
E. All serious in-custody injuries require command staff no fica on; as outlined in SOP 48.
VIII. REPORTING:
A. Whenever an officer ac ng in an official capacity response op ons that include deadly, less-lethal or
non- deadly force against another person, including physical force greater than un-resisted
handcuffing, the officer shall immediately call a superior officer to the scene or, if that is not
prac cal, contact a superior officer as soon as possible following the incident. If a superior officer is
unable to respond to the scene, that fact shall be noted in the Use of Force report.
B. All reportable uses of force must be documented in a Use of Force report. The following are reportable
uses of force:
1. applica on of deadly force;
2. physical force that involves physical force techniques to overcome resistance;
3. the applica on of force by a firearm, Taser, baton, O.C. Spray, impact projec le, canine,
pepperball, striking an individual with hands, feet, knees or elbow or any other weapon or
implement;
4. any me the Shi Commander, a er consulta on with the supervisor and officer using force,
deems it reportable.
1A-14
C. In all situa ons that require a Use of Force report, the subject must be photographed in order to
document injury or lack of injury. Any and all visible injuries to a suspect or an officer, whether or not
the injuries are caused by the use of force, must be photographed. An officer or supervisor,
other than the officer who applied the force, shall be assigned to take photographs and document
any relevant statements made by the subject during the photographing. If a person alleges an
injury, but it is not visible to the officer, photograph the area that the person claims is injured,
documen ng the allega on and the fact that no injury was visible.
D. All blank spaces on the Use of Force report shall be completed by the officer who has used force. The
officer shall make a diligent a empt to obtain all informa on necessary to complete the report. If
informa on remains unknown a er a diligent a empt, the officer shall mark such space “unknown.”
An officer who is a witness to a use of force may be required to complete a supplement and a ach it
to the Use of Force report. Upon comple on of the report, it shall be forwarded to the immediate
supervisor of the officer wri ng the report. The Use of Force report must be completed and forwarded
to the officer's immediate superior officer by the end of the shi in which the force is used.
E. In the case of an SRT or other specialty type call-out, the Major, SRT Commander, or their
designee shall file an a er-ac on report on behalf of the en re team documen ng the ac vi es of
the team in detail and addressing any areas of concern related to department policy, training,
equipment or tac cs. Any team member that engaged in a reportable use of force during the
call-out shall complete a Use of Force report or supplement at the direc on of the Major or
supervisor. The a er ac on report shall be reviewed by the command staff and use of force
commi ee, as applicable.
IX. REVIEW:
A. The immediate supervisor of the involved officer(s) will interview the officer(s), any other officer(s)
present at the use of force, the subject upon whom force was used, and any witnesses.
B. The interviews will be recorded and geared towards determining the facts and the subject’s
understanding of the situa on. The interviews must be recorded and then summarized by the
supervisor in the review por on of the Use of Force report or related supplement.
C. The responding supervisor should addi onally ensure that any injured individuals receive immediate
medical a en on. If treatment at a medical facility is necessary, the supervisor should ensure that
the involved officer does not transport or maintain custody of the injured individual during the
medical treatment process.
D. If the use of force results in serious bodily injury, the Shi Commander will ini ate a command
no fica on. The Assistant Chief will no fy the Internal Affairs Lieutenant who will assign an
inves gator to begin an immediate inves ga on. All uses of deadly force shall be inves gated as
outlined in SOP 52A.
E. The use of a firearm, the delivery of a hit or strike to a subject’s head with a baton or other Heavy
object or the use of a neck hold will be reviewed by the department as the use of deadly force. In
cases involving these types of force that do not result in serious bodily injury, the on-duty Shi
Commander will arrange for command staff no fica on; as outlined in SOP 48.
1A-15
F. A er the inves ga on is completed; the Shi Commander shall review the completed Use of Force
report and any supplemental reports to ensure that the Use of Force report and inves ga on is
thorough and complete. If in the Shi Commander’s judgment, the officer or supervisor has not
provided sufficient details regarding the incident, they shall return the report for further clarifica on.
Once the Use of Force report is complete, it shall be forwarded through the command review process.
The Use of Force report shall not accompany nor be filed with any arrest or incident report. A er a
report is reviewed administra vely, if it is determined that a viola on may have occurred
warran ng inves ga on, the ma er will be referred to Internal Affairs. If it is believed that the
officer engaged in criminal conduct, the Police Chief is mandated to forward the report to the Office
of the District A orney or the Office of the A orney General and the Director of the Maine
Criminal Jus ce Academy. Any such ma ers will be handled through the Internal Affairs in lieu of
the below described commi ee process.
