Auditor: Officer blew off man's pinkie with rubber bullet - Palo Alto Online

A Palo Alto police officer blew off a man’s little finger with a rubber bullet earlier this year during a SWAT team standoff at the man’s residence, according to a newly released report from the city’s independent police auditor.

The incident, which drew scrutiny from the auditor, reportedly occurred as a team of officers tried to coax the man leave the house. The man had reportedly choked his ex-wife and punched his adult son in the face. Both the ex-wife and the son left the house, and the man was home alone when Palo Alto police arrived with an arrest warrant. The department also activated its SWAT team as both the ex-wife and the man confirmed that he had guns inside the house.

The report from OIR Group does not list the date of the incident, which took place in the first few months of this year. According to the report, at least 34 officers responded to the incident, with members of the SWAT team taking positions outside the house during what the report described as a “lengthy standoff.”

At one point during the standoff, a Palo Alto officer with crisis negotiations experience talked to the man over the phone in the man’s first language, the report states. He apparently convinced the man to go to the front door in his underwear to show that he was not armed.

When you make a one time donation you ensure our dedicated reporters can deliver critical election coverage when you need it most.

When you become a member you ensure our dedicated reporters can deliver critical election coverage when you need it most.

As soon as he did that, however, another officer fired a Sage launcher at the man, striking his little finger and abdomen. The man ran back inside the house but then came out again with his hands raised, the report states. He was handcuffed and taken into custody without further incident, according to the auditor.

The fired projectile caused the man’s little finger to be partially severed. According to the auditor, officers had recovered it in in the hopes it could be reattached. The man was then transported to a local hospital for treatment, according to the report.

“Despite the commendable efforts of PAPD personnel to retrieve the finger part and transport it to the hospital, the man discussed surgical options with medical staff and the recovered body part was not reattached; instead, the damaged finger was medically amputated at the fifth distal phalanx,” auditors Michael Gennaco and Stephen Connolly wrote in the report.

According to one of the police supervisors, the officer who fired the Sage did not give a verbal warning to the man before firing the Sage, which is classified as a “less than lethal” weapon. Another supervisor noted that officers had previously warned the man over the course of several hours that force may be used if he did not comply.

But the auditors took issue with the decision to fire the Sage, noting that the act ended any further opportunity for Palo Alto police to resolve the encounter without use of force. The department has a policy requiring a verbal warning before a “less lethal” device is deployed “unless it would otherwise endanger the safety of officers or when not practicable under the circumstances.” In this case, the device was fired as the man was standing and talking to someone on the phone, according to the auditor. The auditors noted that a warning could have provided the man with a final chance to comply with the officer’s instructions and avoid the significant injury that resulted.

The auditor also noted the discrepancy in officers’ reports. The supervisors reported that the officer fired the Sage because the man was turning around to go back into his house. The Sage operator, however, said that weapon was deployed as the man was talking on the phone, before he re-entered the home, and that a warning was not given because there was concern that the man would return to his home if he was alerted.

A field supervisor later advised the officer of another reason for why a warning should have been given, the report states. At the time of the incident, numerous officers had their firearms trained on the man as he stood in the front doorway area of his home.

“The surprise deployment of the less lethal launcher and the man’s reaction could have caused officers to respond with lethal force, resulting in an even more problematic outcome,” the report states.

The auditor suggested that the department evaluate tactical negotiations to determine whether further negotiations could have been successful in resolving matters without force. The auditors also recommended that the department stress to officers its presumption that warning should be given prior to deployment of less-lethal munitions; that all officers in an incident that involves use of less-lethal force be required to prepare a report detailing their actions and observations; and that in tactical situations that involve injuries, supervisors should be instructors to engage in “totality of circumstances” analysis to evaluate whether the force was reasonable.

“In this case, the SWAT supervisor only focused on a few articulated factors to conclude the less lethal force was reasonable,” the report stated. “An assessment of the force through consideration of each applicable factor would result in a more thoughtful illuminating and defensible finding.”

Department brass concurred with all of the report’s recommendations, including its suggestion that it evaluate the “totality of circumstances” in determining whether force was justified. In its response to the audit, the department stated that it has “updated its less lethal munitions policy to expressly conform with its existing practice of also assessing less lethal force under the overarching use of force policy.”

Gennady Sheyner covers local and regional politics, housing, transportation and other topics for the Palo Alto Weekly, Palo Alto Online and their sister publications. He has won awards for his coverage... More by Gennady Sheyner