THE WHOLE
“ENCHILADA”
SOUTHERN ARIZONA'S APPROACH TO APPLYING THE CIT PHILOSOPHY
TO POLICY, RISK MANAGEMENT, & COLLABORATION
Sgt. James Kirk, CTR, CTSS
Behavioral Sciences Unit
Kate K. V. Lawson, MPA
Criminal Justice Manager, CPSA
SGT. JAMES KIRK
 Tucson Police Department
Behavioral Sciences Unit
 Critical Incident Stress
Management, Peer Support
 Lots of experience
 A couple more promotions
and he’ll get to fly the
Enterprise
KATE LAWSON
 Criminal Justice Manager in the
Regional Behavioral Health
Authority
 It’s like an HMO for publically
funded behavioral healthcare
 Liaison between mental
healthcare and Criminal Justice
(Courts, Jail, Probation, and Law
Enforcement)
 Husband, Father, Uncle and
Cousin are all police officers
 Just ask me about the helicopter
BIG PICTURE
It all started with CIT Collaboration….
…but grew to be something more
Philosophical approach
 Mental health collaboration MAKES SENSE
 Reduces liability
 Improves officer safety
 Service to the community
 Saves taxpayer dollars (jail days, lawsuits, etc)
 Don’t stop at CIT Training… apply it to all situations
THE REASON FOR CIT
PHILOSOPHY:
Two Rules Of Police Work1. Come home at the end of the day.
2. Have a home to come back to.
REAL LIFE CASE EXAMPLE
OFFICER SAFETY BULLETIN
TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT
ROBERTO A.VILLASEÑOR, CHIEF OF POLICE
270 S. STONE, TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1917
CASE NUMBER: 1105280796
DETAIL: ODW / NCS
DATE: August 8, 2011
Officer Safety
“BB”
DOB / 021772
6’04” / 230 lbs
shaved head / blue eyes
LKA : 8500 E. Old Spanish Tr. #16 Tsn
Blackwell has recently been in contact with detectives from T2
Neighborhood Crimes and he has made statements of concern. He
is upset over a failed relationship and blames everyone from the
police to the judge for his current situation. He has not made threats
to any one individual, but he has expressed his anger and desires to
see certain people dead.
Officer Safety: Officers coming into contact with Balckwell should use
extreme caution
Approved by: _Sgt. Wheeler #31069 _____
CONFIDENTIAL - THIS INFORMATION IS RESTRICTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY!
COPS IN NUDE TASER SLAY - BROOKLYN DEATH PLUNGE - YouTube.mht
COPS IN NUDE TASER SLAY - BROOKLYN DEATH PLUNGE - YouTube.mht
The Brooklyn Case
IMPORTANT…
INTERNAL & EXTERNAL
 Community Mental
Health
 Officer Safety
 Risk Management
 Community Service
 Cost Savings
 Officer Well-Being
 Keeping “good officers good”
 Resiliency
 Trauma inoculation
 Job/Personal life balance
 …its not just about serving the
mental health needs of the
community, but the officers too
MORE IMPORTANT NOW THAN EVER:
THE ECONOMY & CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Impact of the economy of community
treatment means more mental health issues
for officers to encounter
Numbers in all courts increasing
 Members who have never been involved in justice
system before
SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP:
HOW COLLABORATION BENEFITS TPD
 Good community service
 Helps to break cycle—fix problem once rather than a nightly
occurrence
 Improve the community
 Mitigate liability
 Reduce risk of harm to officer or individual
 Cost savings
 Jail Cost: First day $280, Every day thereafter $180
 Pre-CPSA: ALOS for MH case 21 days, Now is 3 days
 Court Costs (+Officer Time)
SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP:
HOW COLLABORATION BENEFITS
CPSA
 Service to our members
 Fewer criminal charges
 Focus on treatment and recovery rather than crisis and jail
 Leverage justice system (like diversion courts) to encourage
compliance with treatment
 Results in meaningful, long-term recovery
 Use of less costly resources
 Fewer inpatient hospital admissions, etc
 Community solution based
 Good for the goose…
 …good for PR
THE PHILOSOPHY
“Whole Enchilada” philosophy of CIT…
 40 hours is just the start, but it must go beyond
 Top down, and bottom up implementation of the philosophy
 Get buy-in from command staff, but also patrol officers as well
Building relationships = Extend the philosophy
outside the department
 Community mental health & Law Enforcement, but also
Advocacy groups Philosophy and relationships evolve and
grow
THE ACTUALIZATION
 CIT Training – The Start
 Advanced CIT Training
 Presentation/Collaboration with Command Staff
 Overall integration, consideration in all policies and procedures
 Incorporate into long-term planning
 Integration of Law Enforcement with Crisis System
 Crisis Response Center (CRC) / Crisis Response Network (CRN)
 MAC Teams / SAMHC
 Cop Culture Class for Mental Health Professionals
 Advocacy Groups (NAMI Family to Family)
 Tactical/Behavioral Response Training
 Integration with Overall Justice System
 Courts (Mental Health Courts), Jail, Probation and others
THE NUTS AND BOLTS… HOW DO WE
MAKE THIS WORK?
