Lack of uniform police policies in PA leaves differences in what is 'use of force'

When a police officer is accused of misconduct, including excessive force, taxpayers often foot the bill.

Center Township in Beaver County paid nearly $1 million last year to settle a civil lawsuit following the Nov. 6, 2022, death of Industry man Kenneth Vinyard at the apparent hands of an off-duty local police officer at a homicide scene in the Walmart Plaza parking lot.

Months later, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office charged Center Township police officer John Hawk with involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault and more for his role in Vinyard’s death.

Early last year, Aliquippa settled a civil lawsuit alleging excessive force and false arrest on undisclosed terms.

These high-profile cases are among several throughout Beaver County and western Pennsylvania in recent years. In each case, the police departments involved admitted no fault. Still, municipalities covered the steep settlement fees.

As Beaver County undergoes leadership changes, including a newly elected top prosecutor, one issue to consider is Beaver County's lack of a cohesive, publicly accessible use-of-force policy and the associated legal liabilities. An issue that is reflected across the state and nation.

This lack of unified guidelines can risk public and law enforcement safety, and cost local governments millions, advocates for better policing say.

Local police departments' policies different, have various justifications for the use of force

When comparing departmental policies, the lack of uniformity in the language can complicate what justifies the "use of force" by police within Beaver County.

To analyze policy differences, reporters from The Beaver County Times obtained police policy handbooks from the Aliquippa Police Department, Beaver Police Department and Center Township Police Department. When compared in length, Aliquippa's policy is a combined six pages, Center Township's policy is seven pages and Beaver's policy is 14 pages.

Each of these policies has different definitions of what constitutes force and what can justify a forceful response from police officers. All three policies fully cover officers' actions considered "rough," such as pushing or overpowering a resisting suspect during an arrest, but begin to diverge after this point.

For example, Center Township's policy splits the use of force into "lethal force" and "less lethal force" for their policies. While this may seem overly simple, the clear definitions quickly define "less lethal" as anything that does not cause a severe injury. The handbook also clarifies these incidents are subject to different incident reports with unique information gathering.

Center Township did not share the suggested guidelines for lethal force or less lethal force in the provided information.

In addition to any fatal or severe injuries caused during an arrest, Center Township officers must compile a written report anytime a firearm is discharged (with an exception for "animal disposal" calls) or if a subject complains that an injury has been inflicted.

In Beaver's handbook, the use of force is more broadly applied as "any physical effort to control, restrain or overcome resistance." The criteria for filing reports is also slightly different, including additional criteria for viable injuries to the suspect or if the "suspect is threatening to file a civil suit."

Mixed funding for local agencies: Local police funding a mixed bag in Beaver County, rising as living wages increase

Beaver's policy is justified by a "confrontational force continuum" in its handbook, but this scale was not shared with reporters.

Aliquippa's handbook separates the use of force by whether it is "deadly," clarifying that deadly is anything a "reasonable person" would consider "force which is intended to cause death or grave injury or which creates some specified degree of risk."

Aliquippa justifies deadly force in any situation where an officer is protecting themselves or others from what they perceive as an immediate threat to capture or prevent the escape of those accused of felonies involving lethal force. Officers are told not to consider age in their decisions and to identify themselves as police "when feasible."

Due to its smaller policy, Aliquippa's policy is open to interpretation as to what the policy defends in police actions. Many forceful actions are defended as long as an officer "believes it necessary" to take these actions, but there are no limits to the police actions short of causing an arrestee's death.

In the department's most recent accusations of excessive force, witness video from the incident showed officers from the Aliquippa Police Department placing one woman in a headlock and grabbing a detained man by the back of his sweatshirt, shouting "Now you're going to get it." The man in the video later filed a lawsuit against the department, but officers settled the matter.

Nowhere in the use-of-force policies for the department does it mention this as an acceptable use of force, but no guidelines are given as to what "force" may include, and incidents with no immediate injuries or death do not require written reports. City officials later said a "known error" in the body-worn camera system caused the incident to not be recorded but has supposedly been fixed following the altercation.

More: Violent altercation involving Aliquippa police under review by city

Despite these communities being only miles apart, crossing the municipal line from Center Township to Aliquippa can mean drastically different policies for justifying lethal force. The process can be complicated for officers, especially those assisting each other in daily operations. While some departments may justify struggling with handcuffs as expected, others may have stricter guidelines for these physical altercations if cuts or bruises are caused.

This process can be a complex web for officers working in multiple departments, which is common among part-time officers in Beaver County. Even when followed to the letter, departments without body-worn cameras may have an uphill battle to include everything and argue justification in situations.

How is the use of force reported?

For many policies, justification for using force is based on the judgment of a "reasonable person," but this role is most commonly put on the shoulders of department supervisors.

Regardless of written report compilations, all three departments must notify their superior officer when a use-of-force incident has occurred. This officer is then responsible for investigating the incident, compiling all the necessary departmental information and providing a report to the acting police chief.

This stage also differs based on location, as the next step depends on the powers afforded to the chief in municipalities. In Beaver and Center Township, policies do not extend beyond when this information is handed to the police chief. In cases where there are accusations of abuse of power, criminal charges would be filed separately and are not typically included in the handbook.

Center Township does clarify that officers accused of using lethal force are placed on administrative leave after completing any internal obligations until mental health professionals deem them fit to return to duty. These reports are also retained for training and regularly reviewed by the department.

