RCMP Use of the Conducted Energy Weapon: January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010

1.1 Genesis and Evolution of the Commission's Work on Conducted Energy Weapons

Use of the CEW has been of interest to the public and the Commission since the adoption of its use by the RCMP in 2001. The Commission launched its detailed assessment of the RCMP's use of the CEW in 2007, when the Honourable Stockwell Day, then federal Minister of Public Safety, asked the Commission to undertake a "review of the RCMP's protocols on the use of the CEDs and their implementation, including compliance with such protocols." This resulted in the Commission issuing the RCMP Use of the Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) – Interim Report on December 11, 2007, followed by the RCMP Use of the Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) – Final Report on June 12, 2008. These reports made a combined total of 22 recommendations to the RCMP.^{Footnote 5}

Following these reports, the Commission began to systematically analyze the RCMP's use of the CEW on a yearly basis. The first report, which examined RCMP CEW usage during calendar year 2008, was released on March 31, 2009. On June 24, 2010, the Commission released its analysis of the RCMP's use of the CEW during the 2009 calendar year.

In recent years, the use of the CEW by the RCMP has been examined in a number of Chair-initiated complaints. Resulting reports^{Footnote 6} made a combined total of 45 recommendations to the RCMP, including 8 specifically related to the CEW.

1.2 Incident Management / Intervention Model

To assist its members in deciding (and explaining) when, where and what kind of intervention strategies to use in managing incidents, the RCMP developed the Incident Management / Intervention Model (IM/IM). Essentially, the IM/IM represents the process or framework by which RCMP members assess, plan and respond to situations that threaten public and/or officer safety through justifiable and reasonable intervention.

As Figure 1 illustrates, the IM/IM is not considered to be a "use of force continuum", nor does it imply a linear path of use of force by police. Rather, the circular representation of the model infers that any level of intervention is available to the member, at any time, in order to effectively manage the suspect's corresponding level of resistance and account for situational factors and risk as assessed and perceived by the member. The IM/IM framework has the RCMP's problem-solving model known as CAPRA (Clients/Acquire and Analyze/Partnerships/Response/Assess) as its focal point (RCMP, 2011).

IM/IM Diagrammatic

Text Version IM/IM Diagrammatic

1.3 Subject Behaviour / Officer Response Reporting System

The RCMP's Subject Behaviour / Officer Response (SB/OR) Reporting System is a standardized method of recording subject behaviour and the use of intervention options. RCMP members are to complete a SB/OR report if they are involved in an incident where the intervention option consisted of: (a) the use of hard physical control, intermediate weapons, or lethal force; or (b) the use of soft physical control which resulted in an injury to the subject, RCMP member, or other person.

Introduced in a number of pilot jurisdictions in 2009, SB/OR reporting fully replaced the RCMP's CEW usage reports in 2010. As a result, the present report is based solely on CEW data collected through the new SB/OR Reporting System. This change in reporting mechanisms is reflected in a number of areas throughout the report.

First, there are a number of variables that are not collected as part of the SB/OR Reporting System and are no longer available for consideration. Second, there are new variables that have been added that were not part of the RCMP's previous CEW forms. Third, there are certain variables that have the same name but have changed in terms of their meaning. In some cases, the changes have been relatively minor; for example, in Table 2 (see Appendix 2), the Setting variable now includes a category for "Indoor and Outdoor". In other instances, however, the modification may have a greater impact on the recording, reporting and interpretation of the data; for instance, the variables Substance Use (Table 3 in Appendix 2) and Possession of a Weapon (Table 4 in Appendix 2) both are now preceded by the word Perceived. And, finally, the variable Incident Type has changed so dramatically that it is no longer comparable across reports. Under the RCMP's previous CEW reporting system, Incident Type was task-oriented; however, under the new SB/OR system, Incident Type is now based on the nature of the offence that precipitated contact between police and the subject.

As such, the 2010 CEW datasets derived from the SB/OR Reporting System have resulted in alterations to the present report. The RCMP's previous CEW datasets were almost completely incident-driven and, for the most part, each incident generated a single report. The new SB/OR system, however, incorporates a series of filters to more accurately reflect the complexity of CEW incidents. Consequently, the SB/OR system can be best thought of as a series of several datasets. The first is based on the primary organizing unit—the occurrence or incident; in 2010, there were 597 CEW incidents. But, incidents may have several subjects and/or several events, thereby generating multiple reports. If we are specifically interested in subject characteristics (as in Table 3 in Appendix 2), subjects become the appropriate unit of analysis. The 597 incidents involved 637 subject reports. Similarly, some events are characterized by a shift in Deployment Mode. For example, separate reports may be filed for: (a) drawing and displaying of CEW; and (b) CEW deployed in push-stun mode. If we are specifically interested in event and deployment characteristics (as in Table 4 in Appendix 2), events then become the appropriate unit of analysis. The 597 incidents involved 656 event reports. In summary, each different type of analysis involves its own sample size, which is reflected in the figures and tables throughout the present report.

1.4 Conducted Energy Weapon – General

Essentially, a conducted energy weapon (CEW) is a less-lethal device that delivers high voltage, low current, electrical shocks with the intent of temporarily incapacitating a subject through involuntary muscle contractions or pain compliance. In Canada, CEWs are prohibited weapons under the Criminal Code and as such are not available to the general public.

Presently, the RCMP uses the M26^{Footnote 7} model and the more recent and lighter X26 model. Both CEW models are manufactured by TASER International, Inc. In 2010, the RCMP had 1,112 M26 models and 2,276 X26 models in its inventory. None of the RCMP's CEWs are equipped with audio-video recording cameras.^{Footnote 8}

The CEW models used by the RCMP can be deployed in one of two modes: push-stun or probe.

In push-stun mode, the device is pressed against the subject and a charge is delivered through small, non-penetrating probes. In probe mode, two small barbs with wires attached are ejected from the CEW and embedded into the subject's skin or clothes; an electrical charge is then delivered through the wire tethers.

In 2010, 335 RCMP members completed the CEW User Course while another 2,653 members undertook the CEW Re-Certification Course. Of the RCMP's approximately 18,000 regular members (sworn police officers), 2,860 members were certified to carry and use a CEW in 2010.

A. Occurrence Characteristics

A summary of the factors relevant to the circumstances surrounding CEW usage by the RCMP in 2010 is presented in figures 1 through 4 below, and in Table 1 (see Appendix 2).

Overall, the number of CEW occurrences dropped by 14.2% in 2010^{Footnote 9}. In terms of a breakdown by RCMP jurisdiction, the number of CEW reports: increased in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia; decreased in the Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, British Columbia, National Headquarters, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island; and remained constant in Alberta, Ontario, the National Capital Region and Quebec.^{Footnote 10}

As has historically been the case, a large proportion of CEW reports were generated by the western provinces in 2010. Together, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba contributed about 80% of all reports. This percentage was approximately the same as last year's figure (78.5%). While British Columbia produced more reports than any other province, the comparative gap was much less significant than it has been in the past. In 2009, the RCMP in British Columbia created 1.86 times as many reports (in terms of CEW usage) as the next closest province, Alberta. By comparison, the ratio was only 1.19 in 2010.

In contrast to the above, approximately two-thirds (66.4%) of all RCMP members across Canada who were CEW-certified in 2010 were serving in British Columbia (465 members), Alberta (646 members), Saskatchewan (505 members) or Manitoba (383 members) (Baldwin and Lackie, 2011: 30).^{Footnote 11}

The RCMP's divisional rankings were also consistent with those of the previous year. With the exception of the Yukon, which rose from 10th in 2009 to 7th place, no province or territory moved more than two spots in the 2010 rankings. In terms of proportions of CEW reports, the largest drop (9.3%) was recorded in British Columbia. Very small drops were also present in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and New Brunswick. Conversely, the proportion of reports attributable to Saskatchewan increased by 4.5 percent. Modest increases were also found in Nova Scotia, Alberta and Manitoba. A comparison of 2009 and 2010 figures is presented in Table 28 (see Appendix 2).

