City of Berk eley

REPORT OE FINDINGS OF
POLTCE REVIE COMIITISSION BORD OR TNQT]IRY EERING
HELD,.MAY 21 A 22, 1997
Board of Inquiry Members:
Police Review Commission
2121 McKinley Avenue, Berkeley, California 94704
Complaint
Number:
Aggrieved person
Complainant:
Subjects of Complaint:
Dat.e of I nc ident :
L.,ocation of f ncident:
g15l
6/'44716
1-?0?
rw (41st
w.6e15
co&t$r
Commissioner D. Edwards
Commissioner f'1. Hicks
Commissoner A. fl ando
Commissioner B. Kel ly
Comnissioner
O. Neumann
Commigsioner S.
power (
Chair )
1253
James Martin Lindstrom
Marc Krizack
Sergeant Daubenspeck
Sergeant Houpt
Officer Eoughton
Officer Mansfield
Officer Wong
January 29, 799I
160 0 University venue
(
Kregan's Parking Lot )
Exce,gsive Forc
- fmproper llse of Baton
(i.e.,
Use Avoidable an Thereafter
Nunber of Blows to Eead)
- Sergeant,
Daube n speck
Exceesive
Force
- fnproper Use of Hands
(i.e.,
Repeated
St.rikes to Face fter
Separaed From Sergeant Daubenspeck)
-
Officer Wong
fmproper Phyeical Contact
-
physical
Force (i.e., physicaL
Restrain applied
Fndinqs
Vote
Exonerated
5
Not, Sustained I
Exonerated 3
Not Sust,ained 3
Not Sustined 6-0
,
15
When Breathing Stopped While on Stomach
In Hospital ) - Officers Mangfield and
Houg h ton
Inadequat.e
fnveatigation
- Failure to
Make Police Report
(i.e.,
Failure to
File Use of Baton Report per
pR
31g) -
Sergeant
Daubenspeck
Inadequat.e
Inveatigation (i.e.,
Failure
to Specifically
Report to
paramedic,/
MedicaL Staff That According to the
Family, Mr. Lindstrom Had Altempted
Suicide by Taking an Unknown
Quntity of
His Regular
prescription
Antiipsychoiic
Medication)
- officer ought,on .id/o.
Sergeant
Houpt
Inproper Police
procedure
- Making
FaLe Statement, (i.e.,
Verbal Stalement
to BFD Paramedic That fnjury Occurred
When Head Hit cround)
- fficer Mansfield
Improper Police
procedure
- Making
FaLse Statement (i.e.,
Statement in
Report That Saw James Lindst.rom
"Hitting
Sergeant Daubenepeck
With Both Fists,')
-
Officer Mansfield
Failure to Report fnfornat,ion About
ctual Cause of !lr. Lindgtromre Head
fnjuriea Which Relevant to Medical
lreatment,
- Failure to Notify Sergeant
Houpt Before Ambulance
Left he sene
That Ead Struck Mr. Lindstrom in Head
With Baton
(setgeant,
Daubenspeck )
Failure t,o Report Infonoation bout
cual Cause of ltr . Iindst.rom
I
g
Head
fnjures hlhich Relevant t,o lledical
Treatment
- Faiure to Assute fnformation
That Mr. Lindstrom Stuck in Head With
Baton Relayed to Berkeley Fire Depart,ment
Ambulance Crer{ (
Sergeant Houpt)
Failure to Report Infornation bout
Acual Cause of M. Lindstromrg Eead
Injuries Which ReIevant. to Medical
Treatment
- Fai.l.ure to Communicate to
Highland Hospital Medical Staff the Fact
That, Mr, Lindstrom Struck in the llead
With Baton (Officer.
