THE UNIVERSITY

4 NORTH CAROLINA 1Hll'ARTM6NT OF

tH CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC SAl'l!TY

l'UIILIC SAf-llTY IJUII.IJING r 919.96:.3951

CAMl'US_ IJOX 1600 fl- 919.96z.J.57~
GI-IAJ>EI. HILL, NC :7599-1600 www.dp~. uuc .1.·du

To: Chief Jeff McCracken

Director of Public Safety

From: Captain Ollie Bowler

Professional Standards Commander

Date: January 7, 2013

Subject: Use of Force Analysis 2012

The following is a summary of the Use of Force Analysis for the calendar year 2012.

INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Accreditation Standard 1.3.13 I have completed an analysis and review of all use of force
reports from January - December 2012. Data for this report was obtained through OSSI, use of force
report forms, and a manual search of arrest and incident files. This data was analyzed for patterns or
trends that might reflect the need for modifications to training, equipment, and policy.

CALENDAR YEAR ANALYSIS

Officers used force to achieve lawful custody on eleven occasions during the past calendar year. In
two of those incidents officers drew their TASER and only needed to discharge it on one occasion.
Physical empty hands control accounted for the remaining nine incidents. In four of the incidents
subjects were criminally charged for their actions. The remaining seven incidents involved five EMS
calls where the actions and conduct of the subjects constituted a potentially dangerous situation. In the
other two incidents UNC officers assisted Chapel Hill Police with the arrest of the suspects. While
assisting Chapel Hill officers in one incident UNC officers deployed their TASER to gain control of
the subject. No serious injuries were sustained by officers or suspects as a result of force used by
officers of the department. No officers drew their firearm this past year.

A review of all force related incidents revealed that no officer discharged a firearm for other than
training or recreational purposes. Also, no officers were removed from duty pending an
administrative review due to any use of force action that resulted in any injury or death of a
suspect. All departmental use of force report forms were forwarded through the chain of
command in a timely manner. Any medical examinations that were needed were conducted by
EMS on-scene or hospital personnel and documented on the use of force reports. No significant
trends or training needs were identified as a result of this analysis.

A Nationally Accredited 0
d. l.:i\\' EnforccmcOI A!(cnq
Use of Force Analysis 2012

COMPARATIVE DATA

The following table depicts four-year comparative data pertaining to the use of force by officers
of the department:

Year/Incidents 2009 2010 2011 2012

Incident Reports 1,205 1,356 1,549 1,505
Persons Arrested 128 146 173 141
Use of Force Incidents 14 15 16 11
Use of Force: Incident Reports 1.16% I.I 1% 1.03% 0.73%
Use of Force: Arrests 10.94% 10.27% 9.25% 7.80%
Use of Force Incidents - 3 Year Average 0.94% 1.01% 1.09% 0.95%
Use of Force Arrest - 3 Year Average 8.2% 9.3% 10.07% 9.13%
Use of Force - 3 Year Average 11.7 12.7 15.0 14.0

Analysis of data revealed a decrease in the use of force actions by members of our agency compared
to the calendar year 2011. There were eleven ( 11) use of force incidents reported from January -
December 2012 as compared to sixteen (16) for calendar year 2011. This was a decrease of31% over
2011 use of force incidents. The study revealed in the eleven ( 11) use of force actions reported during
calendar year 2012, twelve ( 12) different officers were involved.

There was one (1) use of force incident in 2012 that involved four (4) officers. The incident involved
a disturbance in the area of Fetzer Gym. It was determined shouting had taken place between the
suspect and a female subject. The responding officers used empty hands controls initially but had to
also use the TASER to take the subject into custody for transport to the UNCER for evaluation.

Similarly, there were past incidents involving multiple officers. There was one (I) incident in 201 I,
two (2) incidents in 20 I 0, and five (5) incidents in 2009, in which at least three officers were involved
in a single use of force incidents for a total of nine (9) multiple officer use of force incidents since
2009. In four (4) of those incidents officers used only empty hand control techniques, in one (I)
incident a TASER was deployed, in one (I) incident a TASER was deployed and OC Spray was
utilized. In two (2) incidents the officers drew their firearms. The first incident involved a firearm on
campus in which the responding officers drew their handguns on the subject. In the second incident,
officers drew their handgun on a subject wielding a knife. In both of those two (2) incidents the
subjects were taken into custody using empty hands control after following the officer's verbal
commands. A review of those two incidents revealed officers used the proper amount of force for the
situation.

2
Use of Force Analysis 2012

MULTI-YEAR ANALYSIS

The following provides a narrative summary of all incidents involving the use of force for the four
year period of 2009, 20 I 0, 2011 and 2012 in which there were a total of 56 incidents:

• The majority of incidents with 21 % occurred on Sunday at 12 incidents followed by Friday with
18% at IO incidents. Tuesday and Wednesday each had nine (9) incidents or 16% of the total.
Saturday had 11% with six (6) incidents and Monday and Thursday had 9% with each day having
five (5) use of force incidents.

• The majority of incidents at 50% took place during the hours of 9:00 PM to 3:00 AM. The next
largest amount of24% took place during the hours of9:00 AM to 3:00 PM. The times of 3:00 PM
to 9:00 PM had 15% of the incidents and the time between 3:00 AM to 9:00 AM had 11% of the
incidents.

• Alcohol and/or drugs were considered to be significant contributing factors in 39% of the all
incidents.

• Cases involving females accounted for 14% of the total number of incidents.

• Minorities were involved in 30% of the overall incidents.

• Juveniles accounted for 5.4% of the entire number of incidents.

• The average age of the arrestees/suspects was 27 years.

• Individuals affiliated with UNC comprised 38% of the total cases.

