SOO - E - Less Lethal Options - 06022021.pdf

Less-Lethal Options for Crowd Environments

June 2021 Science and Technology Directorate Department of Homeland Security

DISTRIBUTION NOTICE: Further dissemination only as directed by DHS Office of Policy DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.

Less-Lethal Options for Crowd Environments Statement of Objectives

Table of Contents

1.0 Problem Statement

2.0 Purpose and Scope

3.0 Background Environment

3.1 Mission Scenarios

3.2 Current Technology Shortfalls and Threats

4.0 Potential Solution Attributes

4.1 Concept of Operations (ConOps)

4.2 Additional Capabilities

5.0 Solution Capabilities and Requirements

5.1 Must Have Requirements

5.2 Desirable Capabilities or Characteristics

6.0 System Support

6.1 Contractual Requirements

6.1.1 Period and Place of Performance

6.1.2 System Affordability

6.1.3 Regulatory/Legal Requirements

6.1.4 Contract Deliverables

6.2 Solution Support

6.2.1 Support Concept

6.2.2 Training

6.2.3 Other Considerations

6.2.4 Storage and Maintenance

1.0 Problem Statement

During a 2020 First Responder Resource Group (FRRG) Virtual Meeting, first responders, predominately from law enforcement, discussed the challenges they face when using less-lethal tools in crowd environments. Less-lethal tools help law enforcement de-escalate situations by creating time and/or distance in large crowds and stopping unlawful activity without needing to elevate to a higher level of force.1 There are multiple situations within a crowd environment for which these tools are utilized. For example, less-lethal tools are used to address individuals and small groups engaged in criminal activity occurring near protected First Amendment activity, such as demonstrations. They can also be used to disperse a crowd in the event of a lawful dispersal order not being followed. However, existing less-lethal tools were not necessarily designed for use in current crowd environments, making some of them less applicable for use in these applications, and there is potential to inflict injury when used improperly. Oftentimes this is due to accidental misuse due to a lack of training as there are no national standards or training policies for less-lethal tools. As such, some state and local lawmakers have moved to restrict their use. DHS recognizes the need for policy development and training for the deployment and use of Less Lethal Options in Crowd Environments and this proposal includes a call for scientific documentation of the proposed solution and the need for training programs to support any potential solution.

Participants discussed the need for more effective less-lethal tools that minimize unintended impacts and assist law enforcement in addressing individuals and small groups engaged in criminal activity occurring near protected First Amendment activity and/or dispersing a crowd in the event of a dispersal order not being followed.

2.0 Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this statement of objectives document is to identify more effective less-lethal tools that have minimal unintended impacts in addressing individuals and small groups engaged in criminal activity occurring near protected First Amendment activity, and/or dispersing a crowd in the event of a dispersal order not being followed. Law enforcement agencies are called upon to manage crowds related to planned and spontaneous events.2 However, unlawful assemblies can devolve from peaceful demonstrations or they can occur spontaneously. It is important that law enforcement officers have less-lethal tools for a crowd environment that allow for distance between the officer and the criminal offender(s).

Law enforcement participants at a 2020 FRRG virtual meeting discussed the need for solutions to assist them in quickly addressing individual or small group criminal activity and/or dispersing the crowd from a distance, while having minimal unintended effects. Therefore, potential solutions should have a positive outcome to the emergency responder community and the general public because as more effective less-lethal tools and tactics are developed, the potential for the use of more force to be utilized, up to and including lethal force, is decreased.

New less-lethal tools should also decrease unintended consequences on the public and responders.

Solutions may also have a positive impact on the perception of law enforcement legitimacy by the

1 Seattle Office of Inspector General. Review of the SPD Crowd Dispersal Policy and Less Lethal Weapons. City of

Seattle, 14 Aug. 2020, herbold.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/OIG-Review-of-the-SPD-Crowd- Dispersal-Policy-and-Less-Lethal-Weapons.pdf.