Figure 1
CEW Occurrence Characteristics: RCMP Division, 2010

Text Version Figure 1

With respect to Incident Type,^{Footnote 12} the three most common incidents involving CEWs in 2010 were Assault (25.8%), Mental Health (15.4%) and Assault on a Police Officer (12.7%). By aggregating the various sub-categories of assault (i.e. assault, sexual assault, and assault on police and other peace officers), all assault-related incidents represented approximately two in every five occurrences (39.2%). And, as demonstrated in Figure 2 and Table 1 (see Appendix 2), the remaining incidents were spread across a wide variety of offences and circumstances.

Figure 2
CEW Occurrence Characteristics: Incident Type, 2010

Text Version Figure 2

As has commonly been the case in the past, in 2010, the vast majority of CEW reports were filed by General Duty (96.5%) RCMP members with the rank of Constable (91.1%) (figures 3 and 4; Table 1 in Appendix 2). This is expected given that the majority of the RCMP's front-line members are uniformed constables.

Figure 3
CEW Occurrence Characteristics: Duty Type, 2010

Text Version Figure 3

Figure 4
CEW Occurrence Characteristics: RCMP Member Rank, 2010

Text Version Figure 4

B. Situational and Environmental Characteristics

The types of events that typically lead to CEW usage tend to result in more than one police officer responding to the call. On average, 3.1 RCMP members were present at CEW-related incidents in 2010 (Figure 5; Table 2 in Appendix 2). This is a slight increase from the previous year's figure of 2.8 members (see Table 29 in Appendix 2).

Figure 5
Number of RCMP Members Present, 2010

Text Version Figure 5

Moreover, the average number of CEW usage reports per RCMP member was 1.24 in 2010, which represented a very slight decrease compared to the previous year's average of 1.26 (Figure 6; Table 29 in Appendix 2).

Figure 6
CEW Usage Reports Per RCMP Member, 2010

Text Version Figure 6

There was a fairly even split with respect to whether a CEW incident occurred indoors or outdoors. In 2010, 251 (42.0%) CEW incidents took place indoors while 276 (46.2%) transpired outdoors. The remaining 70 CEW events (11.7%) involved a combination of indoor and outdoor settings (see Table 2 in Appendix 2).

C. Subject Characteristics

Sex and Age

Several important subject characteristics are captured in Table 3 (see Appendix 2) and displayed in figures 7 through 10 below. The overwhelming majority (91.4%) of subjects involved in 2010 CEW-related incidents were male.

Figure 7
Subject Characteristics: Gender 2010

Text Version Figure 7

On average, male and female subjects were approximately 31 years of age. In addition, 7% of all subjects were 50 years of age or older. These figures are comparable to those recorded in previous years by the RCMP.

Figure 8
Subject Characteristics: Age, 2010

Text Version Figure 8

In 2010, there were 44 (7%) incidents involving 52 subjects under the age of 18. The proportion of CEW cases involving subjects under 18 rose from 2009 (from 5.2% to 7.4%), but the proportion of these incidents that resulted in deployment dropped from 4.0% to 1.3%. The specific nature of the 44 reports is described further in Part Seven of the present report.

Substance Use^{Footnote 13}

As in previous years, RCMP members perceived substance use amongst subjects in a large percentage (76.0%) of events involving the CEW. Alcohol was believed to be involved in two-thirds of all cases, while drug use was suspected in over one-quarter of incidents. While these figures are high, it is worth noting that they have been in decline over the past four years. These declines are not precipitous, but it remains unclear as to why substance use is playing a slightly diminished role in CEW incidents.

Figure 9
Subject Characteristics: Type of Substance, 2010

Text Version Figure 9

Mental Health

One of the factors that have been added to the SB/OR Reporting System concerns an assessment of the subject's mental health in CEW incidents. The proportion of subjects judged to be emotionally disturbed was just over half (Figure 10; Table 3 in Appendix 2). The phrase "emotionally disturbed" is extremely broad and lends itself to a wide margin of subjectivity and interpretation. The rate of subjects who were perceived as Emotionally Disturbed by RCMP members, which is approximately three times as high as the Mental Health incident type designation, suggests that members routinely encountered disturbed individuals in events that were not categorized as Mental Health events. Disturbance is evident in a preponderance of incidents involving kidnapping, weapons, and threats; and, it is often cited in cases involving disturbing the peace, obstruction, and assault. The widespread prevalence of disturbance points to the importance of understanding the intersection of CEW usage and mental health. Further discussion on this topic is provided in Part Seven of the present report.

Figure 10
Subject Characteristics: Emotionally Disturbed, 2010

Text Version Figure 10

D. Event and Deployment Characteristics

Among the most significant changes to the SB/OR Reporting System is its increased emphasis on capturing subject behaviour. Figure 11 (see also Table 4 in Appendix 2) presents several of these subject-oriented variables. The general categorization of subject behaviour indicates that most subjects (84.7%) encountered by RCMP members in CEW incidents were at least actively resistant. More specifically, 18.8% of subjects were deemed Actively Resistant, 36.6% were thought to be Assaultive and 29.3% displayed behaviour consistent with the intent to cause Grievous Harm or Death (10% of subjects involved in CEW incidents were considered Cooperative).^{Footnote 14}

Figure 11
Event Characteristics: Subject Behaviour, 2010

Text Version Figure 11

In addition to the general query regarding the behaviour exhibited by the subject, the SB/OR Reporting System also asks RCMP members the following question: Based on your assessment, did you perceive a threat from the subject that was greater than the behaviour being displayed during this event? In almost half of all cases (and two-thirds of cases if "Grievous Harm or Death" is excluded, as perceived greater threat does not apply), RCMP members noted that there was some factor (or combination of factors) that elevated situational risk (Figure 12a).

The two variables Subject Behaviour and Perceived Greater Risk are combined in Figure 12b (see also Table 76 in Appendix 2). At each level of behaviour, most incidents demonstrated some element of elevated risk. For example, about 55% of cases involving "Assaultive" behaviour actually entailed some added level of threat. No details are provided formally in relation to this variable, but tables 77 to 82 (see Appendix 2) present a series of analyses that attempt to determine what might lead RCMP members to code for elevated risk.

Not surprisingly, the perceived presence of a weapon (Table 77) and perceived substance use (Table 79) both significantly increased the likelihood that the situation was classified as Greater Risk. More specifically, higher levels of risk were associated with the presence of a firearm or edged weapon (Table 78) or drug usage (Table 80). Conversely, neither the perception that the subject was emotionally disturbed (Table 81) nor the fact that the RCMP member was alone (Table 82) were related to a determination of increased risk or threat.

Figure 12a
Event Characteristics: Perceived Threat Greater, 2010

Text Version Figure 12

Figure 12b
Subject Behaviour and Threat Level, 2010

Text Version Figure 13

The presence of a weapon was identified in over 60% of CEW events in 2010, marking a significant increase over previous years (Figure 13a; see also Table 4 in Appendix 2). This is an area that experienced a shift in language^{Footnote 15} in the RCMP's SB/OR Reporting System, possibly producing the change in the results. Nevertheless, this should not downplay the significance of the rise in the presence of weapons; it merely suggests that some proportion of the increase might be attributable to differences in the manner in which the information is currently being recorded by the RCMP compared to previous years.