Houghton and/or
Officer Mansfield )
Not Sustained 6-0
Not Sustained 6-0
Not Sustained 6-0
Not Sustained 5;1
Not. Sustained 6-0
Sustained 6-0
Not Sustained 6-0
10
ST]MMRY OF TEE rSSI'ES
.B:":"
pl"l.gilg-
into the analysis of particular
al.Iegations
rf mtght be worthwhile to try and construct. a broad pictuie of
the two adversarial posit.ion
that r,rere presented
to the Board in
this case. It might also be worthwhile t present this picture
without intruding upon it with our own poiit
of view.
On the one hand there is the position
of the extended family
of Jim Lindstrom represented at th hearing by Mr. Krzack. He
wants the Board to focus on a day in Januaiy wh"n a man, whose
schizophrenia
is controlled by medication
,
-
gri eving an
desperate at the terninal illness of his wif, demads that she
join
him in a suicide pct, and when she refuses, sr.rallows
mouthful of pilJ.s,
rushes from the house, and drives off. The
family's first thought is to get in touch with his doct,or through
911. Failing that, they calJ. ior police
help. Less than hali an
hour later, the man hy care about,
"
."n Lh"y al.l know to be
gentle
and non-violent, encounters a police
ofiicer who pu]ls
hirn
over for a traffic violation. And a short time ]ater Mr.
L,indstrom_is
lying on the ground,
beaten, bJ.eeding, and
handcuffed. Then he's take in restraints to Hghiand hospital
where, stII in police
custody, still restraine, he is
transferred to a gutney.
Though be's surrounded by police
officers, none of them notice that, he stops breating. ae suffers
cardiac arrest and dies five days later w-it.hout reganing
consciousnegs.
Something is terribly wrong and the fami.y i.s intent on
getting
to the bot.tom of it.
Counsel for the subject officers tells a different. story. ft
begins when a dedicated, experienced, and humane officer, becomes
involved in what at fist appears to be a routine traffic stop.
He does not hear t,he radio comrnunication that. might have ale.rted
him to t,he fact t.ht the person he has stopped i a.suicidal.
schizophrenic.
The encounter escalates to smerhing increasingy
Less routine and more disturbing, but it does so giadually.
so
that. at. each moment, various possible,
comparativIy beniin,
explanations are plausible.
The officer dos not pa;ic.
g
oes
everything
by the book. He calls for back up. He oes not charge
in like John Wayne. He altempts to talk to ihe man he is
encount,eing.
The man does not respond.
perhaps
he does not
speak English, or is deaf, or confued, or trying to, el.ude the
officer for any number of reasons. Unexpected-ly {.he encounter
takes a deadly turn. The man turns on the offier; refuses to
heed his comnands to hatt. The officer backs away from him.
fending hm off with his club. lrle should not forlet to say that
the man is huge. The officer does not iliaw his grin. ne uss his
baon appropriately.
He does not initially strie for the head.
He aims for his knees and elbows. But th man seems impervious
1.7
baton appropriately. He does not initial_J.y strike for the head.
He ains for his knees and elbows. But tr nan seens inpervious
to pain
. He keeps coming after the offj_cer, StiLL the officer
has put out a calL for innediate assj.stance. He knos/s hel-p s
ninutes, perhaps. seconds alray. He continues to attnpt to tal_k to
the man. He continues t,o try to fend hin of with the baton. And
then_ suddelly the huge nan 1unges for hin, grabs him, clanps down
on the officers baton,and the officer believes hers about io die
as he feels the breath choked out of hiro, and the nan reaches for
his gun and tugs with all his strength at his holster.
civiLian witness, watching from her aparttnent window is
amazed and horrified at what she sees, The oificer is letting out
fearsome groans, and struggling helplessly in the huge nanrs
qrasp.
with his free hand e/hich hoLds his baton, he trikes at
the big manrs head to no avaiJ.. The nitness is anazed that the
officer does not flail away, To her astonishnent he strikes,
seens to wait for a response, then strikes again. Even in his
dire ernerqency he retains control of the use of force, concerned.
not to strike unnecessary blows. FinaLLy another officer, nuch
smaler than the first, arrives on the scene and cones to the
first officerrs aid. He punches the big nan,
qrho,
in response,
turns his attention on this second officer, Despie theii
disparity_in size the second officer d.oes not diaw his gnrn, but
defends hinself with his fists. When a third officer ar;ives the
big rnan is fina.ly brought to the ground and is handcuffed. He is
not beaten while on the ground. No revenge is exacted for his
attack on the officer. n anbulance arrives in short order and he
is taken away. t no time does he cease his struggting.