• Injuries, usually minor in nature, occurred in 26 or 46% of the total number of cases.

• Some type of weapon was utilized or displayed by officers in 21 use of force incidents for the 4
year period and accounted for 38% of the total number of all the use of force incidents for the same
time period. Of the 21 use of force cases involving weapons used by officers a chemical agent was
used on one occasion and accounted for 5% of the incidents. A conducted energy weapon was
activated or displayed in 19 incidents or 91 %. Firearms were drawn from the holster in five
incidents for 24% of the total number of incidents involving weapons. No firearms were
discharged outside of training for the four year period.

3
Use of Force Analysis 2012

2012 USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS

March, August and November had equally the most use of force incidents with two (2) each of the
specified months. The remaining use of force incidents occurred in February, April, July, September
and October with one ( 1) each month.

Wednesday and Friday involved the majority of the use of force incidents during the week with three
(3) each, followed by Tuesday and Sunday which had two (2) incidents each and Thursday which had
only one incident. Most of the use of force incidents occurred between the hours of 9:00 PM - 1:30
AM with a total of seven (7) incidents. The hours between 9:00 AM - 1:30 PM had the next highest
number with a total of three (3) incidents followed by the hours of 3:00 AM to 6:00 AM with one (1)
incident.

BY MONTH DAY OF WEEK HOUR OF DAY

January 0 July Monday 0 0601 -0900 0

February Aug. 2 Tuesday 2 0901 - 1200

March 2 Sept. Wednesday 3 1201-1500 2

April Oct. Thursday 1501-1800 0

May 0 Nov. 2 Friday 3 1801 -2100 0

June 0 Dec. 0 Saturday 0 2101 -2400 2

Sunday 2 0001 -0300 5

0301 - 0600

Two (2) incidents involved mental commitments both voluntary and involuntary in which officers
used physical force to gain control of the individuals. In both incidents the suspects were taken to the
UNC Hospitals Emergency Department for treatment. The two (2) incidents accounted for 18% of
the total use of force incidents.

Of the eleven (11) incidents of use of force, injuries were reported in seven (7) incidents (64%). Of
those seven incidents, six (6) were taken to UNC Hospital Emergency Department for care. Two of
the six occurrences were mental commitments where officers used empty hand controls. One was
where UNC Officers assisted CHPD Officers with gaining control of a subject and a T ASER was
deployed but not discharged. Five cases involved EMS calls where officers had to gain control of the
suspects in order for them to be transported by Orange County EMS. None of the incidents where
injuries were involved resulted in injuries as a result of any type of use of force applied to the suspect.
No UNC Department of Public Safety officers were seriously injured in any use of force incidents in
the year 2012.

4
Use of Force Analysis 2012

Analysis of infonnation regarding the subject's actions toward officers revealed in most instances that
the suspect used physical resistance, (Active resistance or attacking movements likely to cause bodily
hann but not serious injury.). Statistical data also revealed officers used physical force in nine (82%)
of the eleven (11) incidents to gain control of the incident. Physical force available to the officers
includes ann/wrist locks, grabbing, kicking, pressure points, pushing/shoving, striking with hand,
wrestling or any other hand-to-hand type force. In all nine (9) incidents officers used one or more of
the physical force options available to them to obtain control of the suspect. An Electronic Control
Device was discharged on a subject once (9%) during use of force incidents. The ECO was activated
or displayed in one other incident (9%). No other less than lethal weapons or fireanns were deployed
or discharged during the 2012 year during any use of force incidents.

Use of Force by Officer and Squad for 2009-2012

The following provides a summary of use of force by officer during the past four years:

Primary Secondary
Officer Involvement Involvement Total
I 0 I
3 1 4
3 4 7
1 2 3
0 2 2
2 0 2
I I 2
1 I 2
3 2 5
2 I 3
4 3 7
I 1 2
3 I 4
0 2 2
0 I I
2 0 2
0 2 2
1 0 1
1 I 2
1 I 2
3 0 3
1 0 1
8 3 II
1 I 2
1 1 2
0 I I
2 I 3
0 I I
1 I 2

5
Use of Force Analysis 2012

Primary Secondary
Officer Involvement Involvement Total
0 2 2
1 1 2
0 1 1
2 2 4
2 0 2
0 1 1
0 1 1
3 3 6
1 1 2
Totals 103

USEOFFORCEBYSQUAD

2009 2010 2011 2012 Total

A Squad 1 1 5 4 11
B Squad 3 7 3 3 16
C Squad 2 0 4 0 6
D Squad 6 5 4 3 18
CRU Squad 2 2 0 I 5
CID 0 0 0 0 0

Officers on A Squad were involved in 36% of the use of force incidents for the year followed by
officers on B and D Squads who were each involved in 27% of the total use of force incidents.
Officers on the CRU Squad were involved in 9% of the reported use of force actions.

The use of force incidents for A and D Squads saw a decrease in 2012 over 2011 from five (5)
incidents to four (4) and from four (4) to three (3) respectively. B Squad had the same amount of
incidents in 2012 as in 2011. There was an increase of use of force occurrences this year on the CRU
Squad as they were involved in one (I) incident up from having none in 2011. During the year some
officers were moved to different squads which made it difficult to pin-point any causation factors.

Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the information there were no patterns of abuse or mistreatment of others by
members of this department in terms of our response to active resistance. Officers used only the force
necessary to accomplish lawful objectives. Also, a thorough review of the data showed no potential
areas of concern regarding use of force actions applied by members of our agency. The agency did
not receive any complaints of excessive force associated with all the reported use of force actions
taken during calendar year 2012. Our agency has annual retraining during mandated in-service and
during firearms qualification that focuses on high liability issues such as impact weapons, firearms,
less lethal weapons, and legal updates.