Figure 13a
Event Characteristics: Perceived Possession of Weapon, 2010

Text Version Figure 13a

Figure 13b
Event Characteristics: Type of Weapon, 2010

Text Version Figure 13b

The SB/OR Reporting System now also provides greater detail in the categorization of CEW usage characteristics and Deployment Type (figures 14a, 14b, 14c and 14d; see also Table 4 in Appendix 2). In particular, what would have been characterized simply as "Not Engaged" in previous CEW annual reports is now broken down more comprehensively. The figures for Deployment Type again suggest a trend shown in earlier CEW annual reports: the continuing non‑engagement of the CEW by RCMP members. In nearly 70% of events, the CEW was utilized as a deterrent rather than as a defensive weapon. In these non-engagement cases, the laser sight was activated or the CEW was drawn and displayed about half the time; in the remaining cases, the CEW was pointed directly at the subject.

When the CEW was engaged, "Probes" were deployed about two-thirds of the time (Figure 14b). This proportion remains unchanged from 2009, while the proportion of all CEW-related cases involving "Contact Stun" has yet again dropped, from 14% in 2009 to 12% in 2010 (Figure 14a and Table 31 in Appendix 2).

Figure 14a
CEW Usage Characteristics, 2010

Text Version Figure 14a

Figure 14b
CEW Deployment Type, 2010

Text Version Figure 14b

Figure 14c
CEW Threatened versus Deployed, 2010

Text Version Figure 14c

One of the difficulties in trying to compare these new deployment numbers to the figures from previous CEW annual reports stems from the difference in the unit of analysis. Because the data in Table 4 (Appendix 2) is based on events, each deployment is treated as a unique situation. This is problematic if the incident in question involves multiple deployments. Of greatest interest are incidents in which a subject may receive both "Contact Stun" and "Probe" deployments. To address this issue for the purpose of the present report, it is more appropriate to consider subjects as the unit of analysis. In Figure 14d (see also Table 83 in Appendix 2), the most serious deployment type is demonstrated for each subject. The most notable finding is that the rate (0.8%) at which subjects experience both forms of active deployment (push-stun and probe modes) is very low. The results otherwise confirm what was demonstrated in Table 4.

Figure 14d
Most Serious Usage Type by Subject, 2010

Text Version Figure 14d

More comprehensive data on deployment characteristics are illustrated in Table 5 (Appendix 2). When CEWs were engaged in push-stun mode, subjects were, on average, stunned 1.6 times (Figure 15). More than 80% of all such events saw the subject stunned one or two times. Interestingly, the full duration of the stun cycle was used less than half the time (Figure 16). The back (34.6%), lower body (32.1%), and shoulder/arm (19.2%) target areas of subjects were the most likely stun impact sites.

Figure 15
Number of Times Stun Mode Used, 2010

Text Version Figure 15

Figure 16
Stun versus Probe, 2010

Text Version Figure 16

Similar to push-stun mode, probes were usually deployed only once (Figure 17a; see also Table 5 in Appendix 2). Further, when deployed in probe mode, it was not uncommon for the CEW to be cycled only once (Figure 17b); cycles of greater number occurred in only 9% of successful probe deployments. A value of 0 for Number of Cycles indicated that one or both probes did not make contact with the subject and, as a result, the weapon did not cycle (see also Number of Probe Impacts in Table 5, Appendix 2).^{Footnote 16} The chest, back and lower body were the most common impact locations. And, in contrast to push-stun mode usage, RCMP members were more apt (60%) to employ the probe mode for a full cycle duration.

Figure 17a
Number of Cartridges Fired, 2010

Text Version Figure 17a

Figure 17b
Number of Probe Cycles, 2010

Text Version Figure 17b

In the vast majority (85.5%) of cases, RCMP members judged the CEW to have been effective in controlling subjects (Table 4 in Appendix 2). It should be noted that since this is a new question, there is no basis for direct comparison with previous CEW annual reports published by the Commission. However, this figure is consistent with previous questions that asked whether the CEW "avoided the use of lethal force" or "avoided injuries". The variable Impediments captures the circumstances in which the CEW was not considered effective. Approximately one‑quarter of ineffective deployments were owing to the CEW having no effect on the subject. Secondary analyses found that all those subjects not affected by the CEW were under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. Although several potential response categories are available, the large proportion of "other" impediments suggests that the reasons for the CEW having been ineffectual were extremely diverse.

And, lastly, the Weapon Model section of Table 4 (Appendix 2) highlights the ongoing phasing‑out of the Taser® M26 by the RCMP. In 2010, the M26 model was used in only 10% of events.

E. Injury Characteristics

Information regarding injuries is sparse within the SB/OR Reporting System. The description of injuries that was previously available through the RCMP's CEW usage reports has, unfortunately, been discontinued. In its place are, arguably, less illuminating questions.

As demonstrated in Figure 18a (see also Table 6 in Appendix 2), results show that only a small number (3.5%) of subjects were injured by CEW usage in 2010. Puncture marks which are characteristic of probe deployment are not considered by the RCMP to constitute injury. Subjects who were injured were almost always (91.3%) offered medical attention, and most of those who were offered medical treatment accepted. RCMP members were treated for injuries in only a fraction (1.4%) of CEW-related cases.

Figure 18a
Injury Characteristics: Usage Injured Subject, 2010

Text Version Figure 18a

Figure 18b
Injury Characteristics: Subject Level of Treatment, 2010

Text Version Figure 18b

A. Conducted Energy Weapon Deployment

Having established a descriptive framework in the previous section, this report now turns to bivariate relationships. In contrast to descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses allow for the testing of relationships between two variables. For example, the first set of analyses presented in this part of the report considers the relationships between CEW deployment and the various conditions surrounding the events. Specifically, chi-square (x²)^{Footnote 17} analyses were conducted to compare CEW deployment (or non-deployment) with the following variables:

• Substance Use (Table 7)
• Weapons Involvement (Table 8)
• Number of RCMP Members Present (Table 9)
• Incident Type (Table 10)
• Subject's Sex (Table 11)
• Subject's Age (Table 12)
• Emotional Disturbance/Emotionally Disturbed (Table 13)
• RCMP Division (Table 14a)
• Member's Years of Service (Table 14b)

The results of the 2010 bivariate analyses for CEW deployment were consistent with those in the Commission's 2009 annual CEW report. However, two variables that were not significantly related to deployment in 2009 were identified as significant predictors in 2010: Perceived Substance Use and Incident Type. As noted earlier, both of these variables, particularly incident type, have changed in meaning within the RCMP's SB/OR Reporting System. One new variable, i.e. whether or not the subject appeared to be Emotionally Disturbed, was found to be linked to higher deployment rates. In 2009, a greater Number of RCMP Members Present (recoded) was associated with higher probabilities of deployment. However, in 2010, there was no such relationship. Otherwise, the results remained by and large unchanged from 2009. In addition to Substance Use and Incident Type, Subject Age, Member's Years of Service, and RCMP Division were significant predictors of CEW deployment, whereas the remaining variables were found to have no significant relationship with deployment.

For the purpose of illustration, we begin by testing the association between CEW Deployment and Substance Use (Figure 19 and Table 7 in Appendix 2). In this case, both variables were measured dichotomously as in "yes" or "no". That is, the CEW was either deployed or it was not, and substance use was either perceived by RCMP members to be involved or it was not. The proportion of "yes" answers for CEW Deployment is of particular interest here. Figure 19 shows that when substance use was not involved, the CEW was deployed 22.9% of the time. However, when substance use was manifest, the proportion of cases in which the CEW was deployed rose to 35.3%. The chi-square statistic of 8.24 (at one degree of freedom [df]) is significant (p < 0.05). Thus, we can conclude that substance use was related to CEW usage and that it significantly increased the probability that the CEW was deployed by RCMP members.