If ever there was a situation in which officers slou:.a e
connended rather than brought up on charges, this is it.
This brief synopsis l-eaves out nuch but it gives sorne
context to the truth seeking efforts of the commission, and shows
the difficult enotional climate in which that truth seeking nust
occur .
.RGU!,fE1r
It rnight be
r^rorth
to delay a bit longer before explaining
our specific findings in order to look briefly at the
explanatory framework, the theory of the case, that r. Krizack,
the
.
representative
for Mr, Lindstrom's farnily, presented.
His
position
seens to be three fold: First, that-Sg!. Daubenspeck
shoul-d trave known that Mr, Lindstrom was mentaly disabted r,rhen
he first encountered hirn, and before the situatin escaLated to a
hand to hand cornbat. He should have heard the broadcast, but nore
importantly, the pecuJ.iar behavior of Mr. Lindstron shoLd have
alerted hin to the fact the nan was disturbed. Once alerted to
this fact, Sgt. Daubenspeck shouLd have been nore circumspect in
approaching hin. lad he acted appropriatelyf the struggle ldould
LB
never have taken pLace.
Second, once Mr. Lindstron was cuffed,,
the poLice
treated hin as a
'r5150,r
a nut vho can be
involuntariy
cotuitted because he is a danger to hinself or to
others. Their,prinitive reduction of hin to-the category of
lunatic explained their Lack of concern for his pfryscai welfare,
and a series of decisions, which nay have cost hirn- his 1ife,
_chief
among. them rras
the decision t take hin to High1and
Hospital.
_
Fina11y, the police were inconpetent, carLess, and
uncaring in the nanner in which they obtined, and. conveyed
criticaL medical- infornation to the pararnedic
and oedicL staff
at High1and.
Let us take each of these issues separat.eLy:
1. ahoulal
ggt.,
Dau.bus!ek have kDown tbt fr. L,iDdstrom
was neDtaLLy clistutbed? If be had knolr, should he bave acted
dif f eretl.y?
Sgt. Daubenspeck says he didnrt hear the calls to 911 fron
the-fanily that rnight have aLerted him to the identty of the
traffic vioLator he waived to a stop. We see no reason to doubt
this, and though
j.t
was unfortunate; it, hardly seens cuJ.pable
-
it is inevitabLe that officers wi1 oiss sorne- radi-o tranlmission.
More significant is the question: should Mr. Lindstron's
behavior have alerted Sgt. Daubenspeck to his nental state? In
retrospect it is easy to assune th ctues were obvious. But lrhat
were those clues? Mr. Lindstron had stopped his car at Sgt.
Daubenspeckr s conmand, v,ral-ked toward hin,
-
then riralked bac* to his
car and driven off. Then he had stopped again walked quickly away
from the Sergeant and hid. when dis"vere he ran araf, The-
attitude of Sgt. Daubenspeck to a]t this was one of o#enness to
unfoJ-ding explanatj.ons. le did not fix on one rather than
another. He sirnply didn't knorr v/hy the [an he encountered, as
acting as he did. There r,ras nothing particuLarly
alarning in his
behavior.
The nan had not done anyihing very wrng. ves] he
appeared to be acting strangely, but police encounter a lot of
strange behavior, nore than nost ordinary civilians, and
sometines the behavior has a simpLe exprnation and somti.es it
doesnrt.
