News and Alerts

State of California
M e m o r a n d u m  

Date: May 28, 1996
To: Inland Division
From: DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
Victorville Area
File No.: 850.7271.7271

Subject: OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY CONCERN REFERENCE
FIRST DEFENSE MARK VI - OLEORESIN CAPSICUM (OC) PEPPER SPRAY

Many Victorville Area officers believe that the OC pepper spray used by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department (CAP-STUN) is more effective than the OC spray (First Defense) issued by the Department. They are dissatisfied with First Defense and are asking to carry the most effective defensive weapon possible.Victorville officers have seen CAP-STUN in use and believe it is more effective because of its delivery system and strength. CAP-STUN effects the nose, throat, eyes, and skin, and does not need to be directed into the eyes to be effective.The issue was presented at Inland Division's Occupational Safety Meeting in May and documented in a report prepared by Officer , #12797.

I request the Department review Officer Smith's report, and authorize CAP-STUN use if appropriate.L. BAMRICK
Captain

Attachments:

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AGENDA ITEM

 OLEORESIN CAPSICUM-OC

BY Officer #12797

At this time an occupational safety concern has arisen in the use of this Department's First Defense pepper spray. In the short time that I have been researching this project I have come across eight local incidents where the OC spray has been minimally to non-effective when it was used. After my research I have obtained some possible answers as to why the OC spray that we are using is not getting the results that Officers are expecting. #1 OFFICER MISCONCEPTION

Officers have the impression that First Defense pepper spray is primarily a temporary incapacitating agent rather than a temporary visual impairment.

Officers have been given training on OC and given a copy of Management Memorandum No. 95-2 (Interim Policy, OC). This Interim policy states that the OC must be directed into the subject's face to be effective. The First Defense spray, being a temporary visual impairment device, must be sprayed into the eyes to be effective. The policy also states that First Defense OC can be used safely and effectively to temporarily incapacitate a subject. Our spray is not intended to incapacitate it is intended to visually impair.

 #2 LACK OF PERFECT CIRCUMSTANCES

In order to be effective the subject must be sprayed at the eyebrow line or directly into the eyes to become subject to the effects of First Defense pepper spray. Often due to the aggressiveness (advancing) of a subject you are unable to have that space cushion for proper aiming of the spray. If the spray is ineffective, the tactical advantage is lost.

ACTUAL OC SPRAY OCCURRENCES

I have few occurrences among many which I would like to show as examples of First Defense ineffective sprays.

On 3-39-96 at 2143 hours Officerwas assisting the SBSD with a warrant arrest on a combative, non-compliant subject.

The SBSD Deputy, placed one handcuff on the subject and he resisted and spun to get away. Whenwarned the subject that he was going to spray him the subject stated, "Take your best shot!". Off.then sprayed the subject in the face at 5 to 6 feet away. The subject said, "Hey, your shit ain't workin". Off.ended up using the entire contents of his OC spray but it was not working. Deputydescribed the OC as "Had no results whatsoever". Off.then used his PR-24 to attempt a control hold which failed. After a second application the subject was fully compliant, incapacitated, and was arrested.

On 9-29-95 at 2235 hours Officer(CDIP) had an advancing, aggressive, and pleading subject who grabbed both of his hands begging not to arrest him for DUI.

Off.attempted a control hold but the subject was resisting his control hold. Off.stepped back and removed his First Defense OC spray ordering the subject to stay back. The subject again approached Off.and was approx. 4 ft away from the subject when he sprayed him in the face area. The subject continued towards Off. Anderson and he was sprayed a second time in the face. Both sprays had no apparent effect on the subject. Off.had to take the subject to the ground and restrain him while he awaited assistance.

The subject was found to be DUI (.13/.12).Off.has lost confidence in this Department's OC spray.

CHP Riverside: On 3-20-96 at approximately 0030 hours CHP Officersandstopped a vehicle for speeding. After locating contraband Off.placed the passenger in a bent wrist in preparation to place handcuffs on him. The passenger resisted the control hold attempting to escape. Off.was able to pull the subject to the ground but the subject began making attempts to strike the Officer in the face. Off.pulled his OC spray and sprayed one burst into the subject's face. The OC had no apparent effect. The subject continued to attempt to strike the Officer in the face and was sprayed a second time. The subject continued to fight until he was subdued by both Officers.

 As depicted in each of these cases the First Defense OC spray has shown to be less than effective.