Figure 19
Whether CEW was Deployed by Perceived Substance Use, 2010

Text Version Figure 19

Incident Type (Figure 20 and Table 10), Subject's Age (Figure 22 and Table 12), Emotionally Disturbed (Figure 23 and Table 13), RCMP Division (Figure 21a and Table 14a) and Member's Years of Service (Figure 21b and Table 14b) all showed a similar pattern of a positive relationship.

Incident types have been reorganized in Table 10 to illustrate descending deployment probabilities. There are clearly a wide assortment of likelihoods, ranging from 100% for CEW‑related cases involving "murder or attempted murder", over 50% for both "assault on a police officer" and "obstruction", and less than 10% for "driving while intoxicated", "disturbing the peace" and "kidnapping".

As with Incident Type, RCMP Divisions demonstrated wide variations in deployment, ranging from a low of 16.7% in the Northwest Territories to a high of 71.4% in Nunavut (Table 14a). With the exception of an increase in Nunavut (based on a very small number of cases), deployment was either stable (Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) or fell in all other provinces and territories. There were marked declines in the proportion of incidents resulting in deployment in Newfoundland and Labrador and the Yukon. Overall, the ranking of each RCMP division's CEW deployment rates correspond closely with those recorded in 2009.

Figure 20
Whether CEW was Deployed by Incident Type, 2010

Text Version Figure 20

Figure 21a
Whether CEW was Deployed by Division, 2010

Text Version Figure 21a

Figure 21b
Whether CEW was Deployed by Member Years of Service, 2010

Text Version Figure 21b

The non-linear pattern of findings for Subject's Age (Figure 22 and Table 12 in Appendix 2) makes the interpretation of this relationship slightly more complicated. It appears that the ends of the subject age continuum (i.e. those individuals under 20 years of age and those over 50) are driving the significant results. Subjects under the age of 20 experience CEW engagement in just less than 1 out of 5 incidents. On the other hand, the CEW is engaged in slightly less than half of cases where the subject is over 50 years of age. Between the ages of 20 and 49, differences in engagement probabilities are inconsequential.

Figure 22
Whether CEW was Deployed by Subject's Age, 2010

Text Version Figure 22

By comparison, the results for Emotionally Disturbed show a simple, direct effect: CEW engagement is more likely when the subject is deemed emotionally disturbed (Figure 23 and Table 13 in Appendix 2).

Figure 23
Whether CEW was Deployed by Subject Emotionally Disturbed, 2010

Text Version Figure 23

The likelihood of CEW deployment was marginally higher when the subject was male, but this difference was not significantly different (Table 11). And, the perceived presence of a weapon was similarly unrelated to whether or not the CEW was engaged (Table 8).

Finally, there was a significant relationship between CEW deployment and the years of service of those RCMP members involved in CEW events. In particular, members with 6 or more years of service were more apt to deploy the device than those with less years of service (Figure 21b and Table 14b in Appendix 2).

B. Medical Attention Required

The second issue addressed through bivariate analyses relates to the issue of injury seriousness. The RCMP's previous CEW usage reports collected information on whether subjects had been examined at a medical facility. Medical examination was taken as a rough proxy for seriousness or severity of injuries, with the caveat that subjects were sometimes taken for medical exams even if their injuries were not directly related to the use of a CEW.^{Footnote 18} However, as noted earlier in Part Three, the present SB/OR Reporting System generates far less detail regarding the consideration of injuries. As shown in Table 6 (Appendix 2), while the SB/OR Reporting System collects data and information related to subject injuries, very few cases of injuries were reported. Medical treatment was offered in a large proportion of cases involving injury, and such offers were almost always accepted by subjects. The new Medical Examination variable is derived from the SB/OR variable Subject Level of Treatment, which is filtered to ensure that only injuries related to the use of the CEW are considered.

Chi-square (x²) analyses were conducted using the following variables:

• Mode of Deployment (Table 15)
• Number of Cartridges Fired (Table 16)
• Number of Times Push-Stun Mode Used (Table 17)
• Multiple Cycling (Table 18)
• Substance Use (Table 19)
• Weapons Involvement (Table 20)
• Number of RCMP Members Present (Table 21)
• Incident Type (Table 22)
• Subject's Sex (Table 23)
• Subject's Age (Table 24)
• RCMP Division (Table 25)
• Taser Model (Table 26)

It is important for readers to note that all of the following analyses were limited to circumstances in which the CEW was actually deployed.

Simply stated, with one notable exception, none of the variables analyzed were significantly related to medical attention. Figure 24 (see also Table 15 in Appendix 2) shows an association between Deployment Mode and the need for medical attention. Specifically, probe mode produced a greater proportion of medical cases than did push-stun mode.

Figure 24
Whether Medical Attention was Provided by Mode of Deployment, 2010

Text Version Figure 24

The lack of significant results may reflect the small number of cases involving medical attention.

Summary of Bivariate Analyses of CEW Deployment

• Perceived Substance Use and a subject's Emotional Disturbance significantly increased the probability of deployment.
• Incident Type and RCMP Division were significant predictors of deployment.
• Subject's Age was a significant predictor of deployment. The relationship is not perfectly linear, but CEW deployment was less likely with younger subjects (under 20 years old) and more likely with older subjects (50 years and older).
• Member's Years of Service was a significant predictor of CEW deployment whereby the more years of service that a RCMP member had, the greater the likelihood of CEW deployment.
• With one notable exception (i.e. Deployment Mode) none of the 11 variables analyzed were significantly related to medical attention.

A. Comparing 2010 to 2009

In this section, tables 28 through 32 compare all of the descriptive results shown in Part Three with those of the previous year, with one notable exception. There is no comparative table provided for Injury Characteristics, as the variables have changed too significantly to allow for meaningful comparison. As such, there is no basis upon which to examine 2010 results against historical data. A summary of the significant year-to-year changes is presented in Table 27.

With respect to CEW Occurrence Characteristics (Figure 25 and Table 28 in Appendix 2), there was some minor shuffling evident in the distribution of CEW reports across RCMP divisions. The most notable change was the drop of almost 10 points in the proportion of cases recorded in British Columbia. The largest corresponding increases occurred in Saskatchewan and Alberta, but only the gain in Saskatchewan was statistically significant. The figures for British Columbia and Saskatchewan are, respectively, a historical low and high. The results for Duty Type, particularly for "General Duty", appear, at first glance, to be quite different between 2009 and 2010. However, this divergence is likely the result of the considerable number of missing cases in 2009 compared to no missing cases in the current reporting year. If one looks only at "known" cases, the figure for "General Duty" in 2009 rises to 94.6%, a finding comparable to 2010. Similarly, controlling for missing cases, Constables account for 91.1% of CEW reports in 2009; this is an equivalent percentage to 2010.

Figure 25
CEW Occurrence Characteristics: RCMP division, 2009 & 2010

Text Version Figure 25

According to Figure 26 (see also Table 29 in Appendix 2), CEW-related events continue to involve multiple RCMP members. On average, 3.1 RCMP members were present during CEW-related incidents in 2010. This finding was slightly higher than the average (2.8) recorded in 2009, and represents the highest annual value recorded since the initiation of the Commission's CEW Project.

The average number of usage reports per RCMP member remained virtually unchanged between 2009 (1.26) and 2010 (1.24) (Figure 27).

In terms of the setting of CEW-related incidents, the comparison had to be modified because the combined "Indoor and Outdoor" category was not available in 2009. If the numbers are revised to control for this fact, there was no substantive difference between 2009 and 2010.