The lack of special training ior Berkeley poLice in
recognizing nental dj_sability is disturbing and seis an
appropriate
issue for policy review, but i this case, te do not
believe that we can say Sgt. Daubenspeck should be blared for
fail-ing to suspect tr. f,indstrorn's sieciaL mental state.
.
Leaving aside the question of whether he should have guessed
that Mr. Lindstron was in an unusual nental state, we rnay ti1l
ask: wouLd it have nade a difference if he had suspected.- soroe
nental
_
disabiJ-ity was involved? Not necessariJ-y. Knowing he was
nentaLLy unbalanced, wouldnrt nean that, he vas dangerou.
people
can act strangely r.ithout being dangerous to thenslves or
others. Had he spoken directJ.y to itre fanily they would have
19
told hin that Mr. Lindstrom was as gentle non-violent, rnan. Mr.
Lj-ndstrom did not behave in an overtly hostiJ.e !ay, He did not
yelI, glor.er, assune a fighting stance, rant or rve. He vas if
anything strangely passive, distant, disconnected, non-
responsive. Even his grabbing of the sergeant r+as enveloping,
crushing, rather than battering. Sgt. Daubenspeck did cal1 ior
back up. He did not try to take Mr. Lindstrom into custody by
himsetf. It
ras
reasonable to have assumed that he could "onLain
the situation tilt the back-up arrived.
2 . Did tbe police tleat lll . Lidston li](e a
rr515o, r.
tberefore acting in a way whicb tras agaist his edical interest
aaal eadalgering his life?
There seen to be ts/o main focuses to this charge:
( 1
)
The dec is ion to take ]rtr , Lindstrorn to Highland .
Mr. Krizack contended that the decision was nade solely on
the grounds that Highland has a psyche r.rard, and is the place
where you take
rr515orsrr.
Although there was, we think,
insufficient evidence on this issue, it is our belief that even
if psychiatric
commitnent were not the issue, a purely medical
decision might have been rnade to take hin to High1and. Highland
is not only the location of the psyche ward. ft is the trurna
center for the area, It is the emrgency roon where doctors have
rnost experience in dealing in traumatic injury. Though it may
have taken sorne minutes longer to get Mr. Lindstrorn to Highland,
the disadvantaqe of the delay may be outlreighed by the efiiciency
of the treatnent once he arrived.
(2) The nanner in which Mr.Lindstron !as restrained.
.
Mr. Iocco, the County coroner who did the autopsy on Mr.
Lindstroo indicated that ernergency nedical personnel re
confronted with a difficult diLenma when forced to deal- r,ith a
trauma patient who is aLso conbative. He indicated tha this is a
not an unconmon occurrence. The dilemna is this: Medical people
$roul-d !refer to treat a person without restraints. They
irouLd
also like to retain controL of the patien, and the dcisions
about hory he or she is treated. On the other hand, they roust reJ.y
on the poJ-ice when faced with a resisting patient, because police
rrare
the experts on restraints.
tr
Unf ortunate.l-y they are not also
experts on nedicine, and nay be una\./are of the health
consequences of their decisions. For exanple: persons !ho have
overdosed on drugs or are othervise under stress nay have greater
oxygen needs than peopLe in nornal health. Smal-l-er deprivations
of oxygen than wouLd be significant in other circumstances may,
therefore, be dangerous and even fatal-. Interference with their
oxygen suppLy is, as a medical natter, to be avoided. Restraints
can effect oxygen supply. When a person is cuffed. behind the
backs, the Iungs do not expand easity, The situation s
20
conpounded by pressure on the diaphragm rhen the person is cuffed
and turned on his or her stonach.
police
are LargLy unaware of
these considerations. This clearLy should le a pfi-y
consideration re shouLd address. fn this case, I,fr. Lindstronrs
c,ornbativeness presented police and nedical staff trith preciseLy
the dilernma outlined by Mr. Iocco. Mr. Lindstroo night have
died in any case. He night not have. The inforured choice rnight
have been the one the officers and staff at HighLand nade, r i
rnight have been different. Iitr, Iocco did not cnment, on the
specifics and we had no expert testimony. It does not seem,
however, that we can sustain a cornplaint aqainst individual-
offi.cers for decisions that faLL within the range of current
practice
and hrere rnade jointly
with Alameda Counly sheriffs and
nedical staff of the hospital, lte can propose that more trainj.ng
be provided
in the future.
