A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-76, regarding a report on the incident involving the Cambridge Police Officers outside Central Square YMCA on October 17, 2021

ADDRESS ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO 125 SIXTH STREET, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02142 TELEPHONE [phone removed] WEB www.cambridgepolice.org FACEBOOK facebook.com/CambridgePolice TWITTER twitter.com/CambridgePolice Louis A. DePasquale City Manager Christine Elow Acting Police Commissioner To: City Manager, Louis A. DePasquale From: Acting Police Commissioner, Christine Elow Date: November 22, 2021 Ref.: Council Order No. O-15 of 10/18/21 Re: Incident involving Cambridge Police officers outside Central Square YMCA on October 17, 2021 The purpose of this response is to address Council Order No. O-15 of 10/18/21, whereby it was requested that the City Manager work with the Cambridge Police Department (CPD) to provide an explanation of an incident from October 17, 2021 and questioned whether legal requirements and Department policies for arrests were properly followed. On Sunday, October 17, 2021, two Cambridge Police officers responded to a report from the manager of a Central Square pharmacy that an individual had just shoplifted candles from his store. A person with a backpack, matching the description of the possible suspect, was located shortly thereafter by officers at a bus stop near the store. Police officers have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of an individual when, as here, a description of the individual has been provided to police officers of a crime that was recently committed and the individual is located in close proximity to the site of the crime. The officers initially verbally engaged with the individual, who voluntarily opened up his backpack and revealed that he did have the reported stolen candles. Based upon that information, the officers could search him and any belongings that he could immediately reach and legally then issue a summons for the shoplifting offense or arrest him. However, because the individual also had an outstanding arrest warrant for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender, the officers were required to arrest him in those circumstances. When the officers attempted to search the individual, he ignored their commands and refused to cooperate further. For safety purposes, the officers attempted to detain him with handcuffs. However, the individual assaulted the officers by punching both of them repeatedly in the head and face, and then attempted to bite one of the officers during the ensuing struggle. Under the Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee (MPTC) Use of Force Model and CPD policy, the individual’s conduct would be considered “Assaultive (Bodily Harm)” and defensive tactics by the officers, including empty-handed strikes and PR-24 control device (baton) strikes, would be permissible uses of force in such circumstances. Additionally, OC spray is considered a compliance technique by the MPTC that is lower on the force continuum than PR-24 control device (baton) strikes and is permissible for use by officers on both “Active Resistance” individuals and “Assaultive (Bodily Harm)” individuals. When police officers are confronted with such assaultive conduct of an individual, they are justified in immediately utilizing any one of these techniques to gain compliance and defend themselves, as the officers did here. Rather than immediately deploying their batons, one of the officers attempted to stop the individual’s assaultive behavior by using OC spray, which was less force than baton strikes and was the least force possible. However, the OC spray did not have any effect and the individual continued to refuse orders to get on the ground. A passerby, who is seen in a video published online, attempted to assist the officers at this point in the response. The officer then switched to his baton and struck the individual once behind his left knee, in order to gain compliance and avoid further injury to both the individual and the responding officers. After being struck once with the baton, the individual complied, went to the ground and was subsequently handcuffed by the officers. Once the individual was detained, there were no further strikes or force used by

ADDRESS ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO 125 SIXTH STREET, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02142 the officers. During this process, the officers located and recovered a switch-blade knife after it fell out of the individual’s pocket while he was on the ground. The individual was taken into custody. Both officers were injured in the altercation and were evaluated at a local hospital for facial and bodily injuries. The individual – a 58-year-old Boston man – was transported to a local hospital by Professional Ambulance to be evaluated following the arrest and was charged with Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Shoplifting by Concealing Merchandise, Wanton Destruction of Property -$1,200 and Carrying a Dangerous Weapon (knife). Per Department policy, a comprehensive internal review of this incident was conducted. This is standard practice for any use of force incident. The Department investigated whether the actions taken by the officers were reasonable and justified as outlined within 1) Department policies and procedures; 2) state and federal legal standards; and 3) and state guidelines and training set forth in the Municipal Police Training Committee Use of Force Model and Totality Triangle. As part of the internal review, the Department interviewed two witnesses and the involved passerby and reviewed the reports of the two involved officers. The Department also reviewed a publicly posted video and an additional video obtained from one of the witnesses. According to the witnesses, the officers were observed “calmly speaking” to the individual until he stood up from a bus stop bench and punched the officers. The investigation revealed that the passerby was driving on Massachusetts Avenue when he observed what he believed to be one police officer being physically assaulted by the individual and potentially in danger due to the larger stature of the individual. After grabbing an object and exiting his vehicle to assist the police officer, the passerby became aware that there were two police officers involved in the physical struggle with the individual. The passerby provided hands-on assistance after the individual had punched both officers and had refused to submit to their lawful orders after being sprayed with OC spray, by helping roll the individual over and holding his right arm so the officers could handcuff him once he was on the ground. Video obtained from a witness verified the passerby’s account that he also helped the individual after he was detained by providing him with water to drink and to rinse the OC spray from his eyes. Questions were raised by some members of the public regarding the passerby’s involvement. Police officers may avail themselves of assistance in the execution of their duties in a criminal case, in the preservation of the peace, or in the apprehending or securing of a person for breach of the peace. G.L. c. 37, §13. The passerby assisted officers after the individual had punched both officers repeatedly and refused to submit to their lawful orders after being sprayed with OC spray. The passerby came to the defense of the police officers and only used reasonable force (see Commonwealth v. Johnson, 412 Mass. 368 (1992)). The passerby’s actions were both justified and permitted under the law. Additionally, the passerby rendered aid to the individual once he was safely handcuffed on the sidewalk, providing him with water. Based on its review of the circumstances and of all of the available evidence, the Department determined that the use of force in this case was justified and consistent with Department policy, as it was reasonable and necessary in order for the officers to defend themselves from the defendant’s physically assaultive behavior and to overcome unlawful active resistance to their attempts to make a lawful arrest. The Department also determined that the officers’ use of force in this circumstance was proper and unavoidable based on the individual’s actions, and their force ceased immediately once the individual submitted to the officers’ lawful orders, went down to the ground, and was handcuffed. The criminal case against the individual arrested is still pending, and therefore, at this time I cannot comment further as to the criminal case. If there are any additional questions, information needed or concerns regarding this matter, please let me know. Sincerely, Christine Elow Acting Police Commissioner