G. The Professional Standards lieutenant will maintain all Use of Force reports. This will allow for the
tracking and analyzing of all such incidents.
H. The Use of Force Review Commi ee, chaired by the Professional Standards lieutenant, will meet
monthly to review use of force incidents in detail. In addi on, the commi ee will consist of the
Command staff, the Internal Affairs Sergeant(s), a PBA representa ve, a SOA representa ve, the
Police A orney, any subject ma er experts as deemed appropriate by the Chair or Command staff,
and a neutral member of the public, who is a resident of the City of Portland, appointed by the City
Manager in consulta on with the Police Chief. The appointee may be removed by the City Manager
for any reason that is not arbitrary, to include non- par cipa on in mee ngs or requisite training
and viola ng confiden ality. Prior to par cipa ng in the commi ee, the civilian member will be
required to a end training, provided by the city and the department, related to confiden ality
requirements, legal principles in use of force review, as well as this and other relevant police
department policies, training and procedures. The civilian must also par cipate in at least one
“ride-along” within the first six months of appointment, and will annually par cipate in at least one
ride- along and observe and par cipate in police department use of force and response to resistance
training. The civilian member is expected to par cipate equally in the commi ee discussions,
providing an addi onal perspec ve.
I. The Chair shall schedule the commi ee mee ngs and provide the commi ee with all per nent
informa on covering the incident and officer(s) in ques on.
J. The Command staff and the Use of Force Review Commi ee shall use the following criteria in
reviewing use of force incidents:
1. Did the officer u lize an appropriate level of force for the situa on;
2. Were the officer's ac ons reasonable;
3. Did the officer use department-authorized weapon systems and tools in an appropriate manner;
4. Was the force promptly reported and correctly documented;
5. Was the use of force consistent with the officer's training and experience;
6. Did the officer a empt to de-escalate the situa on prior to the use of force (if feasible);
7. Did the officer place other members of the public at risk by the their ac ons;
8. Did the officer's ac ons contribute to the necessity to use force;
9. Did the use of force policy effec vely address the situa on;
10. Was department training adequate;
1A-16
11. Were the use of force op ons available to the officer adequate to control the situa on;
12. Is there a pa ern of misuse of this type of force, either by a par cular officer or department-wide;
13. Was the use of force within Department policy?
K. A er reviewing each incident, the commi ee will seek to iden fy ac ons that may indicate a
policy or procedure viola on, a training need, a policy or procedure modifica on or an equipment
deficiency.
L. If the Commi ee does iden fy a problema c event, it shall recommend such steps to be taken
as are necessary to correct the problem. This shall include, but not be limited to: ordering a wri en
clarifica on of the incident; the filing of an internal complaint; ordering remedial training or
counseling; recommending a change in standard opera ng procedure or recommending modifica ons
to issued equipment. The Police Chief and Command staff retain full authority for all opera onal
decisions, including training and discipline.
M. By April 1 of the following year, the Professional Standards lieutenant, shall review and compile
sta s cs and complete an annual analysis and report to the command staff of all response to
resistance repor ng incidents and complaints for the preceding year. The purpose of the annual
review is to iden fy long-term pa erns or trends, which may be of concern to the Department.
N. All use of force incidents for the past calendar year will be analyzed by the Professional Standards
Lieutenant. A trending analysis of force incidents for the whole organiza on and units within the
organiza on will also be completed.
O. Consistent with Maine State law and with the unions’ approval, all Use of Force reports may be
maintained electronically. Reports will be maintained for seven years.
1A-17
Agenda
City of Portland
Police Citizen Review Subcommittee
AGENDA
December 11, 2024
6:00 PM
1. Zoom information
a. On Wednesday, December 11, 2024 at 6:00 p.m., the Police Citizen Review
Subcommittee will conduct a virtual meeting. This meeting will take place remotely
using Zoom.
This meeting will be held remotely pursuant to the Remote Meeting Policy adopted
by the Police Citizen Review Subcommittee and as authorized under 1 M.R.S. 403-B.
Allow your computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best meeting experience.
If you are not able to attend live, a recording will be available following the meeting.
For public comment, you will need to use the "raise your hand" feature. To raise your
hand via the telephone, please hit *9. You will be unmuted by the host when it is time
for public comment.