(3)
VterE the police
coEpeteDt, careless, atd uDcaling i
the nae! i rhich tbey obtaied, and couveyed criticaL uedical
infouation to the paramedtics
and Bedical stff at Eighlanl
o Ep ital ?
This contention is the nost troubJ.ing, Although no specific
al.egation addressed this issue, we are concerned first of aLL
about the
j-nteraction
of Officer Houghton and the farnily of Mr.
L.,indstrom. There was a cLear and unexplained contradicion
bete/een the statenents of farnily netnbers and the testinony of
Officer Houghton. Officer Houghton asserts that he persistently
asked for the pill bottle and was told by the farniJ.y that they
didntt have it. The fanil-y didn't respon to his requests. Both
Kell-ar Autumn and VaLerie Frj-ednan state clearly that Valerie had
possession
of the vitanin bottl.e containing the pi1ls. They
stated clearly that, Officer Houghton didntt ask for then. Valerie
states that lrhen he was asked if he
ranted
the bottle he said no.
The department has an excellent training bulLetin on suicide. It
states:
'rff
attenp invoLved ingestion of poison or drugs, take
the container and substance to the hospital.
rThere
doesnrt seel
to be any reason for the family nenbers to 1ie about this issue.
There may have been a niscomnunication, But our concern is that
officer Houghton sirnpJ.y was
j.n
a rush, or insufficiently
interested, and that this attitude is refl-ected in his Lelling a
distraught fanily to call the OakLand police department
themselves, rather than assisting thern, or rnaking sure it was
done .
Secondly we are concerned about the way medica inforroation
ras
conveyed. Sgt, Houpt
rrassumedrr
and
rrexpectedrr
that officers
Hought,on and Mansfield r,/ould convey the appropriate and necessary
nedical infornation to paramedics and Highland hospital staff,
but he didntt nake sure it happened. Some of it happened nore or
less and some of it, didn't. No one conveyed that Mr. Lindstron
was hit on the head repeatedly with a baton or that the fanily
believed Mr. Lindstron nas bent on suicide. Both of these are
2i
clearl-y iDportant facts. Lt. De La Tour, the departnental
representatj.ve, indicated that. there is no partj.cular training
order, or policy
regarding the conveying of nedical infornation
and the responsibiLity for that conveyance. This, is clearly
needed .
Before leaving the issue of hor{, informat,ion conveyed and
reported, we wouLd like to briefly deaL wih the conduct of
Officer Mansfied, He tells paramedics that Mr. Lindstron had
sustained head injury when his head hit the ground. He did not
tell then that Mr. Lindstrom had been hit repeatedly in the skuLl
by Sg. Daubenspeck. He said he did not knor,/ this despite the
fact that Sgt.Daubenspeck testified that he had widely
cornmunicated this fact to officers at the scene. But he did know
that Mr. Lindstrom had suffered a head injury prior to hitting
the ground because he saw bLood running dovn his face as he ran
up. Later he responds to nedical staff at Highland who ask
whether Mr. Lindstro had been involved in a car accident that he
does not beLieve that an auto accident is involved in the
injuries. They write in their
rrEmergency
Treatment Recordrl
'rPolice
state they don't bel-ieve there was a car crash.rr In his
t,estinony at the hearing Officer Mansfield proclained his
personal- adherence to an extrenely high standard of truth
te1J.ing. ALthough he adnitted that i-t !as weLL nigh inconceivable
that, Mr. Lindstrom had been involved in an autooobiJ.e accident,
he nevertheless ,ould not nake the sirnple clear stateoent to
nedicaL staff that no autornobiLe accidnt was involved. Instead.
he left oon for doubt, and perhaps unnecessary diversion of
nedicaL attention as a result. Finally, in hi police report he
unambiguously stated that he saw Mr. Lindstrom hitting Sgt.