2 International Association of Chiefs of Police. “Crowd Management .” IACP, Apr. 2019, www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2020-08/Crowd Management FULL - 08062020.pdf.

community and the public if the tools are more precise and proportionate to what law enforcement is facing and impacts to unintended persons are minimized.

3.0 Background Environment

During the summer of 2020, demonstrations in the United States rose to unprecedented levels.

Between May 24, 2020 and August 22, 2020, the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED)3 recorded more than 10,600 demonstrations across the United States, mostly associated with the Black Lives Matter movement and protests to COVID-19 response measures. While the majority of these events were recorded as peaceful, the ACLED reports that approximately 5% involved violent actors.4 In order to control the crowd, less-lethal tools were used by law enforcement during some of these events.

Recently, social media is more commonly used to mobilize participants before and during demonstrations and crowds can become larger more quickly than in the past. Another emerging trend is protestors are increasingly traveling greater distances to attend events and can sometimes incite violence while maintaining anonymity.5 Participants in the 2020 meeting discussed the following existing less-lethal options and tools for use in a crowd environment:6

• Law enforcement presence

• Law enforcement maneuvers and tactics

• Verbalization of dispersal orders

• Individual arrests

• Mass arrests

• Nonlethal chemical agents (discussed in detail in the Less-Lethal Chemical Irritant SOO)

• Conducted energy weapon

• Impact weapons/batons

• Kinetic Impact Projectiles - Less-lethal munitions (bean bags etc.)

Less-lethal tools have been used to help law enforcement de-escalate situations by creating time and/or distance in a large crowd while supporting anti-criminal responses. They were developed to allow law enforcement officers to stop unwanted criminal activity without elevating to a higher level of force. In a study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), authors found

3 The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) is a disaggregated data collection, analysis, and crisis mapping project. It is associated with the International Peace Research Institute and has received funding from the World Bank, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the European Research Council.

4Kishi, Roudabeh, and Sam Jones. “Demonstrations & Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020.” ACLED, 5 Nov. 2020, acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/.

5 McCartney, Steve, and Rick Parent. “Policing Public Demonstrations and Crowd Control.” Ethics in Law Enforcement, BCcampus, 17 Apr. 2015, opentextbc.ca/ethicsinlawenforcement/chapter/6-2-policing-public-demonstrations-and-crowd-control.

6 The NIJ defined seven less-lethal tool areas in 2011, but the report has not been updated and participants at the meeting agreed that it was outdated. [https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/overview-less-lethal-technologies] that less-lethal tools reduced the rates of injuries for the community, law enforcement personnel and offenders compared to using physical force.7 One concern with less-lethal tools is unintended injuries. As such, state and local lawmakers and an international police association have moved to restrict the use of less-lethal tools. At least ten municipalities, seven states, and the federal government have enacted or proposed restrictions on the use of less-lethal munitions.8

3.1 Mission Scenarios

Peaceful demonstrations, otherwise known as lawful assemblies, can be declared unlawful assemblies, civil disturbances or riots, whenever they constitute a breach of the peace or there is a threat of collective violence, destruction of property, or other unlawful acts. More commonly, civil disturbances occur spontaneously.9 According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Law Enforcement Policy Center’s Model Policy for Crowd Management, law enforcement’s role during peaceful demonstrations and violent civil disturbances or riots is to:

• “Protect individual rights related to assembly and free speech;

• Effectively manage crowds to prevent loss of life, injury, or property damage; and

• Minimize disruption to persons who are not involved.”10

In order to accomplish these objectives, law enforcement officers have a number of tools and tactics at their disposal, including officer presence, verbal interaction, touch control and various levels of defensive tactics, depending upon the incident.11 Less-lethal options for crowd environments may be used by law enforcement to address individual criminal activity, deny access to certain areas, and to intentionally channel/direct/move a crowd after it has been determined that there is violent and/or destructive criminal activity and/or an imminent threat to life or property following a dispersal order.