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://portlandmaine-
gov.zoom.us/j/83494470621?pwd=PqEvbCqi4naT2Pa1QNco1u4TPI1U3Q.1
Passcode: 928732
Or One tap mobile :
+13126266799,,83494470621# US (Chicago)
+16469313860,,83494470621# US
Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 646 931 3860 US
The November meeting was cancelled due to a lack of a quorum and November's agenda
2.
was moved to this month’s agenda.
3. Call to Order
4. Approval of October 9, 2024 minutes
a. October 9, 2024 meeting minutes
5. Potential update on the new Civil Police Review Board ordinance
6. Use of Force Report presentation
a. Use of Force Report
7. Workshop: role/responsibilities of the PCRS Board and IA process overview
a. PowerPoint presentation
b. Complainant letter template
8. Public comment on agenda items
9. Executive session pursuant to 1 M.R.S. Sec. 405(6)(F) to discuss IA 2024-17
10. Public comment on agenda items
11. Topics for next month’s meeting
12. Adjourn
Packet
City of Portland
Police Citizen Review Subcommittee
AGENDA
December 11, 2024
6:00 PM
1. Zoom information
a. On Wednesday, December 11, 2024 at 6:00 p.m., the Police Citizen Review
Subcommittee will conduct a virtual meeting. This meeting will take place remotely
using Zoom.
This meeting will be held remotely pursuant to the Remote Meeting Policy adopted
by the Police Citizen Review Subcommittee and as authorized under 1 M.R.S. 403-B.
Allow your computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best meeting experience.
If you are not able to attend live, a recording will be available following the meeting.
For public comment, you will need to use the "raise your hand" feature. To raise your
hand via the telephone, please hit *9. You will be unmuted by the host when it is time
for public comment.
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://portlandmaine-
gov.zoom.us/j/83494470621?pwd=PqEvbCqi4naT2Pa1QNco1u4TPI1U3Q.1
Passcode: 928732
Or One tap mobile :
+13126266799,,83494470621# US (Chicago)
+16469313860,,83494470621# US
Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 646 931 3860 US
The November meeting was cancelled due to a lack of a quorum and November's agenda
2.
was moved to this month’s agenda.
3. Call to Order
4. Approval of October 9, 2024 minutes
a. October 9, 2024 meeting minutes
5. Potential update on the new Civil Police Review Board ordinance
Page 1
6. Use of Force Report presentation
a. Use of Force Report
7. Workshop: role/responsibilities of the PCRS Board and IA process overview
a. PowerPoint presentation
b. Complainant letter template
8. Public comment on agenda items
9. Executive session pursuant to 1 M.R.S. Sec. 405(6)(F) to discuss IA 2024-17
10. Public comment on agenda items
11. Topics for next month’s meeting
12. Adjourn
Page 2
MINUTES
POLICE CITIZEN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
October 9, 2024
Meeting Held Remotely Via Zoom
Members present: Anne Hardcastle, Chair; Reverend Lewis, Vice-Chair; Xavier Botana
Gino Desruisseaux; Tim Smith; Joey Brunelle; Kaylin Kerina (joined at 6:46)
Staff present: Associate Corporation Counsel Rachel Millette; Chief Mark Dubois; Major Dan
Hondo; Lt. Jacob Titcomb
6:04 Call to order.
Motion was made by Reverend Lewis and seconded by Gino to adopt the September 11,
2024 meeting minutes. Passage 6-0.
Standing of the new ordinance:
Rachel reported that there is a plan of action for moving the new ordinance forward,
however, there needs to be more negotiations with the police unions before bringing the ordinance
back to the City Council, hopefully in December. Rachel will inform the subcommittee when the
exact date is as soon as she knows. Reverend Lewis asked about the City Council timeline as it
relates the number of readings this will need. Rachel responded that if the ordinance is added to a
December agenda it would likely be in an executive session and then opened up after into a
workshop session. There may be different approaches to the process if the City Council decides
to make significant changes to the ordinance, it could be sent to committee where the changes
would be made and then workshopped. If the City Council comes to an agreement of what the
ordinance would look like, there would be two readings of the ordinance, the first of which is not
open to public comment. The second read is open to public comment before the City Council
votes on the ordinance.