Daubenspeck rith both fists. The basis of this staternent, he
adnitted was a fleeting partial inpression. He did not actually
see Mr Lindstron make contact hith Sgt. Daubenspeck with his
fists, and indeed, Sgt. Daubenspecki s testi:nony nade clear hehr
never ltas punched.
Every one can make nistakes in the heat of the nonent. But
there is a disturbing pattern in the varying approaches to
reporting used by Officer Mansfied, 11 his conmunications
tended to shift
trblamerr
for Mr. Lindstronrs injuries avay from
Sgt. Daubenspeck. Sgt. Houpt. assumed that it vas the
job
of
Officer Mansfield and Houghton to convey to medical- slaff
rel-evan nedical information. Nevertheless no one reported on
that day that Sgt. Daubenspeck had repeatedly struck Ht.
Lindstrom on the skuLl with hj.s baton. One nust wonder !rhy? It is
natural-, that officers $rho rely on each other for their J_ives,
try to protect
each other, anticipating complaints and lae suits.
It is al-so naturaL that officers are less than sympathetic to
someone who attacks one of their own. f nevertheless is not
excusable if these feelings effect the carrying out of their
duties. we can not say that this happened in tis case, but we
nust examine the possibiJ.ity in weighing the credibility of
?2
testimony presented
to us. Covering up something that does not
require covering up ony serves to throw a cLoud f suspicion
khere othenrise none roight be .
Having taken this lengthy detour vie can now Look at. the
specific allegations.
TAE AIJLEGTIONS
Note on the difference between exonerated non-sustained:
rrNot
sustainedrr means that there is not enough clear and.
convincing evidence to find that the officer acted ixproperLy.
rrExoneratedrr
means that by the same standard there is enugh
evidence to find that the officr's conduct ,as
justified.
i
E:<cessive Force
- Improper ltse of BatoD
(i.e.,
use Avoidable ancl Thereaftet
Exonelated 5
Not
gustaiDed
1
Nunber of BLows to Eeaal) - Sergeant
Daubenspeck
s discussed above, we did not believe that nisconduct of Sgt.
Daubenspeck preceeded and is inpJ.icated in precipitating hj.s
physical
struggLe with Mr. Lindstrorn, Once in Mr. Lindstron's
grasp, struggling against a nan nuch bigger than hinself, Sgt.
Daubespeck was
justified
in using his baton, and using it on the
head, a bLow not, pernitted
unless the officer is in a Life-
threat,ening situat,ion. fndependent civilian witnesses watching
the struggle of sgt. Daubenspeck rith
Mr. Lindstron feared for
the sergeantrslife. Sgt. oaubenspeckrs account of his encounter
stth Mr. Iindstrorn
qas
not seri.ousJ.y questioned by the
cornplainant except as to the issue of $hether Mr. Lindstroo had
puLLed on his gun. i,itnesses did not conf irm seeing 'fI , Lindstron
do this . However, even if lfr. Lindstron r,ras not puLLing on
Sgt,. Daubenspeckrs gun, he had put his arn around the Sergeantts
throat and sras still grappling rrith
hin when help arrived. In the
circumstances Sgt. Daubenspeck did not use excessive force, and
in fact seened to be partiularly restrained in his use of force.
Excesgive Fotce
- Iproper Use of UaDds Exonerated 3
(i.e.,
Repeated strikes to Face fter Not sustaileal 3
separated Fton Sergeat Daubespeck) -
Officer Wog
Officer Wong is the first officer to assist Sgt. Daubenspeck. He
runs up with out. his baton and hits Mr. Lindstrorn a coupJ-e of
tines in the stomach or kidneys. He testified that tfr.