Figure 26
Number of RCMP Members Present, 2009 & 2010

Text Version Figure 26

Figure 27
CEW Usage Reports Per RCMP Member, 2009 & 2010

Text Version Figure 27

There was very little change in the proportion of males and females and in the average age of subjects between 2009 and 2010 (Table 30). And, while the proportion of cases reported to include general substance use decreased over the two years, the difference was not quite enough to register as statistically significant. However, in the specific case of "Alcohol", the reduction in cases was significant in 2010 (Figure 28b). Alcohol involvement, while still ubiquitous, was not as prevalent as it had been in 2009 or in the Commission's previous annual CEW reports.

Figure 28a
Subject Characteristics: Perceived Substance Use, 2009 & 2010

Text Version Figure 28a

Figure 28b
Subject Characteristics: Type of Substance, 2009 & 2010

Text Version Figure 28b

Figures 29a and 29b (see also Table 31 in Appendix 2) reveal several key changes pertinent to CEW deployment. The percentage of incidents involving the Perceived Possession of a Weapon rose in 2010. The wording of this variable in the RCMP's SB/OR Reporting System is subtly different than in the previous year; specifically, the word "perceived" was added. While this same variation had no discernible impact on the Substance Use variable presented in Table 30, it is possible that identifying substance impairment always has a strong subjective element and that adding perception to reporting is unlikely to alter that assessment. Conversely, it is possible that the addition of "perceived" to weapons possession broadened the scope of weapons involvement. Again, this suggestion is not meant to downplay the importance of these findings. Rather, the nearly 12% increase in the percentage of events involving an edged weapon and the 3% increase in cases involving firearms suggests that a degree of caution in the interpretation of the results is warranted.

Figure 29a
Event Characteristics: Perceived Possession of Weapon, 2009 & 2010

Text Version Figure 29a

Figure 29b
Event Characteristics: Type of Weapon, 2009 & 2010

Text Version Figure 29b

The statistics on deployment continue to demonstrate a downward trend as noted in the Commission's previous annual CEW reports. CEWs were deployed in one (1) out of three (3) incidents in 2010, showing a slight decline compared to 2009. The threatened use of CEWs by RCMP members is being used more and more as a deterrent or method of de-escalation, without the device having to be deployed.

Figure 30a
CEW Threatened versus Deployed, 2009 & 2010

Text Version Figure 30a

Push-stun mode is primarily used in actively combative or assaultive situations where RCMP members cannot achieve separation from the subject, as in the following case.

Overall, 2010 experienced a three-point decrease in the proportion of push-stun mode cases, while CEWs deployed in probe mode remained relatively stable from 2009 (Figure 30b).

Figure 30b
Deployment Type, 2009 & 2010

Text Version Figure 30b

Furthermore, both the average number of probe cartridges fired and the average number of times that push-stun mode was used showed little change from 2009 to 2010, as illustrated in the graphs below.

Figure 31a
Number of Cartridges Fired, 2009 & 2010

Text Version Figure 31a

Figure 31b
Number of Times Stun Mode Used, 2009 & 2010

Text Version Figure 31b

Moreover, while the decrease in the average number of cycles was not large, it was nevertheless statistically significant (Figure 32a and Table 32 in Appendix 2). Specifically, 2010 experienced far fewer cases of the CEW being cycled two or more times.

Figure 32a
Number of Cycles, 2009 & 2010

Text Version Figure 32a

Finally, 2010 marked a significant decline in cases of full cycle duration, as displayed in Figure 32b.

Figure 32b
Cycle Duration, 2009 & 2010

Text Version Figure 32b

Summary of 2009 to 2010 Conducted Energy Weapon Report Comparisons

In 2010:

• The proportion of reports where the CEW was actually engaged decreased.
• The overall proportion of CEW reports decreased significantly in British Columbia and increased significantly in Saskatchewan.
• The average number of RCMP members present slightly decreased, while the average number of usage reports per RCMP member remained stable.
• There was a significant drop in the percentage of CEW cases involving alcohol use.
• There was a significant increase in the percentage of cases involving the perceived possession of a weapon (both firearms and edged weapons).

B. Annual Comparisons – 2002–2010

While the analyses offered in the previous section are appropriate for comparing more recent changes from 2009 to 2010, they are not able to discern potentially important long-range trends. This section attempts to identify and evaluate important historical trends in relation to the comparisons examined in Section 5A above.^{Footnote 19}

The relationship between incident year and three or more RCMP members present illustrated in Figure 33 (see also Table 33 in Appendix 2) shows an important non-linear pattern of results. In the earliest implementation years of the CEW by the RCMP, the proportion of incidents involving three or more officers was about 50%. Between 2004 and 2008, that rate stabilized at a lower proportion of around 40%. However, that rate has begun to climb in each of the past two years. The reason(s) for these increases remains unclear.

Figure 33
Three or More RCMP Members Present by Incident Year

Text Version Figure 33

Placed in historical context, the increase in the mean number of CEW reports per RCMP member involved in a CEW incident in 2010 is not as unusual as it first appears (Figure 34 and Table 34 in Appendix 2). Rather, 2009 was a somewhat anomalous year in terms of the number of RCMP members with multiple reports. The 2010 value of 30%, while still the highest recorded, is more comparable to the values reported between 2006 and 2008.

Figure 34
RCMP Members with Multiple CEW Reports by Incident Year

Text Version Figure 34

The dramatic increase in Weapons Involvement noted in Figure 29a (see also Table 31 in Appendix 2) is confirmed in Figure 35 (Table 35). The percentage of weapons-related CEW events has been on the rise since 2008, with 2010 recording the highest level to date. However, the jump in 2010 is far out of proportion with any change that was evident in the past. Again, it is recommended that the current figure for weapons involvement be interpreted cautiously until further investigation can properly contextualize the change in wording in the RCMP's SB/OR Reporting System.

Figure 35
Whether Weapons were Involved by Incident Year

Text Version Figure 35

Figure 36 (see also Table 36) demonstrates that the decrease in CEW engagement between 2009 and 2010 is indicative of a much longer-term trend. From 2002 to 2004, the rate of deployment rose from 72.1% to 91.0%. Put another way, in 2004, almost all CEW occurrences resulted in deployment. Since that pinnacle in 2004, the rate of deployment has declined every year. By 2007, it had essentially returned to 2002 levels. The decline between 2009 and 2010 was not as precipitous as it was between 2008 and 2009, but it was still significant. It is also worth noting that the overall number of reports dropped for the fourth year in a row.

Figure 36
Whether CEW was Deployed by Incident Year

Text Version Figure 36

Figure 37 (see also Table 37) reveals that, with minor fluctuations, the percentage of events where push-stun mode was used more than once was relatively consistent at about 37% between 2003 and 2005. The following two years experienced a slight increase in usage, followed by a sharp decline in 2008. Percentages in 2009 and 2010 seem to reflect the earlier trend in push-stun mode deployment observed in the 2003 to 2005 time period. This trend seems, at least in part, to reflect ongoing shifts in the manner in which RCMP members use CEWs. As stated previously, because push-stun mode is appropriate in very close encounters, its use is generally not optimal for officer safety. Thus, use is limited to more exigent circumstances when probes cannot be effectively used.

Figure 37
Whether Stun Mode Used More Than Once by Incident Year

Text Version Figure 37

The findings for cycling presented in Figure 38 (see also Table 38) display a similar stable pattern between 2003 and 2009. However, 2010 marks a notable break in this historical trend, falling to a rate of 8.6%. In other words, in the current reporting year, fewer than 10% of CEW events resulted in multiple cycling of the device. It is difficult to speculate as to the cause of this drop. Further data will be required to determine whether the 2010 result for multiple probe cycling is merely an anomaly or represents a substantive change.