They are relevant to crowd management and various types of police management of crowds, including directing a crowd, intervention such as addressing individual violent actors and crowd control to address an entire crowd. A less-lethal solution that is more precise and proportionate to law enforcement’s tasks will increase the perception of law enforcement legitimacy by the community and the public during crowd events.

7 Department of Homeland Security. “Less Lethal Technologies for Law Enforcement.” SAVER TechNote, Department of Homeland Security, June 2019, www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/saver-technote-less-lethal_28may2019_508.pdf.

8 ICNL. “Reforms Introduced to Protect the Freedom of Assembly.” ICNL, 30 Oct. 2020, www.icnl.org/post/analysis/reforms-introduced-to-protect-the-freedom-of-assembly.

9 International Association of Chiefs of Police. “Crowd Management .” IACP, Apr. 2019, www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2020-08/Crowd Management FULL - 08062020.pdf.

10 Ibid.

11 Weapons and Protective Systems Technologies Center. A Guidebook for Less-Lethal Devices. National Institute of Justice, Mar. 2010, nccpsafety.org/assets/files/library/Guidebook_for_Less-lethal_Devices.pdf.

3.2 Current Technology Shortfalls and Threats

Law enforcement participants at a 2020 FRRG Virtual Meeting explained that not all agencies train to the same policies, procedures, or tactics for the use of less-lethal tools and there are legal and societal perception challenges with them. Some tools may cause unintended injury and were not necessarily developed for crowd environments. In addition, accuracy can be an issue with some current tools and some tools may be cost prohibitive for smaller jurisdictions. The use of existing less-lethal tools by law enforcement for crowd environments may be restricted or banned because of these negative impacts, thereby limiting the tools available to law enforcement officers for use in crowd environments.

Alternative tools and methods are needed to address these concerns. There are several potential solutions discussed as alternatives, though some appear to have barriers to adoption. Acoustic devices are high-tech speakers that allow police officers to more effectively communicate with protestors.12 However, some critics say that that the acoustic can cause unintended long-term hearing loss. Non-lethal SPECTER tasers are in development and are claimed to offer long-range projectiles delivering a taser-like stun effect from a 12-gauge shotgun, but their efficacy and safety is still unknown. In addition, they are likely too expensive for police departments at a projected $1,000 per unit.13 Active Denial Systems emit microwave beams at frequencies in the 95 GHz range that can be directed into a crowd and are claimed to not be harmful to those exposed in moderation.

However, concerns have been raised about long-term exposure to the microwaves.14 In addition, the system takes several hours to reach operating temperatures before it can be used, and it must be carried on a truck, limiting mobility.15 The Laser Dazzler is a laser tool that uses high-intensity beams of light to affect a person’s eyesight which leads to disorientation. Other solutions include remote handcuffs, projectiles made with things such as foam and chalk, and stink bombs.16

4.0 Potential Solution Attributes

Potential solutions will provide the ability to address individuals and small groups engaged in criminal activity occurring near protected First Amendment activity, and/or disperse a crowd in the event of a dispersal order not being followed. Potential solutions should be lightweight, and able to be carried and deployed by a single officer. They should be visually distinct from a lethal force or military weapon. Ideally, any solution would not be capable of being redirected back at

12 Choe, Jonathan. “Use of LRAD Speaker by Seattle Police during Protests Spurs Questions, Concern.” KOMO, 5

Nov. 2020, komonews.com/news/local/new-non-lethal-crowd-control-tool-seen-at-seattle-protest.

13 Hambling, David. “Pentagon's Non-Lethal SPECTER Could Be A Game Changer For Crowd Control.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 14 July 2020, www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/07/14/pentagons-new-non-lethal-specter-is-a-game-changer-for--crowd-control/?sh=22b2189e5316.

