Speaker 1: (00:00)
Earlier this month, the family of Earl McNeill reached a settlement with national city and the San Diego county Sheriff's department following McNeil's in custody death back in 2018, during his arrest McNeil was placed in a restraint device called the wrap, which binds the legs and wrist. In addition, officers placed two spit hoods and a shirt over the head of McNeil, a move that was deemed a violation of procedure by the San Diego counties, citizen law enforcement review board. Also something the medical examiner said contributed to his death. As of now, the family of Earl McNeil still has an active lawsuit filed against the maker of the device that was used to restrain him. The continued use of such devices raises questions over the restraint tactics used by officers who responded to the scene as well as the tactics that law enforcement officers continue to employ across the country. Joining me now with is Carl TK, a policing expert, and the senior staff attorney of ACL used drone center for justice and equality. Carl, welcome to the program. Thank
Speaker 2: (01:06)
You. Good to be here.
Speaker 1: (01:07)
What the litigation against national city and the San Diego Sheriff's department closed. Um, how do you look back on this case? I mean, what could have been done differently to avoid the death of rural McNeil?
Speaker 2: (01:18)
Well, the first is how the police responded when you first walked into the police station and asked for help. I think it's shocking that their response, when somebody comes in and says I'm high and is in distress, that they would then turn to arresting him instead of investigating options for providing medical attention,
Speaker 1: (01:38)
The family still has an active suit filed against the makers of the restraint used on Earl McNeil. Have you seen lawsuits before that successfully take on the manufacturers of police restraint equipment?
Speaker 2: (01:50)
I don't recall any specifically targeting the makers of the equipment, but it's important to remember that any kind of restraint, whether it is, you know, a flexible Velcro device like this one or restraint chair, like many jails often use comes with inherent risks. And, you know, even in situations where the maker of their strength says that, you know, it doesn't restrict breathing. If you re you know, leave it wrapped around the lower body that doesn't eliminate the risk of death.
Speaker 1: (02:23)
Are there any cases that you've litigated that bear similarities to what happened with Earl McNeil?
Speaker 2: (02:29)
The Monterey county jail actually is one suit that I was involved in that it involved a whole range of issues in that jail. And one of them involved the use of restraint chairs and the fact that they were using them in circumstances that were not justified based on the risk involved in using the restraint chair and, uh, you know, that they were not monitoring people once they were in the restraint chairs to make sure that, uh, they were not going into medical distress.
Speaker 1: (02:56)
And let's talk about the device, that restraint that was used in the arrest of Earl McNeil. Just to recap, this is a system that binds the legs and wrists while someone is sitting upright, is this tactic commonly used by police officers?
Speaker 2: (03:11)
I mean, there are a whole range of different restraint devices that are marketed to law enforcement agencies. Uh, this is one of them and, you know, it's the practices vary from department to department in large part because the makers of these devices just market them at conferences or, you know, or through meetings of individual sheriffs and police chiefs. So there's not a lot of uniformity
Speaker 1: (03:37)
Have there been other lawsuits associated with this kind of restraint?
Speaker 2: (03:41)
You know, I'm not terribly familiar with this particular brand of restraint, but in general, yes, there have been a lot of lawsuits around the country involving various different kinds of restraints, again, because of the inherent risks of putting somebody in restraints, especially when they're under the influence of substances. When, you know, they have an underlying medical condition that makes it more dangerous, you know, things can go wrong very quickly. And the restraints exacerbate that.
Speaker 1: (04:11)
What about chemical restraints, such as the case with Elijah McClain in Colorado who was injected with ketamine by paramount?
Speaker 2: (04:19)
Yeah. You know, the Elijah McLean case is disturbing on a number of levels because when you're talking about chemical restraints that is injecting somebody with a substance that can have really unpredictable effects. And, um, it's when it's done against the person's, we that's a severe invasion of bodily autonomy, and it can carry very serious risks. Um, and you know, paramedics and other medical professionals should really be exercising their own judgment about whether, you know, injecting somebody against their will is consistent with medical ethics guidelines, whether it's medically appropriate and not just doing it because a police officer says, so
Speaker 1: (05:02)
Do you think the use of restraints in general is dangerous? And if so, what policy changes are you advocating for in regards to their use?
Speaker 2: (05:11)
Uh, you know, again, these, you know, the use of restraints curious, inherent risks. So, um, they should not be used if there is any other alternative available and if they are used, then, um, there needs to be very close monitoring of what's going on. Um, you know, because again, these, the signs that somebody's medical distress is starting or getting worse or not things that, uh, a lay person or a police officer, uh, might be able to notice in time. Um, and, and so it just, it creates a very dangerous situation.
Speaker 1: (05:47)
I've been speaking with Carl Tokay, a policing expert, and the senior staff attorney at ACL use Trojan center for justice and equality. Carl, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 2: (05:58)
Thank you. Glad to be here.
