[Baltimore Citizen’s Academy] Crisis Response Team
The Crisis Response Team was stood up in the summer of 2017 in direct response to the concent decree. On page 81 of the Justice Department complaint, they outline how “BPD officers routinely use unreasonable force against individuals with mental health disabilities or those experiencing a crisis in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, by routinely using unreasonable force against individuals with mental health disabilities, BPD officers repeatedly fail to make reasonable modifications necessary to avoid discrimination in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.”
An example of that was caught on body worn cameras in November 2016.
The body worn camera footage starts at the 11:14 mark. This was an incident where a person had a knife and was exhibiting signs of being mentally unstable. It ended with the cops shooting him non lethally.
Another example was identified in the Justice Department report that was the basis for the consent decree.
In another 2011 incident, nine officers responded to a call for service regarding a man, ‘Christopher,’ standing in the street with no clothing on. In this case, there is no documented attempt to have a specially-trained officer at the scene. When the officers encountered Christopher, they reported that he was speaking religious verses and arguing with himself. They believed he had a mental illness and decided to transport him to a hospital to be evaluated.
There is no indication in the reports that the officers sought to have Christopher go with them voluntarily, and instead they sought to place him in handcuffs, even though he was not under arrest. In order to handcuff him, one officer held his left arm, a second officer held his right arm, and a third officer attempted to apply the handcuffs. Christopher reportedly “became aggressive and violent,” attempting to grab and bite officers. The officers and Christopher fell onto the ground.
From the officers’ reports, it appears that six additional officers were on the scene and available to assist in bringing Christopher under control, but there is no indication that they attempted any control techniques on Christopher. There is also no indication that deescalation techniques or other reasonable modifications were used, such as attempts to verbally calm Christopher, create distance or slow down the incident.
Instead, the transport van driver exited his van and promptly drive-stunned Christopher. Using a taser in drive-stun mode is to be avoided unless it is necessary to “create a safe distance between the officer and subject.” PERF & COPS, 2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines, at 14. BPD had no policy or training so limiting the use of drive-stuns, even against individuals with mental illness or in crisis, at this time. Thus, the van driver continued to drive-stun Christopher, an individual in crisis, “a few more times in his chest and back area” until Christopher became compliant.
As a result of the encounter, Christopher and two officers received minor injuries, and Christopher was transported to the emergency room for treatment. Before the officers’ attempts to handcuff him, he had not committed any violent offense, and presented no immediate physical danger to the officers or the public at large. Christopher was never arrested or charged with a crime. In 2016, BPD issued new guidance limiting officers’ uses of tasers, a positive step forward. Additional work remains, however, to ensure that officers abide by the new guidance
There were a handful of other similar stories in the report. The resulting section in the Consent Decree, Section VI Responding to and Interactive with People with Behavioral Health Disabilities or in Crisis (page 39) includes 27 paragraphs that require changes to officer training, identifying and changing procedures for handling persons in crisis, improving how BPD dispatch identifies potential crisis issues, and many others.
The outcome of that section is the Crisis Response Team. These are officers that are specially trained to handle some of these situations where a mentally unstable person might be involved. For example, with the example of the man with the knife, there were deescalation methods that could have been used instead of resorting to shooting.
After deescalating the situation, there are options for diverting these individuals from jail, to get them mental health treatment. But a lot of it is the follow up afterwards where they will follow up with them at home to make sure they are getting treatment. They can also help connect the individuals with services to help them.
The presenter talked about how much of her job is about persistence. There are a lot of these individuals that don’t trust the police, and require some trust building.
Another thing she said was a major issue is changing providers. They offer help with things like changing providers, which is not a trivial issue for someone with mental health issues.
They can also assist with people who have not had a contact with the police. She told a story of assisting someone who needed help, but wasn’t able to navigate the process of getting an appointment with a provider. They were able to help him get that setup, get him bus fare, and go to his house the day of the appointment to make sure he went to the appointment.
This team is very, very new, and has not even been rolled out to the whole city yet. So the details on this team are still developing, but it is showing that the Baltimore Police are moving forward with the changes required from the consent decree, and that they seem to be making some very powerful, and positive changes to the way they police Baltimore.
If you have a situation with someone that is having a mental health issue, make sure you tell that to the dispatcher when you call 911, and ask for a Crisis Intervention Team trained individual.
