In beta release, the Stanford Center for Racial Justice began publishing chapters of its comprehensive Model Use of Force Policy. The Model Policy is designed to support the ongoing efforts to reform and improve policing, as well as promote fair, safe and equitable practices for all. This essay continues the discussion by our staff about how the Model Policy interacts to situations officers might find themselves in. You can read Chapter 7 of Model Policy–TASER energy weapons and other Conducted Electric Weapons–here.
Tiara Helm, her sister, was attending a concert at Rainbow City, Ala., when she had a seizure. Helm’s sister informed a police officer about the seizure that she was having and asked for help. Helm was taken to the lobby of the concert venue, where she started seizing again from a chair. Helm was held down by three more officers.
Helm went black during the second seizure. The 17-year old Helm lost consciousness and was resisted by four Rainbow City officers. Helm begged the officers to let her go. But when they realized she was being combative, they tightened their grips and one even placed Helm in a headlock. Helm claimed that she cursed at officers after Helm’s second seizure and tried to bite and kick them. Helm’s sister, however, maintained that Helm never attempted to bite or kick officers. A judge finally ruled Helm was not resisting, kicking or spitting. . . . [And] was thus ‘fully secured’, ‘completely restricted .'”
A fifth officer, armed with a Taser and warning Helm that he would use it against her if she did not calm down, arrived. After repeating his threat, the fifth officer arrived and tased Helm in the chest with “drive stun” mode. This is where the Taser is directly applied to the individual. Helm was also being pinned down by four officers. Helm was then warned by the officer that he would continue to tase her if she didn’t calm down. He ended up tasing Helm two more times. Each time he used the same method as before: he used drive stun mode, while Helm was being restrained by other officers. Helm lost consciousness again during this time and only regained consciousness when she was placed on a gurney to transport her to the hospital.
Was the officer allowed to use the Taser under the SCRJ Model Policy?
According to the Model Policy’s Taser provisions the use of a Taser must be limited to the lawful objective and proportional to all circumstances.
Officers have a number of options that are non-forceful or less forceful. These include de-escalation techniques like “slowing down”, maintaining a calm and composed demeanor and creating distance or physical barriers. He also threatened Helm with taser if she didn’t calm down.
The officer tried verbal persuasion to get her to calm down but did not attempt any other de-escalation. The Model Policy’s Chapter 3 states that an officer can escalate the use of force if the subject’s “speaking techniques or physical controls” do not control them. However, the subject may become active resistant to the point where they present a substantial danger of causing imminent bodily injury. Helm was being physically restrained by four officers, a Physical Control. She was not a threat to the officers or the public. The Taser was probably unnecessary because Helm was already being physically restrained, and she was not posing an imminent threat to herself or others.
Further facts indicate that Helm had seizures when he arrived at the fifth officer. However, he claimed that he did not hear any of Helm’s symptoms and that Helm was calm and collected.
Based on the above analysis, the use of the Taser to Helm was not necessary or proportional to the overall circumstances. The Model Policy would have prohibited such usage by an officer.
What would the SCRJ Taser policy say about Helm’s case?
According to the Model Policy, Tasers should not be used on “vulnerable populations” unless there is an imminent danger of bodily harm to them or others. Helm was a minor at the time and had a serious health issue that at least four officers knew about. It is unclear if Helm’s fifth officer knew that she was having a seizure. Helm was not a threat to officers, as we have already stated. It is unlikely that Helm posed any threat to her own or other people’s lives by being held down and beaten by four men. These facts alone indicate that Helm was tased by an officer in violation of the Model Policy.
The Model Policy also prohibits the use of a Taser on persons handcuffed, unless there are substantial extenuating conditions and the subject can be controlled with other means. Here, the Taser was used three times, as Helm was already being restraining four officers. Although she wasn’t handcuffed, it could be argued that the physical restraint by four men was substantially the same as being handcuffed. There are no facts to suggest that Helm was not controlled by officers using other methods. This analysis shows that the Model Policy would have outlawed the use of a Taser.
What was the result of Helm’s federal civil suit?
Helm was not charged or arrested for any crime, as a seizure isn’t a crime. However, an internal investigation was not conducted into the January 2015 incident. The officer who used the Taser against Helm was promoted around a year later. Helm and her family were victims of police violence like many others. They turned to federal civil litigation to claim excessive force by the police.
Graham v. Connor, a 1989 Supreme Court decision, stated that excessive force claims against police officers would be assessed using an “objective reasonableness standard.” This means that an officer’s use or inaction of force will be judged “from a reasonable officer on scene” and “in the light of the facts, circumstances, and the facts and circumstances.”
After decades of use, the reasonable officer standard is not only unclear about how it is applied, but courts have also failed to give guidance as to what characteristics characterize a hypothetical reasonable police officer. This makes it difficult to determine whether an officer used force in a reasonable manner. Many people have advocated for the examination of evidence that can be admissible in court to clarify who a reasonable officer really is. Some courts have ruled that law enforcement policies are relevant, especially because they provide clear guidance on how force should be used that reveals what the local agency considers reasonable.
Nonetheless, juries deciding excessive force cases often have no law enforcement training or experience and tend to be focused solely on the dangerous nature of policing, resulting in decisions that are not purely objective–but instead what commentators have referred to as “subjective-objectivity.”
Research shows that jurors consider factors such as their attitude toward police legitimacy, gender and race, past positive experiences with police officers, and their attention to current events, like police trials, when determining their reasonableness analysis. These biases can remove an element of objectivity from Graham’s analysis. Jurors will use factors such as their attitudes toward police legitimacy, gender, race, past positive experiences with the police, and attention to current events like police trials to influence their reasonableness analysis.
Helm’s lawsuit was successful in overturning the qualified immunity claim of the Rainbow City officers. The case went on to trial in federal court. The jury reached a verdict on the fifth day of the trial and sided with police. According to The Marshall Project, closing arguments saw the lawyers of the officers “painting a picture” of what was a chaotic and rapidly changing incident. One lawyer suggested that Helm was in danger and that Helm was being held in a headlock by Helm’s officer was “what any reasonable officer would have done.” This is due to the deference that reasonable officer standards afford police officers when using force. Unfortunately, this leads to a legal doctrine that seldom compensates those who are injured by police officers.
Does force policy matter?
Written rules are not sufficient to ensure proper conduct. Factors such as experience, training, and police culture may influence individual officer behavior. The limited impact that force policies have on federal civil liability for officers raises further questions about the importance of establishing clear standards.
Clear standards are important to us. These standards are a basis for communicating expectations to the department and the community. They are also a foundation for training and a resource for officers who wish to refresh their knowledge of what is expected. The policies also help to define what a reasonable officer should do under different circumstances.
Research consistently shows that a more restricted use of force policies is associated with fewer police killings. They are also not correlated to increases in crime, harm for officers or other negative effects. Seattle’s “necessary standard” saw a reduction in force incidents, without any decrease in civilian or officer safety. Therefore, departments can update their force policies to reflect community values and protect their officers.
Although we don’t know if a more restricted, defined use force policy would have changed the way Tiara Helm’s night was altered, we know that it is a reason to question and advocate for policing policies that better reflect the consensus in the communities that our officers serve.
Disclaimer: These facts were compiled from the federal appeals court opinion that evaluated the qualified immunity claim of the Helm officers. They are also based on public news sources and have not been verified for accuracy. This analysis is based on the opinions of our staff. It is meant for education and policy discussions.