14 Hambling, David. “High-Tech Crowd Control Weapon Sought For D.C. Protests Is Too Terrifying To Use.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 17 Sept. 2020, www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/09/17/pentagons-crowd-control-weapon-is-too-terrifying-to-use/?sh=5734f93773ae.

15Ibid.

16 Schoolov, Katie. “Police Try New High-Tech Devices to Cut down on Deadly Force as Clashes with Protesters

Continue.” CNBC, CNBC, 28 July 2020, www.cnbc.com/2020/07/26/police-try-new-less-lethal-tools-as-protests-continue.html.

officers. Responders suggested that new solutions are needed to increase responders’ capability to communicate messaging to the crowd.

4.1 Concept of Operations (ConOps)

Prior to deployment, training on the proper use of any less-lethal tools should be provided to responders. Within crowd environments, these tools should be immediately deployable, by a single officer, when authorized. They should be accurate, able to be deployed from outside the range of thrown projectiles or from behind a barrier, and operate within the following ranges:

For specific munition tools designed for law enforcement to address individuals or small groups/areas engaged in criminal activity in a crowd environment:

• Short range—from contact to 15 meters

• Mid-range—15 to 50 meters

• Long range—more than 50 meters

For non-specific munition tools designed to address crowds or larger areas and groups:

• Short range—0 to 25 meters;

• Long range—up to 300 meters

New tools should be specifically designed for safe use within crowd environments, specifically limiting unintended impacts, and be visually distinct from lethal weapons.

Finally, they should not be able to take a munition and redirect it back at officers, such as being used as a weapon by rioters after deployment.

4.2 Additional Capabilities

Since this SOO contemplates multiple types of solutions, the following additional capabilities should be considered as applicable to the type of proposed solution. Potential solutions would extend the capability of law enforcement to address individuals or small groups engaged in activity within a crowd, while minimizing the effects on the rest of the crowd. The solution would improve officer understanding of safe use of the tool, as safety and testing criteria should be provided. The solution would improve situational awareness by increasing the capability to communicate messaging to the crowd. It would increase officer safety, as the solution should not be capable of being redirected back at the officers and should be deployable from a distance. The solution would also increase the perception of law enforcement legitimacy by the public and community, as the solution should minimize unintended impacts.

5.0 Solution Capabilities and Requirements

5.1 Must Have Requirements (Key Performance Parameters, KPP’s) The proposed solution must have the following KPPs17:

17 Some requirements may not apply to all tools, as noted by a * symbol.

Levels of Performance

• Allow law enforcement to quickly address individual criminal activity and/or disperse the crowd from a distance, without inflicting long-term injury;

• Not cause penetrating trauma when used as intended/on the intended target areas;

• Be effective at stopping the criminal behavior or channeling the crowd;

• Accurately and consistently allow the user to affect a single person within a crowd; impact;

positive strike zone at the effective range; avoid negative strike zones;

• Be immediately deployable once authorized; and

• Have the ability to be rapidly redeployed.

Physical Characteristics

• If it is man portable, be lightweight and able to be carried by the officer for extended periods of times;

• Deployable by a single officer on foot;

• Be user-friendly and ergonomic;

• Be visually distinct from a lethal force weapon, does not appear to be a military weapon or lethal weapon; and

• Not capable of being redirected back at the officers or used as a weapon by rioters after it has been deployed.

Durability

• Reliable operation in all weather conditions across the United States; and

• Doesn’t require a lot of maintenance to remain operational.

Certification requirements for product conformity

• Follow the United Kingdom (UK) Code of Ethics on Armed Policing and Police Use of Less Lethal Weapons

Environmental

• Non-toxic, specifically to humans.

Compatibility and interoperability

• Doesn’t require a lot of other tools to remain operational; and

• Standardize and professionalize the application of tools*.