 1. Identify the Players (Needed Organizations)
 What resources do you need to bring to the table?
 Law Enforcement
 Courts
 Community Mental Health Treatment—different in every area, find out
who manages Medicaid-funded behavioral health in your area
 2. Find the Game Changers
 Folks who “get it” and are willing to change minds
 Law Enforcement—Need a “Traditional Philosophy” mindset
 3. Identify Each Agency’s Needs
 Next Slide
HOW DO YOU GET BUY-IN?
A BASIC ECONOMY LESSON
 People are driven by needs
 Why I think mental health criminal justice collaboration isn’t important…
 …it’s why you SHOULD think it’s important
 Avoid the “Touchy Feely” Argument
 What’s important to Law Enforcement? To Behavioral Health Providers?
Usually RISK MANAGEMENT
 Think about ways various players can gain from adopting
philosophies, changing policies, and collaborating with unlikely
partners
 Next Slide- EXAMPLES
NEEDS-BASED ARGUMENTS
 Law Enforcement:
 “Compassion based” arguments not as successful as risk
management/liability and officer safety persuasion
 Behavioral Health intro during CIT Week
 Patrol Officer Appeal: “Longer Lunch” when you avoid going hands on right
away (less paperwork). “Time is on your side”—we train to go hands on right
away, see if you can talk your way into the solution. Officer safety, and
reduction of liability (“Even if you have to use force, easier to justify to a
defense later on”)
 Behavioral Health:
 Many say “if they’ve done something wrong they should go to jail”… but they
don’t STAY in jail; argue for long term recovery (= less hospitalization), and
risk management
WHY CPSA HAS A
CRIMINAL JUSTICE TEAM:
 Invaluable service to members (Clients)
 Increase treatment compliance
 Resolve criminal charges
 Improve public safety
 Treatment compliance = fewer offenses
 Intervention before offense occurs
 Being “on the radar” before negative event
 Saves taxpayer/system dollars
 Stable treatment results in fewer incarcerations, hospitalizations,
and Involuntary Commitment requests
COP CULTURE
 Traditional “Cop Philosophy” regarding mental health
 Has left officers vulnerable: Their safety, citizen safety, and opportunity for
win-win outcomes
 Our view of criminal behavior by those with mental illness (DV example)
 How we have responded to EDP in the past
 Memphis CIT/ Lucas Glenn
 “Speedway Randy”
 How we are changing “Cop Culture”
 CIT Training, Advanced CIT, Collaboration with MH, involve in the
solutions/case management… help to change the culture
 How we train Mental Health on “Cop Culture”
 Trainings with Community Mental Health Treatment/Crisis Providers
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH STAFF:
BE “COP CULTURE COMPETENT”
 Use the law enforcement “vernacular”
 Make “needs based” appeals for buy-in
 Avoid judgment for past decision-making
 Especially if disclosed with intentions of getting advice
 Take the time to learn the system
 Ride-alongs, officer interviews, etc
 Problem-solve with or for them, don’t just direct
them to the right resources
 Explain the “big picture” (they only see a sliver)
LAW ENFORCEMENT:
BE “TREATMENT CULTURE
COMPETENT”
 Try to learn the “big picture” (ie what happens to someone after
you drop them off at the hospital, etc)
 Be open to trying it a new way (taking someone to a psychiatric
urgent care center rather than the jail)
 Communicate your needs: treatment community may not see
what you’re seeing when it comes to an individual—be specific
about what is happening…
 …and then be part of the solution
The CIT “Philosophy” Now Reflected in Court Rulings
LEGAL UPDATES
COURT CASES INFLUENCING RISK
MANAGEMENT & ENCOURAGING “CIT
PHILOSOPHY”
A Pattern of Court Cases that point to a change in philosophy…
 Graham v. Conner
 Quezada v. County of Bernalillo
 Deorle v.Rutherford
 Glenn v. Washington County
GRAHAM V. CONNER 1989
“The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged
from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather
than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. . . .
With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of
reasonableness at the moment applies: "Not every push or shove,
even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's
chambers,. . . violates the Fourth Amendment.”
