Issue link: https://securitytechnologyexecutive.epubxp.com/i/118926
COVER STORY By Charles Thibodeau Managing Your Liability Improper use of force can have a devastating financial impact on an organization L awsuits involving the use of force can run into the millions. After 20 years as an expert witness in excessive use of force cases, I find these cases commonly involve a myriad of different types of situations. They can include: ��� Use of force or threat of use of force where the victim offers no resistance. ��� Negligent use of normally non-lethal force resulting in death or serious injury. ��� Excessive use of force as overreaction to subject resistance that continued past the point of no resistance. ��� Intentional infliction of excessive force pain as a summary punishment. ��� Use of deadly force in situations where it is not permitted. ��� Failure to provide medical treatment for injuries from officer���s ���big time��� use of force. ��� Excessive use of force after the subject was handcuffed. ��� Inadequate training in proper use of force. ��� Wrongful death, negligent hiring, negligent training or negligent supervision. Civil suits are serious loss events. Nothing can emerge as a liability generator faster than a lawsuit that is based on the laying on of hands by a security officer. A suit claiming excessive use of force that is complicated by a wrongful death, permanent impairment, paralysis or other serious bodily harm may lead to significant dam- age awards. It can very quickly and significantly tarnish an organization���s brand. Actions to prevent these suits should be carefully reviewed. Mitigating Exposure Eliminating or mitigating use of force liability exposure can be enhanced by using proactive prevention in terms of adequate policies, procedures and training. There should be initial training when the new officer is hired, as well as continuing education annually, and 34 SECURITY TECHNOLOGY EXECUTIVE ��� April 2013 more frequent training if officers routinely use force. Firearm qualification should be done at least twice per year, along with training in handcuffing, electronic incapacitation devices or impact weapons. Defensive tactics training for hands-on officers should be done in-house three times per year. Officers should also be actively encouraged to participate in self-defense training and physical fitness on their own. Consistent communications to security officers also does wonders for preventing negative use of force incidents. Before a security officer can use that force, he or she must be able to demonstrate that the attack contained all of the following: ��� Ability: The attacker had the ability to cause him or her bodily harm. ��� Manifest intent: The attacker advanced towards the officer in a way that demonstrated the attacker was going to perform a threat of severe bodily harm or death upon the officer. ��� Imminent jeopardy: The officer must have reasonably believed they were in immediate danger, meaning that the aggressor is going to attack right now, not sometime in the future. ��� Preclusion: There were no other viable options except to use force. This includes many different options such as retreat, getting behind cover, stepping behind a desk or table, etc. Preclusion may also include the use of lower levels of force such as verbal controls or soft empty hand control rather than striking an attacker. Mitigating Liability Post orders, which demonstrate that an organization did all it could have to prevent an incident from happening, are valuable in showing that management met their due diligence. Complete, well-written post orders show that standards were met and officers were adequately instructed in their daily job duties. They contain the security department rules and regulations, which obviously must comply with state and federal laws. Organizations that outsource security personnel must ensure that those officers are in compliance with the client organization���s expectations. Gaps between policy, procedure and actual job performance must be eliminated to the greatest degree possible. The appropriateness of uses of force will be determined by an objective reasonableness and necessity standard vs. whether the use of force reflected a deliberate and wanton infliction of pain. Some motives that fail when trying to explain the use of force include: revenge, jealousy, heat of passion, punishment, malice, accidents or loss of control. ��� www.SecurityInfoWatch.com