Antioch Council approves police department Positional Asphyxia Policy on 4-0-1 vote
After revising language to satisfy both the interim police chief, police officers association; Torres-Walker votes to abstain, calls it “a public hatchet job”
“It puts the onus on the officer if the policy says, ‘you should not do it.’” – Interim Police Chief Morefield.
By Allen Payton
As the final act of this year’s police reform efforts, the Antioch City Council, during their Tuesday night meeting, approved a new Positional Asphyxia Policy for inclusion in the Antioch Police Department Policy Manual on a 4-0-1 vote. District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker voted to abstain. APD Positional Asphyxia Policy ACC121421
The development of the policy was recommended by the council acting as the Police Oversight Standing Committee in September. (See related article)
A debate surrounded the words “shall” and “will”, which were the stated desire of members of the public who spoke on the matter, including family members of Angelo Quinto, versus “should” which was the recommendation of the Antioch Police Officers Association (APOA) regarding language in the policy of what officers must do. Interim Police Chief Tony Morefield supported and advocated the recommended APOA revisions during his presentation to the council.
Quinto’s father and sister spoke about the new law, Assembly Bill 490, The Justice for Angelo Quinto Act of 2021, that will go into effect on January 1, and ban positional asphyxia by police, statewide. The law reads, “(1) A law enforcement agency shall not authorize the use of a carotid restraint or choke hold by any peace officer employed by that agency” and (2) A law enforcement agency shall not authorize techniques or transport methods that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxia. (See related articles here and here)
Council Discussion and Approval
The council then discussed the recommended revisions by the APOA. The council members all agreed to add the words “and suffocation” to “asphyxia” in the language of the policy.
District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica, a retired police lieutenant, said he supported using the word “should”.
Morefield said, “it puts the onus on the officer if the policy says, ‘you should not do it.’”
“The ‘shalls’ are there at the important spots,” he continued. “But in those incidents of a physical struggle…we have some officers who are 120 pounds. Having two of them on a 300-pound man on meth…this prevents the dog pile situations. I honestly think the simplest way to do it is to adopt a ‘should’ instead of a ‘shall’.”
City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith offered, “shall make every reasonable effort to avoid placing weight on the persons neck…that’s a middle response.”
Barbanica and District 3 Councilwoman Ogorchock said they were comfortable with the word “should”.
When asked Torres-Walker simply said, “no”.
Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson asked for Smith to repeat his proposed language, which he did.
Barbanica then asked to hear from the chief for his view on Smith’s proposed language.
“It’s an interesting way to create a policy for a police department,” Morefield said. “I would certainly say two officers is sufficient for restraining a person’s head. There are times when a suspect is banging his head against a wall or a police vehicle.”
Smith then offered the additional language of “unless necessary to protect an individual from injuring themselves or others”. That was acceptable to Morefield.
“In the same spirit of ‘should’ the officer would have to explain why they did it,” Mayor Lamar Thorpe stated.
Barbanica then made the motion to adopt the policy with the city attorney’s recommendations and it passed on a 4-0-1 vote with Torres-Walker voting to abstain without explanation. At the end of the meeting, she explained her vote.
“The last vote I abstained from because the community spoke…What I witnessed was a public hatch job that didn’t take into consideration what the public said,” Torres-Walker said. “I thought the policy should have gone back to the committee. I want to thank the Antioch Police Department for their work on the policy and for Interim Chief Morefield for supporting progressive policies.”
2019 Study Showed Knee-on-Back Techniques Not Dangerous
The Antioch council adopted the policy in spite of a 2019 study concluding “none of four knee-on-back techniques commonly taught and used in law enforcement transfers any amount of weight even close to being dangerous, regardless of how heavy the officer applying the force is,” according to Force Science News.
The six-person research team was headed by Dr. Mark Kroll, an internationally renowned biomedical scientist with the University of Minnesota and California Polytechnic State University who testifies frequently as an expert witness in police litigation. He said, “Our data do not support a risk of restraint asphyxia occurring from standard knee-on-back techniques.”
“Our findings are important,” Kroll told Force Science News, “because North American officers control and restrain agitated and resistant subjects in the prone position over half a million times each year. Subjects end up being proned out in about 60 percent of physical force encounters—without a death or serious injury resulting. Prone restraint is needed for officer safety, and the stake needs to be driven into the heart of the stubborn myth that this procedure is inherently excessive and dangerous.”
Kroll’s report on the knee research appears in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology, under the title “Applied Force During Prone Restraint: Is Officer Weight a Factor?”
According to Science1 website by Lexipol, “The Force Science Institute (FSI), (publisher of Force Science News), is comprised of a team of physicians, lawyers, psychologists, scientists, police trainers and law enforcement subject matter experts dedicated to the advancement of knowledge and training in criminal justice matters.
FSI conducts sophisticated scientific research studies into human behavior documenting the physical and mental dynamics associated with the societal demands of the peace-keeping function, including high-pressure situations and use-of-force incidents. Its findings apply to citizen-involved uses of force, as well as impacting investigations of officer-involved force applications. FSI research when applied to training enhances officer performance and public safety.”
Positional Asphyxia Susceptibility Factors
According to an article entitled “How To Prevent Positional Asphyxia” on PoliceMag.com, “The following is a closer look at some factors and circumstances that can make an individual more susceptible to death from positional asphyxia.
Violent Struggle—People who have engaged in a difficult and aggressive struggle may be more susceptible to respiratory muscle fatigue and failure.
Excited Delirium—Subjects who are under the influence of cocaine or methamphetamine while in restraints may experience a condition known as excited delirium. This disorder results in disorientation, hallucinations, and impaired thinking. Excited delirium may raise the individual’s susceptibility to a sudden increase in heart rate, which can rise to a critical level and result in cardiac arrest. (NOTE: The Contra Costa County Coroner’s Office ruled Angelo Quinto succumbed to excited delirium and prescription drugs during the physical altercation with officers).
Alcohol Intoxication and Drugs—Alcohol is a significant risk factor in positional asphyxia because it lowers the respiratory drive. Individuals who have been drinking heavily are among the most likely to die in custody from medical events.
Body Position—Death due to a head-down position with hyper flexion of the neck is a rare event. It is however a critical condition arising out of particular body positions that can lead to mechanical obstruction of respiration. Studies have suggested that restraining a person in a face-down position is likely to cause greater restriction of breathing than restraining a person face-up.”
the attachments to this post:
APD Positional Asphyxia Policy ACC121421
