A Summary of the trial - Week 3 Day 2 cont'd...
Next up is Barry Brodd, of BVB & Associates, a Consulting and Expert Witness Services Company which looks at police practises and the use of force.
Direct examination by Defence Counsel Eric Nelson.
Was previously a police officer for 29 years. Has in that time worked in various States for numerous police departments. Was 22 years with the Santa Rosa PD. Taught as a defensive tactics at the Santa Rosa Public Training Center for 35 years. Taught weapons law, interview and interrogation techniques, collision scene preservation, verbal judo, communication skills. Explains that verbal judo creates better verbal skills to overcome non compliance. Also taught crowd control. Taught while a police officer and thereafter continued for another 9 years. Actively involved in over 149 cases. Has testified in courts throughout the US. Has testified 10 times in Illinois, California, Hawaii. Was previously hired by Minneapolis City Attorneys Office.
Admits spent 60 hours on this case and receives compensation at $350 per hour for courtroom appearances and $275 for casework. Has received $11,400 in this case so far. States that his testimony is unbiased. That he initially reached out to the States Attorney Office since he had some exposure to the George Floyd incident but they did not retain him so he approached the Defence and was retained by them. Scope was to analysise the actions of Derek Chauvin. Has reviewed mostly videos, bodycam footage and material relative to the case.
Has formed the opinion in this case that Derek Chauvin was generally justified and acted with objective reasonableness following MPD policy and current standards in law enforcement in his interactions with Mr Floyd.
Confirms he is aware of the Graham v Connor factors in relation to Use if Force techniques. Asked to briefly provide his definition. Answers that the standard of G v C in his experience is that force must be appropriate. That it's how the subject to who you as a law enforcement officer are interacting responds to you. Imminent threat factor is a reasonable fear so you adjust your tactics accordingly. The officer can escalate if a suspect breaks away during an arrest.
Witness states that the officer needs to apply objective reasonableness. That it's easy to sit in an office in hindsight. Somewhat different to being in a live street scene.
Review looks at whether the officer has the legal right to arrest. Detention requires reasonable suspicion, an arrest requires probable cause. Reasonable suspicion refers to an infraction or a misdemeanor or a felony by the person you are going to detain. Probable cause is based on just that. That putting someone in handcuffs could be a detention rather than an arrest.
Witness explains that no resistance would be compliant. Passive resistance is where a suspect won't comply with instructions and active resistance is where force us used in a struggle. Active agression is where a suspect resists arrest and swings at the officer. Asked if use of force policies vary from State to State, responds that there are slight differences.
Asked if this was a use of deadly force case, witness says no. Give the example of a suspect who is tazered but subsequently falls, hits his head and dies. That is not the uses of deadly force but an unfortunate accidental death.
Asked about control techniques. Replies are an officer putting hands on a suspect and carrying out certain manoeuvres. Refers to what is known as one-upmanship. The officer is allowed to use a greater level of force in making an arrest. Adds that people subject to drugs are a special area as they are not subject to normal behaviours. The training requires that subjects under the influence of drugs should remain in handcuffs until they get to a medical facility.
In respect of situational awareness, states officers need to be aware of all movements in the vicinity and try to predict the potential for further violence. That dispatched only have so much information.
Witness has reviewed officer Chauvin's usage of force. States that Floyd level of resistance necessitated the use of force applied by Chauvin and the other officers. Asked about bodycam footage, states that anyone viewing such footage is not aware of things going on out of sight of the camera or periferal vision.
Agrees that manhandling Floyd out of the squad car was a justifiable use of force. That moving Floyd to the ground continued the use of force. That Floyd continued to struggle against the officers and kicked out at officer Lane. States that any resistor should go to the ground in the prone position. That the use of the Hobble restraint would have been appropriate had the officers decided to do so. Adds that the officers decision to not use the Hobble was a choice to deescalate the situation.
That the officers were correct to restrain Floyd given all the circumstances as they knew the Fire dept seconds or a minute and a half away and they had the equipment to carry out any medical intervention if required. Asked about keeping a drug impaired suspect in the prone position, states safer for the suspect and the officers to keep him in that position. States that someone who is shouting can obviously breathe regardless of what they are shouting. Asked if is reasonable to prolong the prone control, states that maintaining it is not a use of force but a restraint. Adds that a target person for positional asphyxia would be someone who was obese. Agrees that the MPD trains officers to put suspects in the recovery position. Explained that not putting a suspect in the recovery position in this case was space restrictions, there was traffic still driving down the street, there were crowd issues which distracted the officers and Floyd was still resisting at that point.
Asked what defines a crowd, states that the crowd in this case started to grow in size, became more vocal. That officers are trained to deal with the greater risk. Could see that officer Chauvin's focus started to move from Floyd to the crowd and at one stage was so threatened that he withdrew his pepperspray cannister and gave verbal commands to the crowd to stay back so in that he was dealing with the bigger threat.
Asked to wrap up, witness Barry Brodd stated that officer Chauvin was following his training, following current practices in policing and was objectively reasonable.
End of direct examination.