In the department's fatal use of force case in 2022, the Center Township Police Department followed this policy by placing the officer on leave following the incident, with a grand jury later charging the officer with a series of charges including involuntary manslaughter and aggravated assault. The department's policy does clarify that when in plain clothes, officers are expected to follow the same use-of-force guidelines as in uniform, and they may only apply force when making an arrest, which is a highly restricted process when not on duty.

In Aliquippa, the investigating superior officer is the police chief, and instances of deadly force require written reports from those involved. After completing their investigation, the chief reports the incident to the mayor, but the only official who holds the power to remove an officer from duty is the chief of police.

Local officials have expressed the desire to see uniform policy in the past

Local lawmakers have expressed interest in updating these handbook policies and adding devices to hold officers more accountable during daily interactions, but these changes have been slow to come to Beaver County's police departments.

While there is a complex web of who makes police policy due to unions and various government roles, a suggested uniform policy would most likely be set by the district attorney's office in Beaver County. Departments would not be forced to adhere to this policy, but it would provide municipal organizations with a potentially comprehensive set of guidelines that better protect officers and the public during interactions.

Former Beaver County District Attorney David Lozier had expressed a desire to implement more body-worn cameras in departments around the county, allowing officers to draw upon video footage for reports, training or disciplinary actions. Several departments around the county already have these devices in their budgets, with a county-wide policy available for their suggested use, but several police forces in the region still lack these cameras.

Though he does not have personal experience in policing, Beaver County's new district attorney, Nathan Bible, says that a uniform policy is something that could potentially work well for local officers. While he does not feel like it is his place to make this change himself, Bible thinks that a uniform expectation is something police chiefs should take a critical look at to create a consistent expectation for officers working across the region.

"A part of the reason is that you have a lot of officers that work part-time for several municipalities," Bible said. "Those use of force procedures probably shouldn't differ or be completely different spectrums from each municipality. I'm sure there could be some differences, I'm sure there are, but a uniform policy isn't a terrible idea."

A series of suggested uniform guidelines are offered by the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association (PCPA), which requires a comprehensive use of force policy during their accreditation process. Throughout its suggestions, the chiefs' association mentions that officers should undergo annual training on their use-of-force policies and de-escalation techniques and demonstrate they are qualified to handle weapons.

Outside of the training and equipment management recommendations, the chiefs' association recommends that all departments should have a detailed process for when it is approved to deploy a firearm. Within these policies, the PCPA says restricting airways should be a last resort, if weapons have failed, and proper medical care should be administered after the arrest.

In Beaver County, only two departments have received PCPA accreditations: the New Sewickley Township Police Department and the Hopewell Township Police Department.

Public access to these records is limited, often denied by government officials

While these police handbooks are primarily open records, members of the public will often find it difficult when trying to access these documents.

Any citizen of Pennsylvania can request public documents by filing a Right to Know request, but police organizations have the right to deny certain documents within their public office based on several exemptions provided under the laws. When it comes to police handbooks, there is often debate over the public's need to access and right to know internal police procedures.

The issue of access isn't unique to departments within Beaver County, as departments around Pennsylvania have been defensive about publicly posting these policies. In many cases, departments cite an exemption in the state's Right to Know laws that allow them to withhold documents that could "implicate the personal safety of officers" or "jeopardize public safety" by releasing these guidelines to communities.

"The policies are presumptively public, and in most cases, there are parts of the policy that are exempt and other parts that are public," said Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association. "Most of the exempt aspects deal with information that, if known publicly, would create safety risks to the public or officers."

Even when information isn't sensitive, community members' filing requests may be denied, or the process may take extended periods to receive any updates on this information. For residents unaware of the appeals process or lacking legal representation, their Right to Know requests may go unanswered if proper policy is not followed.

Journalists do not have any special rights when filing Right to Know requests, so it can also be hard for news organizations' staff to fact-check policies when they are cited in press conferences or legal proceedings. Like any other residents, Times reporters must file their requests with municipal Right to Know offices.

For this article, The Times filed requests with Center Township, Beaver, and Aliquippa's Right to Know offices in February 2023 to provide three separate policies for context. After staff filed these requests, the Center Township Police Department was the first to return the request, providing a censored version of the handbook to reporters.

Members of the Beaver Police Department initially denied the request to receive copies of their department's handbook, but appeals officers at the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records ruled in favor of reporters receiving the documents. Parts of the document were still censored, as the department cited the exemptions under the state's laws.

"Agencies need to recognize the presumption of access and redact only as much information as is necessary to enable access and public accountability," Melewsky said. "RTKL compliance is required by law, and agencies are subject to penalties for failure to abide by its terms. Public access laws are necessary and guarantee government is open and accountable to the public it serves."

When requests were filed with Aliquippa's Right to Know office, the city never responded to the initial request. A second request was also filed by another reporter, which was also left unanswered by the city. This denial, through lack of response, was then appealed to the Office of Open Records in May, with appeals officers ruling in favor of The Times.

After various communications between Aliquippa and The Times legal representatives, reporters were given access to the physical police handbook and took digital scans of the pages in July. Due to this process, Aliquippa's full policies were provided to The Times.

This article originally appeared on Beaver County Times: Lack of uniform police policies in PA leaves differences in what is 'use of force'