Figure 38
Whether CEW Cycled More Than Once by Incident Year

Text Version Figure 38

A. Behavioural Categories

A. Youth Aged 13-17

Figures 41 and 42, respectively, illustrate trends in the proportion of CEW reports involving youth and in the proportion of actual CEW deployments involving youth 13 to 17 years of age (see also tables 51 and 52 in Appendix 2). Figure 41 shows that the proportion of CEW reports involving youth increased in 2010. The rate of 7.37% is the highest recorded and is well above the historical average. In contrast, the figure related to CEW engagement in 2010 is essentially unchanged from 2009 (Figure 42). In other words, CEWs were either threatened or drawn against youth proportionately more often in 2010 than in previous years, but an increase in the level of actual deployment of the device against youth was not observed.

Figure 41
CEW Reported by Year - Subjects Under 18

Text Version Figure 41

Figure 42
CEW Deployed by Year - Subjects Under 18

Text Version Figure 42

Due to the relatively small number of cases involving youth, considerable care must be taken in interpreting even the descriptive results. Still, there were several notable differences when "youth cases" were compared to the overall results.

For example, in contrast to the overall figures, Figure 43 (see also Table 53 in Appendix 2) suggests that CEW reports involving youth were proportionately much less likely in British Columbia - "E" Division (11.4% for youth vs. 26.8% overall) and Alberta – "K" Division (11.4% for youth vs. 20.6% overall) and much more prevalent in Saskatchewan – "F" Division (31.8% for youth vs. 20.6% overall), Nova Scotia – "H" Division (15.9% for youth vs. 5.9% overall) and the Yukon – "M" Division (6.8% for youth vs. 1.8% overall).

Figure 43
CEW Occurrence Characteristics: RCMP Division, 2010

Text Version Figure 43

According to Figure 44 (see also Table 54 in Appendix 2), in 2010, youth-related CEW incidents drew slightly fewer RCMP members relative to the overall average.

Figure 44
Number of RCMP Members Present, 2010

Text Version Figure 44

There are also a few clear differences with respect to Incident Type. Specifically, youth were less likely to be involved in cases of "assault" but more apt to be involved in "weapons offences" with respect to 2010 CEW-related incidents.

Figure 45
CEW Occurrence Characteristics: Incident Type, 2010

Text Version Figure 45

The prevalence of weapons is confirmed in Figure 46a (see also Table 56 in Appendix 2), showing that 73% of youth subjects were perceived to have a weapon, compared to the overall average of 61%. The following is indicative of the type of weapon-involved incidents involving youths.

Figure 46a
Event Characteristics: Perceived Possession of Weapon, 2010

Text Version Figure 46a

Figure 46b
Event Characteristics: Type of Weapon, 2010
*More than 1 answer per report was possible

Text Version Figure 46b

It is somewhat surprising that the numbers pertaining to perceived substance use and alcohol were relatively low for youth compared to the total population (see Table 55 in Appendix 2).

Figure 47a
Subject Characteristics: Perceived Substance Use, 2010

Text Version Figure 47a

Figure 47b
Subject Characteristics: Type of Substance, 2010
*More than 1 answer per report was possible

Text Version Figure 47b

Also noteworthy is the fact that in 42% of CEW events, subject behaviour was coded in the RCMP's SB/OR Reporting System as "grievous bodily harm or death" (Figure 48 and Table 56 in Appendix 2), which is in contrast to the overall average of 29%. In general, this finding appears to be related to the types of incidents that tend to generate youth reports. Weapons offences and mental health events (usually suicidal subjects with a weapon) were the two most common incident types for youths in 2010. Both of these occurrences tend to be associated with heightened evaluations of risk, corresponding to the aforementioned subject behaviour category.

Figure 48
Event Characteristics: Subject Behavior, 2010

Text Version Figure 48

The statistics for Deployment Type are consistent with the conclusions drawn from Table 52: i.e. the CEW is used much more as a deterrent against youth compared to the rest of the population. In particular, the figures for "Laser Sight Activated" and "Draw and Display" are both considerably higher when the subject is a youth.

Figure 49a
CEW Threatened versus Deployed, 2010

Text Version Figure 49a

Figure 49b
CEW Usage Characteristics, 2010

Text Version Figure 49b

With respect to tables 57 and 58 in Appendix 2, the very small number of cases renders any comparisons virtually meaningless.

B. Mental Health

The situation with regard to CEW usage in mental health incidents declined in 2010 by about two-thirds the number reported in 2009. Figures 50a and 50b (see also Table 59 in Appendix 2) indicate that the proportion of both total CEW reports related to mental health incidents and total CEW deployment or engagement reports involving the mental health designation returned to 2008 levels after increases in 2009. As well, the percentage of mental health reports where the CEW was engaged continued to fall, showing a trend of declining deployment rates since 2005.

Figure 50a
CEW Related Mental Health Incidents by Year

Text Version Figure 50a

Figure 50b
CEW Report and Deployments by Year - Mental Health Incidents Compared to Total CEW Incidents

Text Version Figure 50b

There were several areas in which CEW-related mental health incidents produced notable results. For example, British Columbia ("E" Division) had the highest incidence of these types of events, accounting for over 50% of mental health reports (Figure 51 and Table 60 in Appendix 2).

Figure 51
CEW Occurrence Characteristics: RCMP Division, 2010

Text Version Figure 51

In line with the perception of mental health cases being particularly dangerous, given subject behaviour and the high likelihood of weapons involvement, it was not surprising that a large number of RCMP members routinely attended these events (Figure 52 and Table 61 in Appendix 2).

Figure 52
Number of RCMP Members Present, 2010

Text Version Figure 52

As demonstrated in Figure 53 (see Table 63 in Appendix 2), in almost two-thirds of CEW-related mental health incidents in 2010, subjects exhibited behaviours that RCMP members believed were intended to, or likely to, cause grievous bodily harm or death to any person.

Figure 53
Event Characteristics: Subject Behaviour, 2010

Text Version Figure 53

Moreover, as noted previously in Part Seven of the present report, mental health incidents in 2010 primarily involved subjects who were suicidal (67.4%), most of whom were in possession of a weapon such as a knife (figures 54a and 54b; see also Table 63 in Appendix 2).

Figure 54a
Event Characteristics: Perceived Possession of Weapon, 2010

Text Version Figure 54a

Figure 54b
Event Characteristics: Type of Weapon, 2010
*More than 1 answer per report was possible

Text Version Figure 54b

Figure 55
Event Characteristics: Behaviour Directed At, 2010

Text Version Figure 55

The probability of deployment of the CEW for these types of events was also greater than the overall average, particularly when engaging the device in probe mode (Figure 56a and Table 63 in Appendix 2). In other words, the CEW is more likely to be deployed in CEW incidents when the subject is deemed to be suffering from a mental health issue (Figure 56b).

Figure 56a
CEW Usage Characteristics, 2010

Text Version Figure 56a

In non-suicidal cases, mental illnesswas generally inferred from the seemingly unusual behaviour of the subject. The following case encapsulates well some of the issues pertinent to mental health.

Appendix 1 – RCMP Conducted Energy Weapon Policy

Operational Manual – Conducted Energy Weapon (Amended on April 29, 2010)

1. General

1.1. Only the Advanced Taser M26 (model 44000) and Taser X26E (Law Enforcement) (model 26012) conducted energy weapons (CEW) are approved for RCMP operational use as an intervention option to control a subject and avert injury to any person.

NOTE: As each Taser M26 reaches its life expectancy, it will be replaced by a Taser X26E. No new Taser M26 will be purchased.

1.2. The fluorescent yellow stickers on the CEW are intended to differentiate it from the pistol and must not be removed or altered under any circumstance.