A more recent video example of the “reasonableness” guideline
GRAHAM V. CONNER 1989
“The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the
fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second
judgments--in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly
evolving--about the amount of force that is necessary in a
particular situation.”
QUEZADA V. COUNTY OF BERNALILLO,
NEW MEXICO, 10TH CIRCUIT 1991
COURT’S DECISION
 Trial Court awarded $1.24 million to Quezada’s family for Title 42
1983 violations and negligence
 10th Appellate Court reversed & remanded the civil rights violation
back to trial court.
 Negligence judgment affirmed (Failure to train…mental health
issues)
COURT’S REASONING
“Sauser placed himself in great jeopardy by standing in the open
and close to Griego’s car. His vulnerable location left deadly force
as the only option….
“He amplified the risk of harm to Griego.”
“Deputy Sauser created the danger that lead to the use of deadly
force.”
DEORLE V.RUTHERFORD
 Occurred in September 1996 in Butte County, California (Chico)
 March 2001 9th Circuit Ruling
BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
DEORLE V.RUTHERFORD
 “The problems posed by, and thus the tactics to be
employed against, an emotionally distraught individual
who is creating a disturbance or resisting arrest are,
and must be, differentiated from those involved in
efforts to subdue an armed and dangerous criminal
who has recently committed a serious offense.
DEORLE V.RUTHERFORD
“In the former case, increasing the use of force may, in a
number of circumstances, exacerbate the situation; in
the latter instance, a heightened us of less-than-lethal
force will ordinarily be helpful in bringing a dangerous
situation to an end.”
DEORLE V.RUTHERFORD
“In the case of mentally unbalanced persons, the
use of officers and others trained in the art of
counseling is ordinarily advisable…”
“… Even when an EDP is acting out and inviting
officers to us deadly force to subdue him, the
governmental interest in using such force is
diminished by the fact that the officers are
confronted not with a criminal, but with a
mentally ill person”
DEORLE V.RUTHERFORD
Paraphrasing the Court….
“We’re not telling you you to treat EDP’s
different, but that is what we expect from
you”
OR…..
“Don’t expect us to uphold summary
judgments when you don’t differentiate.
(I.e., “the rules have changed”)
GLENN V. WASHINGTON COUNTY
Occurred in Hillsboro, Washington County, Oregon in 2006
9th Circuit Opinion published in November 2011
GLENN V. WASHINGTON COUNTY
Court’s decision….
“…we have made it clear that the desire to quickly
resolve a potentially dangerous situation is not the type
of governmental interest…that justifies the use of force
that may cause serious injury (Deorle).”
“We also recognized in Deorle, that when dealing with
EDP’s who is creating a disturbance or resisting arrest,
as opposed to a dangerous criminal, officers typically
use less forceful tactics.” (notice the change in
language)
GLENN V. WASHINGTON COUNTY
“ The facts in this case, viewed in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, bear this out:
Lukus did not respond positively to the officers’
forceful tactics, and just before officers fired
the beanbag gun, Lukus pled, “Tell them to
stop screaming at me’” and “why are you
yelling?”
The Family hired a Subject Matter Expert, a
former Bellevue, Washington Chief of Police.
His professional opinion forms the basis for
what should be our response to these
situations with EDP’s… (NEXT SLIDE)
CRISIS INTERVENTION
PHILOSOPHY
1) Slow it down,
2) Do not increase the subject’s level of anxiety
or excitement,
3) Attempt to develop a rapport,
4) Time is on the side of the police
GLENN V. WASHINGTON
DIRECTION FROM THE COURT:
 The “objective reasonableness test” from Graham has changed
with respect to EDP’s.
 The Court is clearly expecting a higher level of response from law
enforcement.
 “Summary Judgments” are not automatic
COURT RULINGS TO CIT
PHILOSOPHY
 We don’t just do it because it’s “encouraged” by the courts… we
know it’s not only ‘the right thing to do’ but it’s also the most
LOGICAL thing to do
DISCUSSION (WITH NO RIGHT
ANSWER)
 Officer Erik Hite example
 January 8th Tucson Shooting
 Recent Aurora, CO shooting
Where do we go from here? How can we use the “CIT Philosophy”
to make improvements across the board (law enforcement, mental
health treatment, and our communities at-large) to have early
intervention with individuals who have a mental illness and are a
danger to themselves or others?
CONTACT INFO
Sgt. Kirk:
 (520) 837-8885
 James.Kirk@tucsonaz.gov
Kate Lawson
 (520) 322-4107
 Kate.Lawson@cpsa-rbha.org
THANK YOU!