Joey pointed out that there will be three new city council members and that a workshop
would be appropriate. Xavier asked what version of the ordinance the police unions are bargaining
over. Rachel expressed that the police negotiations are confidential. Xavier asked if the PCRS
will see the ordinance before it goes to the City Council. Rachel responded that once the ordinance
is presented to the City Council in executive session, it will then be workshopped, and then the
PCRS should be able to review it before it is voted on by the City Council. Rachel expressed that
there are a lot of moving parts and that there is no way to predict if the City Council will want
changes. Rachel suggested that the PCRS schedule a special meeting to review the ordinance if
the timing doesn’t align with their normally scheduled monthly meeting. Joey pointed out that the
PCRS meets on 11/13 and 12/11, the City Council meets on December 2, which may end up being
the inaugural meeting for new members. Joey predicted that there could be a workshop on
December 9 before the PCRS December 11 meeting.
Reverend Lewis asked if the PCRS could authorize the Chair to speak/write on behalf of
the PCRS to the City Council with its response regarding the new ordinance. Rachel agreed that
it could be done that way, or workshopped, though she cautioned the subcommittee about not
Page 3
meeting outside of the public forum. Anne asked if they planned a special meeting what kind of
advance notice would the public need. Rachel answered that there are no hard and fast meeting
notice rules adding that she will know well in advance of seven days when the City Council
workshop will take place.
Anne inquired about the timing of the transition from the PCRS to the Citizen Police
Review Board (CPRB). Rachel responded that once the ordinance is passed, it will go into effect
after 30 days, then the PCRS will be dissolved, and an appointment process will begin for the new
CPRB, similar to the process that has been in place. Preference will be given for current members
to serve on the new, larger board. Anne surmised that theoretically it could be 30-60 days before
the new board is in place.
Joey asked how to go about bringing up a subject previously discussed at an earlier
meeting. Rachel answered that the subcommittee sets the next meeting’s agenda at the end of each
meeting. If something comes up after a meeting, she suggests that he email her and Anne and
Anne can decide if the subject should be added to the agenda. Rachel said the individual
conversations around procedural topics can take place between two individuals and explained that
nothing confidential should be discussed and to avoid a quorum.
No public comment was offered.
Reverend Lewis motioned to postpone review of IA2024-006 until the next meeting, Joey
seconded.
Reverend Lewis explained that he believes that the case should be reviewed by the person
it was assigned to – thus postponing the case until the next meeting for Kay to review the case.
Anne agreed with postponing the case. Joey asked if they need to wait a whole month before
reviewing the case. Anne responded that there is precedence of postponing meetings, thus it is not
usual practice to hold a special meeting to review a case. Reverend Lewis re-stated his motion to
defer the review of IA2024-006 until the next regular meeting of the PCRS. Tim seconded. Xavier
suggested that the subcommittee appoint two people to each case to review, the second person
acting as back-up. Anne agreed that it would be good practice and volunteered to be that person.
Xavier volunteered to be the second person for the pending case.
Passed 6-0.
Next month’s agenda:
Anne suggested that they hold a workshop around the subcommittee’s roles – what they do
and how they function so that the group is moving forward in the same direction. Rachel can help
with some of it. Rachel and Anne will come up with an agenda. Joey would like the committee
to develop SOPs for different aspects of what they do.
There are currently no new cases to review next month.
Joey asked about the Use of Force Report which was emailed to the subcommittee and if
it would be added to agenda next month. Joey also asked about an earlier case which resulted in
a vote that deemed the case was not thorough, not objective and not fair and what happened as a
result of that vote. Anne suggested that they cover that in a workshop. Rachel will provide a copy
of the redacted complainant letter that was sent. Xavier would like a forum to discuss the Use of
Force Report. Rachel offered to ask someone to come and explain the report and process. The
PCRS does not review Use of Force Reports. Tim suggested that the workshop include the training
Page 4
opportunities available to the subcommittee. Reverend Lewis asked if the SOP addresses the Use
of Force Report because it is not a citizen complaint and if the report is a public document. Rachel
responded that the report is a public document. Joey also asked about discussing training in police
oversight, NACOLE and their best practices. Kay joined the meeting. Anne asked the
subcommittee if they wanted to review the case. Reverend Lewis expressed that he would like to
go into Executive Session to discuss the case.
6:54 Motion was made to enter into Executive Session pursuant to 1 M.R.S. Sec. 405(6)(F) to
discuss IA2024-006 by Anne and seconded by Reverend Lewis. Passage 7-0.
7:39 Out of Executive Session.