Lindstron then turned on him. He is quite dwarfed by Ur.
Lindstron. He hits hin five or six tines in the face injuring
his right fist. Mr. Lindstron is not responding to verb1
23
commands. He hits hin sorne nore with his eLbows and brinqs hiru to
the ground !hen officer Mansfield arrives. Civil_ian witnesses
confiro that Mr. Lindstron continues to struggle even after being
brought to the ground. In the circuostances e Board did not
sustain the excessive force aJ.Iegation.
Improper PhysicaL Cotact
-
pbysical
Force (i.e.,
Pbysical Restrailt pplied
[theD Breatbing Stoppeal rhi]. on
gtonach
Ia Eospital)
-
officers ltaDsfield ad
Eoughtou
Not
gustained
6-0
Dr. Iocco's tstinony leads to the conclusion that the 0edical
consequences of restraining injured prisoners do not appear to
be sufficientLy understood or consdered by police departnents.
Ho$rever Officer Mansfield and Houghton's conduct seerned to be
tithin
standard practice. As soon as it was noticed that
breathing stopped, Officers attenpted to cornply with the counand
of the doctor to loosen the restraints. Therefore r,e could not
sustain this aJ.legation.
IDadequato IDvegtigatioD
- FaiLure to Not
gustaiedt
6-0
uake Police Report (i.e.,
Failure to
File
gse
of Baton Report pet
pR
31S) -
Segieaat Dau!eDspeck
The departnental representative testified that the oral reports
nade by Sgt. Daubenspeck to Inspector Maloney and Muller
fufilIed the departnen report writing requirernent under
pR
319.
Lt. De Latour conceded that PR 318 seened to read as reguiring
that the officer hinself nake the hrritten report. He says this
abiguity is to be corrected. civen his testinony re couLd not
sustain this cornplaint.
IDaalequate hvestigatio (
i. e.
,
FaiLure Not
gustained
6-0
to Specf,ica11y Report to
paramedic/
{edical. Etaff Tbat ccordg to the
Famly, Ur. LiDdstron Eacl ttenpteal
suicide by lakiug ar lIkornr
Ouantity
of
Eis Regular PrescriptioD ti-psycbotic
Uedication)
- Of,ficer Eoughton anl/or
sergeant Eoupt
When Officer Houghton left the Lindstron home he did not know
that the piIls Mr. L
j.ndstrorn
had taken \,/ere his stelazine. Ile
did know that according to the family he had attenpted suicide.
It was conveyed to the pararnedics that he had taken a handfu of
pills, and had been acting bzzarely and was nissing from hone.
This infornation presunabLy hras transnitted by Officer Houghton.
Sgt,. Houpt,, had the responsibility to see that infornation nas
conveyed
,
but not necessarly to convey it hinself . fn the
circumstances,
the Board did not sustain this cornpJ.aint.
2{+
fDproper
police procealut
- Uakiug Not
gustaiDed
6-0
FalEe
gtatoE$at
(i.8,,
Vebal
gtatet[et
to Btr'D Para.uedlc That lrjury occurred
Whe Eead El.t crouDd)
- Of,ficer Uatsfi$Iat
As indicated above, we beLieved th probl-em was not that Officer
Mansfield told the paramedics that Mr. Lindstrou hit his head on
the ground, but that neither he nor anyone else told then Sgt,
Daubenspeck had hit him on the head with his baton. I{e therefore
coud not sustain this aLlegation.
fEproper
police ptoceclure
- UakiDg
FaIE Stateuent (i.e., gtateret
i
Not Sustained 5-1
Report That Ee
gar.