1.3. Subject to sec. 1.6., only trained members and certified instructors who have successfully completed the CEW User Course (HRMIS Code 000028) or the CEW Instructor Course (HRMIS Code 000029) are permitted to use a CEW operationally.

NOTE: Candidates participating in the CEW User Course, CEW Instructors Course or the Cadet Training Program may handle/use the CEW under the supervision of an instructor as prescribed by course material.

1.4. Members certified to use the CEW must re-certify annually.

1.5. Members' CEW training and re-certification must be documented on HRMIS.

1.6. Members whose CEW certification has lapsed must not use the CEW operationally until the re-certification training has been completed.

2. Definitions

2.1. Acutely agitated or delirious person includes, but is not limited to, a person demonstrating one or more symptoms, such as substance abuse coupled with severe mental and physical exhaustion, or hyper-aggressiveness often characterized by extreme agitation, profuse sweating, hostility, exceptional strength and endurance without apparent fatigue.

2.2. Data download means the retrieval of information, recorded and stored in the CEW about its deployment, through the data port-function by connecting the data port to a computer. A data download provides information about CEW usage which can be valuable to an investigation.

2.3. Medically high risk situation includes, but is not limited to:

2.3.1. the deployment in probe mode for longer than 5 seconds, and

2.3.2. the deployment in either probe or push stun mode against:

2.3.2.1. an elderly person,

2.3.2.2. a child,

2.3.2.3. a person the member has reason to believe is pregnant,

2.3.2.4. an acutely agitated or delirious person, or

2.3.2.5. a person the member has reason to believe has a medical condition that may be worsened by use of a CEW.

2.4. Operational cartridge means an RCMP-approved cartridge for operational use and training, except scenario-based training.

2.5. Probe mode means the deployment of an activated CEW by discharging and propelling two electrical probes, equipped with small barbs that hook onto a subject's clothing or skin, allowing electrical energy to be transferred to that subject.

2.6. Push stun mode means pressing or pushing an activated CEW onto designated push/stun locations on a subject, allowing electrical energy to be transferred to that subject.

2.7. Training cartridge means the RCMP-approved blue simulation air cartridge for scenario-based training.

2.8. Use of a CEW means when:

2.8.1. a CEW is activated;

2.8.2. a CEW is drawn from its holster (activated or not); or

2.8.3. reference to the use of a CEW is made in gaining control of a situation.

3. Deployment

3.1. General

3.1.1. The CEW must only be used in accordance with CEW training, the principles of the Incident Management/Intervention Model (IM/IM) and when a subject is causing bodily harm, or the member believes on reasonable grounds, that the subject will imminently cause bodily harm as determined by the member's assessment of the totality of the circumstances. See also ch. 17.1.

NOTES:

1. In accordance with sec. 2., CC , bodily harm is defined as any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature.
2. Members' actions must be reasonable and the force used must be necessary in the circumstances. Members must fully and accurately report and articulate their actions. Supervisors/managers will ensure all reporting requirements are complied with and appropriately evaluate all interventions to ensure compliance with RCMP directives.

3.1.2. All members must recognize that any use of force entails risk.

3.1.3. Where tactically feasible, members will use de-escalation techniques and/or other crisis intervention techniques before using a CEW.

3.1.4. Where tactically feasible, members will issue a verbal warning so the subject is aware that a CEW is about to be deployed.

3.1.5. Multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW may be hazardous to a subject. Unless situational factors dictate otherwise, members must not cycle the CEW for more than 5 seconds on a subject and will avoid multiple deployments.

3.1.6. Members should make every effort to take control of the subject as soon as possible following the deployment of a CEW, and if possible during the CEW deployment.

NOTE: The CEW is not intended as a restraint device.

3.1.7. Acutely agitated or delirious persons may be at a higher risk of death. Whenever possible, when responding to reports of an individual who is violent or in an acutely agitated or delirious state, request the assistance of emergency medical services. If possible, bring medical assistance to the scene.

3.1.8. For cold-weather limitations for model M26, see sec. 7.2.3.

4. Voluntary Exposure

4.1. Only candidates taking the CEW User Course or the CEW Instructor Course or the Cadet Training Program are permitted to participate in the CEW Voluntary Exposure Exercise. Any such exposure is to be done under the direct supervision of an RCMP CEW Instructor.

NOTE: Do not permit any member of the public to participate in a CEW voluntary exposure exercise.

5. Deployment Aftercare

5.1. After deploying a CEW, advise the subject that he/she has been subjected to a CEW deployment, and that the effects are expected to be short term.

5.2. Whenever possible, in medically high risk situations, request medical assistance before using the CEW. If medical assistance is not requested or a CEW deployment is necessary before the arrival of medical assistance, obtain medical assistance as soon as practicable.

5.3. Members must ensure that the subject receive medical assistance if the subject has any apparent medical or physical injury or affliction, the subject is in distress, or the subject requests medical assistance. See ch. 19.2. for policy related to assessing responsiveness/medical assistance.

5.4. A member with current first aid certification may remove the probes following the deployment of a CEW in probe mode, unless a probe is lodged in a sensitive part of the body, such as the eye or the groin, or the subject's condition warrants medical attention.

5.5. Members will remove the probes from a subject in a manner that least interferes with the privacy and dignity of that subject, while providing for the safety of the member and the subject.

5.6. If a medical or physical injury or affliction is claimed or observed, members will do the following:

5.6.1. Make note of any injury or affliction they observe, and any injury or affliction described by the subject.

5.6.2. Photograph the injury or afflicted area as observed, or the area of the injury or affliction as described by the subject and secure as evidence.

5.6.3. If feasible, request a statement relative to any injury or affliction from the subject.

5.6.4. Collect the expended cartridge and probes as taught in CEW training, and secure them as an exhibit for a minimum of 90 days. Cartridges that are not required for criminal, civil, or code of conduct investigations can be disposed of after 90 days.

5.6.5. Where possible, dispose the probes in a sharps container.

6. Reporting and Accountability

6.1. Member

6.1.1. Before signing out a CEW for operational duty:

6.1.1.1. Examine the CEW for any damages or obstructions to the electrical contacts and cartridges.

6.1.1.2. If there is no apparent damages or obstructions to the electrical contacts and cartridges, conduct a spark test.

6.1.2. Do not use or carry a CEW with any damage or obstruction to the electrical contacts.

6.1.3. Complete all information in the CEW sign out log form 6333.

6.1.4. Record the serial number of the CEW in your notebook.

6.1.5. As soon as practicable, each time the CEW is used, notify your supervisor.

6.1.6. Record on the investigative file any medical or physical injury or affliction.

6.1.7. As outlined in ch. 17.8., complete a Subject Behaviour/Officer Response (SB/OR) report every time a CEW is used, and attach the completed copy to the operational file. For the definition of ‘use' of a CEW, see sec. 2.8.

6.1.8. If a CEW is unintentionally discharged, report the incident to your supervisor and record the details in your notebook.

6.1.9. Where applicable, follow division reporting directives.

6.2. Supervisor

6.2.1. Ensure members submit a SB/OR report. When a CEW was used, review reports for adherence to applicable policies as soon as practicable.

6.2.2. To make changes or additions after submission of an SB/OR report, unlock the SB/OR report and have the submitting member make the required changes or additions and resubmit. Attach a copy of the revised report to the operational file in addition to the original report to ensure changes are tracked.

6.2.3. If an injury to a member occurs as a result of the use of a CEW, complete form 3414. See OSM ch. 3.

6.3. Commander

6.3.1. Ensure that members under your command are aware of the directives in this chapter.

6.3.2. Ensure the original CEW package received contains one CEW, fully charged Digital Power Magazine (DPM), one instruction book, one DVD, and one holster (Blade Tech Tek-Lok - for plain clothes use only).