Additional Aspects (Other)

• Identify ranges for proposed solutions with safety and testing criteria and resulting data;* o Impact munitions: define safe distance and effective range (standoff and how far away will the weapon work/accurately impact the target and maintain expected kinetic energy) o Non-specific munitions: define effective range and impact radius

• Have a fairly low cost barrier;

• Ability to produce scientific evidence of safety;

• Provide objective science-based data on the safety of the proposed solution to determine injury probability factors and application limitations and/or conditions

• Be legally acceptable;

• Provide education on tool to law enforcement, critics, and general public;

• Training to cover tactics and options ahead of time so that everyone has the same understanding;

• Develop a training manual and a train-the-trainer course; and

• Increase understanding of the public that law enforcement does not support indiscriminate agents.

5.2 Desirable Capabilities or Characteristics

In addition to the must have requirements reported in subsection 5.1, there are performance and/or system standards that exceed the proposed solution requirements:

Levels of Performance

• Identify/mark those who are engaged in criminal activity for later identification and/or arrest;

• Ability to be deployed outside the range of thrown projectiles or from behind a barrier— non-line-of-sight.

Environmental

• Be biodegradable.

Compatibility and Interoperability

• Not Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regulated;

• Not rely on the same technology (e.g., gun powder or explosives) as firearms and if it does, follow all applicable regulations.

Other

• Identify and/or record behavior prior to criminal activity occurring;

• Increase capability to communicate messaging to the crowd from a distance that is clear, concise and audible;

• Broadcast conditions on the ground in real-time; and

• Visual projection of messaging.

6.0 System Support

6.1 Contractual Requirements

6.1.1 Period and Place of Performance

The length of time of the contract shall be between 12-18 months and shall not exceed the latter. All developmental activities will be performed at the contractor-designated site(s).

DHS may require the contractor to perform critical design reviews and/or product presentations at DHS-specified locations.

6.1.2 System Affordability

First responders’ budgets are limited and should be taken into consideration when developing and determining a price per unit cost model.

6.1.3 Regulatory/Legal Requirements

If the solution is ATF regulated, it must meet all applicable requirements.

6.1.4 Contract Deliverables

DHS is committed to ensuring the success of its technology by requiring the project performer to provide DHS multiple prototype deliverables which will be used for post-contract testing and evaluation. A minimum of 5 prototype devices for evaluation by emergency responders shall be provided as a final project deliverable.

6.2 Solution Support

6.2.1 Support Concept

The technologies required to support this solution may include existing deployment mechanisms (e.g., canisters and impact munitions), power sources, and water resistant or other types of technology that ruggedize a device.

6.2.2 Training

Training information as required shall be provided on any specialized equipment, and shall include how to properly store, clean, deploy, and maintain the basic ensemble/unit. Any specialty requirements of personnel conducting maintenance, storage, extraction, or delivery will be identified including certification requirements. Training material shall be available initially in hard-copy, and subsequently in soft-copy format.

A training manual and a train-the-trainer course should accompany the tool to cover tactics and options ahead of time so that everyone has the same understanding of the tool and to decrease accidental misuse and unintended impacts.

6.2.3 Other Considerations

Human Interface Requirements: The target user includes law enforcement that respond to incidents in crowd environments where they have to address individuals and small groups engaged in criminal activity occurring near protected First Amendment activity, and/or disperse a crowd in the event of a dispersal order not being followed. Its size should be deployable by a single officer on foot.

Logistics and Readiness: The solution developed under this award is envisioned as either a new piece of equipment or an improved version of current offerings. It should also be cost-effective so that emergency responders from a wide variety of jurisdictions will be able to afford it.

6.2.4 Storage and Maintenance

The contractor shall identify all necessary storage and maintenance requirements for the proposed solution including: the required maintenance schedule, identification of the specific components of the ensemble that requires the maintenance, the type of maintenance required, and whether the maintenance can be performed in the field by operational personnel or if it will be required to be returned to the manufacturer for the required maintenance.