Motion was made by Reverend Lewis to find that IA2024-006 was objective; seconded by
Kay. Passage: 3 yes; 2 no; 2 abstention, IA2024-0006 was found to be objective.
Motion was made by Xavier to find that IA2024-006 was timely; seconded by Reverend
Lewis. Passage: 6 yes; 1 no, IA2024-0006 was found to be timely.
Motion was made by Reverend Lewis to find that IA2024-006 was fair; seconded by Kay.
Passage: 4 yes; 2 no; 1 abstention, IA2024-0006 was found to be fair
Motion was made by Kay to find that IA2024-006 was thorough; seconded by Reverend
Lewis. Fails: 3 yes; 3 no; 1 abstention, no consensus reached, IA2024-0006 was not found to be
thorough, nor was it found not to be thorough.
No public comment.
7:46 Motion was made by Reverend Lewis and seconded by Gino to adjourn. Passage 7-0.
Page 5
PORTLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mark Dubois, Chief of Police
FROM: Nicole Albert, Associate Corporation Counsel
SUBJECT: Use of Force Incident Review: IA2023-020
DATE: October 8, 2024
An incident review team (IRT) met on October 4, 2024 to review the use of deadly force
by Officers Jacob Webster and Jordin Jackson on December 17, 2023 in response to an
armed suspect pointing and discharging a weapon at them. The IRT met, as required
by Portland PD Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 90B and the protocols of the
Maine Attorney General’s Office and the Maine Criminal Justice Academy, after the
release of the Attorney General’s findings of its investigation on June 14, 2024, and
subsequent release of the Portland Police Administrative Investigation Team’s (AIT)
investigation report on August 28, 2024. The Attorney General’s Office concluded that
Officers Webster and Jackson were justified in using deadly force against Kyle
Desmarais because Officers Webster and Jackson each had the reasonable belief that
Mr. Desmarais posed an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to each of
them. The Portland Police Department’s AIT then conducted its own investigation,
concluding that the use of force by both Officer Jackson and Officer Webster was
justified under the law, and that their actions were in accordance with Portland PD
SOPs.
Present at the IRT meeting were: South Portland Chief of Police Daniel Ahern, Maine
State Police Lieutenant Kevin Burton, Police Citizen Review Subcommittee Chair Anne
Hardcastle, Major Robert Martin, Major Jason King, Major Daniel Hondo, Internal Affairs
Sergeant Sara Clukey, Training Sergeant Daniel Hayden, Lieutenant William Preis
(representing the Superior Officers Association), Officer William Stratis (representing the
Police Benevolent Association), Behavioral Health Coordinator Bridgit Sliwak, Associate
Corporation Counsel Nicole Albert, and yourself.
The IRT’s review is independent of and not connected with the Attorney General’s
review of the incident.
Professional Standards Lieutenant Jacob Titcomb presented the findings of the AIT’s
Use of Deadly Force investigation.
Page 6
As outlined in PPD SOP 90B §X-D, the discussion of Officer Webster and Officer
Jackson’s use of force focused on the following areas:
1) Whether relevant policy was understandable and effective during the incident.
2) Whether changes in policies or procedures are necessary to increase public
safety or officer safety.
3) Whether training methods or protocols should be reviewed or revised.
4) Whether department equipment or other resources should be replaced,
supplemented, or modified.
The IRT had access to any and all relevant information about the information, to
include: 911 calls, radio traffic, cruiser and body camera video, photos, and witness
statements.
Portland Police Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) state that the use of deadly force
is justified, when the officer “reasonably believes such force is necessary . . . for
self-defense or to defend a third person from what the officer reasonably believes is the
imminent use of unlawful deadly force. . .”1 Additionally, the use of deadly force is
measured by the following standards:
1) Whether the use of force was consistent with the requirements of Maine law.
2) Whether the officer reasonably believed that force was necessary in light of the
facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time the force was used.
The IRT discussed Officer Webster’s and Officer Jackson’s use of force from a number
of perspectives, including the officers’ decision-making and tactical effectiveness as well
as the actual use of force. It reviewed whether there are training needs, on an
individual, team, or department-wide basis, that were observed during the incident, and
whether any changes to policies and procedures are recommended.
Based on Officer Webster’s and Officer Jackson’s handling of the threat posed by Mr.
