City of OKC

Recommendation No. 2:

OKCPD should revise Use of Force policy to require officers to provide a warning, when safe and feasible, before using any force.

OKCPD should revise its Use of Force policy to require officers to provide a warning, when safe and feasible, before using any force.

Project Status: 60% Implemented

Visit the About page for Project Status definitions.

Project Details from Consultant Report

At present, OKCPD properly requires a warning, when circumstances permit, before using conducted energy weapons (“CEW” or “Taser”) and before using deadly force. However, there is no reason why OKCPD should not require a warning, when circumstances permit, prior to use of any force. This requirement would encourage clear communication as part of de-escalation efforts during every use of force. This recommendation would work in concert with the Chief’s Directive to announce the use of less lethal force, which is primarily intended to ensure that all first responders know the tool is about to be used. Our intent here is to have officers inform the subject that force will be used so that the subject understands the consequences and has time to consider whether to comply.

The United States Supreme Court has predicated the use of deadly force against fleeing felony suspects on, “where feasible, some warning ha[ving] been given” by the officer. This is consistent with United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms and its provision that “when law enforcement is faced with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, officers must,” among other things, “give a clear warning” unless doing so “would unduly place the law enforcement officers at risk,” would create a risk of death or serious harm to others, or would be “clearly inappropriate or pointless in the circumstances.”

21CP observes here that some organizations and departments focus exclusively on the provision of warnings before the use of deadly force. The importance and reasoning behind this requirement easily extends, however, to the application of all types of force –especially considering that the use of less-lethal force will typically correspond to less-severe threats and circumstances in which an officer has more time and ability to provide a warning and to determine whether the subject is complying with the warning before applying force. In other words, the feasibility of providing a warning may be substantially greater or more likely in situations involving less-significant applications of force than circumstances involving deadly force. Consequently, a more general rule that requires officers to issue a warning, whenever feasible, before using any force provides simpler and more straightforward guidance to officers and, ultimately, allows for such warnings to become more automatic in practice.

A number of police departments require a warning before any force is used, whether that force is lethal or less-lethal, severe, or comparatively less severe; some examples include:

• Cleveland Division of Police – “Where feasible, and to do so would not increase the danger to officers or others, officers shall issue a verbal warning to submit to their authority prior to the use of force.”
• Northampton (Mass.) Police Department – “When feasible, an officer will allow the subject an opportunity to comply with the officer’s verbal commands. A verbal warning is not required in circumstances where the officer has to make a split-second decision, or if the officer reasonably believes that issuing the warning would place the safety of the officer or others in jeopardy.”