Pittsfield Police Advisory Panel Mulls Vascular Restraint Limits
PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The Police Advisory and Review Board does not plan to eliminate the use of vascular restraint but is considering classifying it to limit its implementation.
The board agreed Tuesday that it did not want to totally ban the Police Department's use of that particular restraint but reserve it only for the highest level of force.
"Let's put it on the agenda for next month to see where we are at," Chairwoman Ellen Maxon said.
Last month, the board asked Chief Michael Wynn to draft a policy prohibiting holds designed to reduce blood or airflow.
Although these holds are not taught in Massachusetts, there is no verbiage that outright bans them on the books in Pittsfield.
During July's meeting, some board members were hesitant to completely eliminate these restraints. They felt that some of these maneuvers may be necessary for very specific situations.
Wynn first outlined the difference between respiratory and vascular restraints.
He said the term "chokehold" seems to be used the most in the national conversation around the use of force. He said these are generally known as respiratory restraints, and he was unaware of any department that uses this maneuver.
Some departments do train on vascular restraints, also known as carotid restraints, but he was unaware of any departments that train this in the commonwealth. A vascular restraint is when pressure is used on both sides of the neck to reduce blood flow to the brain and render someone unconscious.
"Language matters in stuff like this," Wynn said. "If you start talking about chokeholds, and the legal term of a chokehold is strangulation. So we are talking about respiratory restraints, but your intent is to ban any application of pressure to the neck. Then you have created a loophole."
He said some departments have issued policies that ban officers from touching the neck, spine, or head. Others have allowed carotid restraints but only at the highest level of force.
Wynn, an experienced martial artist, said his department does not train these restraints. He said it would take an enormous amount of time to train correctly.
"I don't think this is a technique that will ever be taught at an academy in the commonwealth, and it is not one I am going to allow in my in-service training," he said. "We don't have enough time to train adequately."
That being said, Wynn saw a benefit to still classifying the restraint.
"It is just not allowed in our current policy," he said. "I understand that not mentioning it is different than prohibiting it, so we are going to have to resolve that."
Wynn said the draft policy would limit these sorts of restraints to "deadly force encounters" only. He said this has been accepted at other departments in New England.
Board member Michael Feldberg said he was comfortable moving forward with the policy because of the high level of severity it places on vascular restraints. He added that the policy requires a supervisory follow up as well as an immediate medical follow up for the individual restrained.
"It is pretty much the equivalent of pulling your weapon and shooting at someone," he said. "It needs to be emphasized that it is a last resort, and it is not to be used lightly. I think that is what I took away from this."
Board member Drew Herzig called back to Wynn's distinction between different holds, and he felt the board needed to make this technical language clear to the public.
"We want to meet their concerns about what they call a chokehold, and we need to make sure we are communicating across the great divide," he said.
The board also plans to undergo a use-of-force policy review, but as with the carotid restraint classification, they felt it may be better to wait until the state finalizes its own police reform efforts.
"I think we have enough material to move forward and reach a consensus among my command, staff, and you, but I am hesitant to issue a policy," Wynn said. "... Because if the commonwealth bans them we have to go back and redo the policy."
The item will still be on the board's next agenda.
Chairwoman Ellen Maxon sent iBerkshires this note to further clarify the board's discussion of the use of vascular restraints:
At last night's PRAB meeting the Board reviewed a potential policy draft that had only come to us that very morning. We were not being asked to vote it up or down but to use it as a starting point if we decide to recommend a policy rather than wait to see what the PPD proposed.
Given that context I think it is too soon to say that the PRAB "does not plan to eliminate the use of vascular restraints ...." or that "the Board agreed it did not want to totally ban ... the use of that particular restraint, but reserve it only for the highest level of force."
First, we do not have the power to make any policy or to ban this restraint. We can advise the Chief, the Council and the Mayor on these matters. Second, I do understand why the discussion last night may have implied that these two statements from the article are correct. However, we have only had discussions up to this point, there has been no vote or decision on what we might recommend. As mentioned there is more information we want to review. We do not want to make a hasty or uninformed decision on a recommendation. Additionally, the Commonwealth is in the process of passing legislation regarding this matter. Therefore, any recommendation/ advise from the Board could well be superseded by the legislature’s actions.
Board members have expressed several times that "not teaching this hold" is not the same as "banning the hold."
Thank you for allowing me to clarify these points. We invite people to attend our monthly zoom meetings posted on the city calendar and to speak during the public input portion of our agenda.
Tags: police advisory,