Desmarais and the speed with which the situation unfolded on December 17, 2023, the
IRT was satisfied that both officers understood the requirements of both Maine law and
police department policy regarding the use of deadly force, and that no changes were
necessary to the PPD SOP. A review of the physical evidence, including cruiser and
body camera footage and 911 calls and radio traffic satisfied the IRT that the use of
deadly force was in compliance with Portland Police SOPs.
1
PPD SOP1A §V-B-2.
Page 7
The IRT also discussed whether there were less lethal tactics or weapons that might
have been effective in neutralizing the threat posed by Mr. Desmarais. Given the fact
that Mr. Desmarais stepped out of his car with a firearm in his hand already pointed at
Officer Jackson’s vehicle, and shot at Officer Jackson within a little over one second of
stepping out of his vehicle, the IRT was satisfied that there were no alternative tactics,
less lethal weapons, or de-escalation techniques that would have been effective in this
case.
The IRT did not identify any concerns with the department’s training methods or
protocols with respect to the response to resistance. In fact, the only suggestion in this
regard was for more of the same type of training officers are already receiving, both at
the Maine Criminal Justice Academy during the Basic Law Enforcement Training
Program, as well as ongoing mandatory training received while serving with the
Department. This recommendation for ongoing training included the tactical medical
response to critical incidents, which was remarked upon by the group, who were
impressed with the officers’ ability to swiftly change focus from threat elimination to
lifesaving measures for Mr. Desmarais.
The current SOP regarding Response to Resistance2 requires, in situations requiring a
casualty report, that the subject and the scene be photographed. As the Attorney
General’s Office investigators (including crime scene investigators) are typically the first
investigators on site following a critical incident, the suggestion was made to amend this
SOP to allow for the photographs taken by these investigators to satisfy this
requirement.
With regard to response immediately following a critical incident such as the December
17, 2023 officer-involved shooting (OIS), a recommendation was made that the
Department’s SOPs, which currently only require that involved officers be transported to
the hospital if treatment is needed,3 be amended to require all involved officers to be
transported for assessment, regardless of whether there is an obvious need for medical
treatment. This will allow for officers’ vital signs to be assessed and monitored by
medical professionals, and the time involved for the medical evaluation will also provide
a brief “buffer” period between the officers’ removal from the scene and their
transportation to police headquarters for further investigation.
Additionally, a different section of the same SOP4 requires Department employees
involved in a critical incident to attend a Critical Incident Stress Debriefing to which other
involved City employees are also invited. The suggestion was made by the group,
2
PPD SOP 1A-§VII-D
3
PPD SOP 90A-§V-B-3
4
PPD SOP 90A-§IX-B
Page 8
given the requirement that this debriefing occurs within 24-72 hours post-incident, that
the participation of the officers directly involved be at the Chief’s discretion and not
mandatory. This was primarily due to trauma which can surface in the hours and days
following a critical incident.
With respect to post-incident procedures, a further recommendation was made by the
group for the Department to better communicate with personnel the availability of
mental health resources for all officers, whether directly involved in a critical incident or
not. Members of the panel specifically discussed the de-stigmatization of seeking and
receiving mental health counseling, and the importance of mental health in policing
overall, as well as specifically following a critical incident. The Department’s robust
Peer Support group, which includes the recent engagement of the services of a
psychologist who specializes in police and public safety to provide psychological and
operational support to the Department, was noted with approval by the group.
Law enforcement officers perform a vital and often dangerous job in our communities.
Unfortunately, situations arise where officers must use deadly force. The community
expects that such force will only be used when legally necessary and as specified by
law, as it was in this instance.
