As mentioned in Library Stuff and elsewhere on the web, the investigation of last year's taser incident at UCLA has been completed. The entire report is viewable at the UCLA Newsroom, the report is 117 pages and 6 MB in size.
I haven't had time to read the report in detail, but I did find the recommendations. Here they are:
RECOMMENDATION 1: UCLAPD should distinguish use of the Taser in drive stun mode from cartridge, or “probe,” mode. The device should primarily be used in cartridge mode, with the drive stun mode restricted to being a backup or when there is no alternative to using the device at close range.
RECOMMENDATION 2: UCLA should prohibit the use of Tasers against passive or mildly resistant persons , thereby restricting its use to violent, actively aggressive or imminently violent subjects, currently engaged in physical or active resistance, where the suspect has been given a warning and a reasonable opportunity to comply, and where milder uses of force could be reasonably judged as likely ineffective.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The department should define the terms “violent,” “active aggression,” “active physical resistance,” and “passive resistance.”
RECOMMENDATION 4: UCLAPD should develop and implement a “force options” or “force continuum” system that provides an explicit range of appropriate responses for each level of subject resistance or threat.
RECOMMENDATION 5: The UCLA Taser policy should discourage repeated use of the Taser. Following each five-second application of the Taser, officers should reevaluate the totality of the circumstances. Each additional Taser firing cycle should be subject to the same criteria for use as the first. The number of Taser applications should be restricted to the minimum number necessary to place the subject in custody.
RECOMMENDATION 6: The UCLA Taser policy should prohibit the brandishing of the Taser by officers unless there is an objective reason to believe that the use of the Taser is imminent.
RECOMMENDATION 7: The criteria for use of a Taser should include a requirement that the officer give the subject a verbal warning of the intended use of the Taser followed, it is safe to do so, by a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily comply.
RECOMMENDATION 8: UCLAPD should prohibit the use of the Taser against persons who are handcuffed or otherwise restrained absent a continuing threat and present capacity by the suspect to carry out violent or actively aggressive actions.
RECOMMENDATION 9: UCLAPD should prohibit the use of the Taser against vulnerable persons absent a continuing credible threat and present capacity by the suspect to carry out violent or actively aggressive actions. [printed pages 68-77]
I am particularly glad about recommendation 2, that tasers be prohibited against people providing only passive resistance. I wish that they had made more of recommendation 6, that brandishing a taser by offcers be curtailed. As the report says when discussing recommendation 6, "The display of a Taser is, in itself, a use of force." I was surprised that the allegations of officers threatening to tase other students who were concerned at the treatment of Tabatabainejad were not addressed in the report, so far as I have seen in my skim.
I also looked for discussion about the role of the library access policies requiring students to have student cards on their person when in the library during extended hours. The closest I could find was on printed pages 43 and 44:
The instant case was not the first interaction between a student and Community Service Officers that inspired complaint and discussion. In 2005, for example, a fourth-year UCLA student sent library personnel an email that complained about “extremely rude and mean spirited (sic)” treatment by a “security guard.” The security employee, who library staff assumed to have been a CSO, “asked to see” the student’s ID, but the student “politely told him that I had forgotten it at my apartment.” According to the student, the CSO “sternly looked at me as if I was a criminal using…intimidation tactics [and] telling me to leave.” The student offered to log into the UCLA computer system to establish status as a student, but the CSO “refused to reason with me,” “got right in my face trying to intimidate me,” and “escorted me out as if I was a common criminal there to vandalize or steal something.” The student, expressing “hope [that] this incident will result in change that will improve UCLA,” complained that the CSO was “disrespectful, callous and seemed to enjoy humiliating students.” According to internal email correspondence among library staff, the student ’s email complaint “sparked some discussion about the access procedures,” though we cannot determine whether the student ’s concerns were directly addressed via policy changes at that time. [footnotes omitted]