NOTE: Approved holsters for uniform and ERT must be ordered separately, see App. 17-7-1.

6.3.3. Maintain a sign out log form 6333 for each CEW assigned to the unit by recording the time, date and name of each member signing out a CEW.

6.3.4. Keep an adequate supply of CEWs, RCMP-approved holsters, CEW operational cartridges and replacement batteries/DPMs on hand.

6.4. Division

6.4.1. Ensure that supervisors as well as Divisional Use of Force Coordinators/delegate review all SB/OR reportswhen a CEW was used as soon as possible after they are completed for adherence to applicable directives.

6.4.2. Follow divisional internal processes and reporting requirements to ensure that any matter associated to CEW usage is resolved, including referral to division Professional Standards when appropriate, if an issue is identified during the review.

6.4.3. If required by provincial or territorial policy, forward quarterly and annual reports on CEW use to the appropriate provincial or territorial ministry.

6.4.4. Ensure that divisional Criminal Operations maintain a record of the following:

6.4.4.1. all the CEWs in the division and applicable serial numbers;

6.4.4.2. all CEW maintenance activities, findings or actions taken; and

6.4.4.3. the current location of each CEW and its operational status.

6.5. National Criminal Operations

6.5.1. Review all SB/OR reports as soon as practicable after they are completed to ensure consistency with national directives.

6.5.2. If an issue is identified during the review process, notify respective divisional Criminal Operations.

6.5.3. Complete an annual internal audit on the SB/OR database.

6.5.4. Complete quarterly and annual reports on CEW use, including statistical information for each division.

6.6. Chief Information Office (CIO)

6.6.1. Appropriately maintain and manage the SB/OR database for the National Criminal Operations (NCROPS).

6.6.2. Immediately report any issue associated with the SB/OR database to the NCROPS.

7. Maintenance and Control

7.1. General

7.1.1. The CEW is a prohibited firearm. The CEW and its cartridges must be secured in accordance with the Public Agents Firearms Regulations.

7.1.2. CEWs must be carried in an RCMP-approved holster (see App. 17-7-1) on the member's non-dominant side, e.g., opposite the sidearm.

7.2. Batteries

7.2.1. Model X26E

7.2.1.1. The X26E uses a model-specific, digital power magazine (XDPM).

7.2.1.2. Replace the XDPM when the percentage life reads below 20% on the digital display.

7.2.1.3. XDPMs below 20% may be used for training.

7.2.1.4. Dispose of the XDPM when it drops to 1%.

CAUTION: Continued use at 0% may damage the CEW.

7.2.2. Model M26

7.2.2.1. Given the specialized and particular power supply requirements for the M26, only RCMP-approved batteries are to be used. See App. 17-7-2 for battery-reconditioning method.

7.2.2.2. On the M26, the battery indicator light is a simple "power indicator" light when used with NiMH batteries. A spark test is the only approved and reliable method to assess the state of the NiMH batteries and the functionality of the CEW.

7.2.2.3. Use only the following authorized AA batteries listed in order of preference: Taser International (Rechargeable NiMH 44700); and Eveready Energizer ACCU (Rechargeable NiMH in 2100 mA or more).

7.2.3. Model M26 Precautions

7.2.3.1. Ensure batteries are properly charged at all times, particularly during severely cold temperatures.

7.2.3.2. Avoid exposing the M26 CEW to temperatures below -10°C for extended periods.

7.2.3.3. At -20°C or below, when practicable, carry the CEW and cartridges in a warm area.

7.3. Operational/Training Cartridges

7.3.1. Operational Cartridges permitted for operational use, with both the M26 and X26E are: TASER Standard Air Cartridge model 44200 with 21-foot filament.

NOTE: This is a newer version of the currently approved TASER Standard Air Cartridge model 34222 which is no longer available for purchase. Model 34222 is still approved and will be phased out through attrition.

7.3.2. Training Cartridges permitted for use in training are: blue TASER simulation Air Cartridge model 44205 with a 21-foot, non-conductive nylon wire for use in RCMP scenario-based training. This training cartridge will be purchased only by CEW instructors or Division Training Coordinators.

7.3.3. Monitor operational cartridges. They are marked with a five-year expiration date.

7.3.4. If the operational cartridge has not been deployed in five years or is damaged, immediately replace it with a new operational cartridge.

7.3.5. You may use expired operational cartridges for training purposes, except for scenario-based training.

7.3.6. Do not use or carry damaged CEW cartridges.

7.3.7. An operational cartridge should not be stored and carried in the extended DPM of the Taser Model X26E. Cartridges are to be stored in the cartridge carrier/holder provided on the holster.

7.4. Repair and Replacement

7.4.1. In compliance with the Canada Labour Code, faulty or malfunctioning CEWs must be marked or tagged accordingly and be removed from service.

7.4.2. The supervisor will:

7.4.2.1. ensure faulty or malfunctioning CEWs are removed from service, are properly tagged and immediately sent to a qualified person designated by the Cr. Ops. Officer to conduct CEW data downloading. See shipping procedures in FM ch. 6.4.4.

7.4.2.2. after the download is complete, ensure the CEW is returned to the Senior Armourer, "Depot" Division for repair or replacement. See FM ch. 6.4.

7.4.3. If the CEW is being shipped for independent testing as part of an investigation, follow the shipping procedures outlined in FM ch. 6.4.4.

8. Data Downloads

8.1. General

8.1.1. The following individuals are qualified to conduct CEW data downloads: CEW Instructor Trainers, the RCMP Armourer, and any other qualified person designated by the Cr. Ops. Officer.

8.1.2. Follow the same shipping process (see FM ch. 6.4.4.) if the CEW is being shipped specifically for a data download for an investigation about CEW usage or yearly storage of data and resetting of the internal clock to Greenwich Mean Time.

8.2. Division

8.2.1. Download and store the data from all CEWs in your division at least once a year.

8.2.2. Ensure the CEW's internal clock is reset to the correct Greenwich Mean Time at least once a year.

8.2.3. Ensure a data download is conducted on all CEWs being sent for independent testing.

9. Independent CEW Testing

9.1. General

9.1.1. Independent testing of a CEW at a designated testing facility will be completed when:

9.1.1.1. an incident involves injury requiring medical treatment or death proximal to the use of a CEW;

9.1.1.2. a CEW malfunctioned;

9.1.1.3. a supervisor of an incident, a Divisional Use of Force Coordinator, a Criminal Operations Officer, or NCROPS determines that testing is warranted in the circumstances, including in order to address any concerns about the performance of a CEW or the circumstances or impacts of its use; or

9.1.1.4. before a new CEW is put into operational service.

9.1.2. Divisions will institute an independent testing regimen for all model M26 CEWs annually and at least 10% of the model X26s in the division's CEW inventory each year. Results will be reported to NCROPS. If specific provincial or territorial policy requires additional testing of CEWs, affected divisions will ensure compliance with those provincial/territorial requirements.

9.1.3. Testing of the CEW will determine the working state of the CEW and whether the weapon is functioning as per the manufacturer's specifications.

9.1.4. The CEW must be packaged and shipped in accordance with FM ch. 6.4.4. to the address provided by NCROPS.

9.1.5. A CEW that tests outside of the manufacturer's specifications will be removed from service by the Division and will be returned to the armourer for destruction.

9.2. Division

9.2.1. Testing will be conducted at division expense.

9.2.2. Divisional Criminal Operations are to contact the DG NCROPS for the designated testing facility.

9.2.3. Divisional Criminal Operations will ensure that a record of the output test results is maintained for each CEW by serial number.