cc: Danielle West, City Manager
Mayor Mark Dion and members of the Portland City Council
Michael Goldman, Corporation Counsel
Anne Hardcastle, Chair and members of the Police Citizen Review Subcommittee
Chair of the Board of Trustees, Maine Criminal Justice Academy
PPD Use of Force Committee members
Sgt. Daniel Hayden and members of the PPD Training Committee
Sgt. Sean Hurley, President of the SOA
Officer Thien Duong, President of the PBA
Officer Jordin Jackson
Officer Jacob Webster
Page 9
Police Citizen Review Subcommittee
Review of Obligations & Duties
November 13, 2024
Page 10
Structure of the PCRS
Established by Chapter 2, Article IV of the Portland City Code
● Composed of seven (7) commissioners, who are residents of
the City of Portland
○ Cannot be former employees or City Council members (10 year
restriction)
○ Family members or commissioners cannot have been Portland
police officers, arrested, filed a complaint, or brought suit (10
year restriction)
● Appointed by the City Council to 3 year terms
○ Limited to 3 terms
● Assisted by the City’s Corporation Counsel’s office
Page 11
Meetings of PCRS
Quorum: Four (4) members; Three (3) members during vacancy
Public Meetings
● Required by Freedom of Access Act
● Public notice of meetings
● Executive session to discuss specifics of IA cases
○ To protect privacy of employees & other individuals involved in
the underlying situation
● Vote in public session
○ Public discussions should not include specifics of IA cases which
are otherwise confidential
● Meeting minutes are required
○ Must include date, time, place, presence or absence of
members, motions or votes taken
Outside communications
Page 12
● Exercise caution in emails & other external communications
PCRS’ Duties - Review of IA Investigations
Section 2-76 of Chapter 2 of the City Code
To determine whether police investigations into citizens’ complaints by
members of the public against police officers are thorough, objective,
fair and timely by auditing the police department’s internal affairs’ unit
investigative methods and procedures.
Key Points
● Review of IA process, not reinvestigation of underlying incident
● Review is to determine if investigation is thorough, objective, fair,
and timely
● Review only citizens’ complaints
Page 13
PCRS’ Duties - Review of IA Investigations
Limitations on Review
● No power to call witnesses
● No ability to impose or modify disciplinary action or lack of
action against a police officer
○ No recommendations, findings, or comments relative to
disciplinary action
● Consideration is limited to thoroughness, objectivity, fairness
and timeliness
Page 14
PCRS’ Duties - Review of IA Investigations
PCRS has developed its own suggested guidelines for evaluating
IA investigations - updated in March 2023
Page 15
PCRS’ Duties - Review of IA Investigations
Page 16
PCRS’ Duties - Review of IA Investigations
Page 17
PCRS’ Duties - Review of IA Investigations
Page 18
PCRS’ Duties - Review of IA Investigations
Letter send to citizen complainant after review notifying them of
findings
Page 19
PCRS’ Duties - Review of IA Investigations
Page 20
PCRS’ Duties - Additional Duties
Annual Report to the City Manager
● Subcommittee’s determinations on thoroughness, objectivity,
fairness, and timeliness of IA investigations
● Recommendations and/or proposals for improvements or
modifications in:
○ Police internal affairs investigative processes, policies or
training
○ Enhancing public confidence in the methods and
processes of investigation of citizen complaints
Public Hearing
● At least annually
● To receive comments upon the police citizen complaint
process
Page 21
Questions?
Page 22
CITY OF PORTLAND
POLICE CITIZEN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
Anne Hardcastle, Chair
RE: Police Citizen Complaint
IA
Dear ___________:
The City of Portland has a Police Citizen Review Subcommittee (PCRS) that
reviews all of the Police Department’s Internal Affairs (IA) investigations into citizen
complaints about the Police Department. The PCRS reviews the IA investigations to
ensure that they are thorough, objective, fair, and timely. Although the Subcommittee
cannot change the Police Department’s decision on an investigation, or impose discipline,
it ensures that the IA division is conducting its investigations appropriately. The PCRS
reports its findings directly to the City Manager so that she can address any issues that the
Subcommittee might identify with the IA process.
The PCRS reviewed the IA investigation into your complaint and found that the
investigation was thorough, objective, fair, and timely.
If you have any questions about the PCRS or its process, or would like to provide
feedback, the PCRS meets regularly throughout the year, and welcomes public comment
at the beginning of each meeting. Meetings are posted on the City website at
https://www.portlandmaine.gov/602/Agendas-Minutes. You are also welcome to reach
out by email at pcrs@portlandmaine.gov, or by mail or phone through the City’s
Corporation Counsel’s Office, whose contact information is at the bottom of this letter.
Any comments or questions you provide will be shared in the next meeting of the PCRS.
The PCRS takes its role seriously in ensuring that the review of citizen complaints
about the Portland Police Department is fair and effective, and appreciates you bringing
forward your concerns.
Sincerely,
/s/ Anne Hardcastle
Anne Hardcastle, Chair
cc: Police Citizen Review Subcommittee
Danielle P. West, City Manager
Mark DuBois, Portland Police Chief
Michael I. Goldman, Corporation Counsel
389 Congress Street, Room 211, Portland ME 04101
www.portlandmaine.gov / tel. 207.874.8480 / tty. 207.874.8936 / fax. 207.874.8497
Page 23