,tanes Lindstron
trEitting
Serg'eaDt DaubeDspeck Fith Both Fists't) -
officer ,tansf ield
The majority of the Board voted not to sustain this allegation
because they believed Officer MansfieLd rea1ly thought he sar+
Mr. Lindstrom hitting sgt. Daubenspeck hrith tr filts. one
menber ( osha Neumann) voted to sustain this al-Iegation
because Officer I'tansf ield admitted to the Board that he did not
see Mr. Lindstrom make contact with both fists.
aur to Report fnforatioD About Not sustained 6-0
Actual Cause of, 'fr. Lindstromr s Eeail
Irjuries lghcb Relevat to NedicaL
Treatmetrt
- Fa1ur to Notify
gergeaBt
Eoutrrt Before mbulaDce Left tbe scene
That Ee Ead
gtruck
{. IJiDdstron in Eead
Witb BatoD (Sergeart
Daubenspeck)
Sgt. Daubenspeck and Sgt. Houpt both testified that Sgt.
Daubenspeck reported that he had hit Mr. Lindstrom in the head
with his baton.
Failure to ReE ort IDformation out
Actual Cause of Ur. liDdstrours Eead
Iujuries Wlicb RelevaDt to rledcal
TreatmeBt
- FaiLure to Assure fnfomation
That Ur. tDdstron Stluck in Eead rith
Batou Relayed to Eerkeley Fite Departnent
Dbu1aDce Crei (Setgeant
Uoupt)
Sgt. Houpt was the supervising officer at the scene in Kragenrs
parking
lot. The departmental representative at the hearing
indicated that it wouLd be anong the responsibilities of the
supervising officer at the scene to assure that reLvant oedical
infornation was relayed to paranedics. ft r./as clearly relevant
nedicaL information that Mr. Lindstrorn had been struck on the
SustaiDed 6-0
25
read nunerous times by Sgt. Daubenspeck . s clearly, Sgt, Houpt
did not assure that infornation vJas conveyed. He assumed that
officers Mansfield and Houghton would convey the infornation, but
he did not assure it, Therefore the Board sustained this
al l egation .
Failure to Report IforDatioD lot Sustaiecl 6-0
ReLevat to .{$dicaL TteatmeDt bout
Actual Causo of l,ll. IJiDdstroEr s Eeaal
Iajuries Which
-
Failure to Comuicate to
Eighla1d Eospitl uedical staff the Fact
Ithat u.r. Li.Ddstrod Sttuck iD the Eead
Witb BatoD (Officer Eougbtotr aal/or
off,icer Maasfieldl
)
Officer Mansfield testified that he did not kno!, that Sqt.
Daubenspeck had struck Ur. Lindstron on the head with his baton.
He v/as not specifically instructed by Officer Houpt to gather
rel-evant nedical- inforoation. Therefore
r/e
couLd not sustain the
allegation based on failure to convey infornation he didntt know
and had not been ordered to find out.
CONCI,I'DTNG REI,,RKS RE POI,TCY
Sone of the policy issues thich we beLieve should be exanined
are :
1. The need for cLear departmental policy regarding the
respons5.bilty for and the nanner in which nedical infornation is
collected and conveyed to paramedics and other medical
professionals.
2. The need to examine
presented
by Dr. Iocco, the
agitated, suspected of drug
are restrained.
in the light of the infornation
manner in which prisoners rho are
overdose, or who have suffered trauma
3. The need for training in recognizing and handling mental
d i sasbi I ity .
The tragedy in the facts presented to the Board in this conplaint
is that the fanily of Mr. Lindstron called the police to help
hirn, but instead of finding help, he found death. We can not say
that anythinq that happened to Mr. Lindstron in his encounter
vith the police necessarily contributed to his death. the qedical
information compiled by our investigators indicated that Mr,
Lindstrom had taken a dose of Stelazine that rnight have kiLled
him in any case. However, the fail-ure to convey relevant rnedical
inforuation to the pararoedics, and the nanner in vhich lfr.
Lindstron was restrained, might have been a factors in his death
and raise policy questions that need to be exanined to ninimize
the risks to peopLe in custody in the future.
OSH NEUMNN
for the Board of fnguiry
10
2L