Police1 Exclusive: Mitigating the risks after chemical agent deployment at protests

Exclusive – Police1

by Robert Sorensen

Mass disruptions to public order are common across America today. When protests or riots occur, Mobile Field Forces (MFF) with specialized tactical training are dispatched to manage demonstrations and restore public order. Should protests escalate into violence or directives to disperse be disregarded, law enforcement is likely to deploy less-lethal strategies, including chemical agents, to restore public order.

Whenever chemical agents are used by MFFs to mitigate threats posed by public disorder, there is a corresponding increase in the risks to the officers responsible for deploying these agents, whether they are used correctly or incorrectly. The most commonly used agents are oleoresin capsicum (OC) and chlorobenzalmalononitrile (CS).

While all law enforcement agencies provide training for their officers in the use of these chemical agents, crowd control tactics, and the rights of protestors participating in a demonstration, the highest point of risk for officers and the public occurs once chemical agents are deployed. These risks include, but are not limited to, reputational risk, legal action, public and media scrutiny, internal review by senior officers, etc.

Therefore, best-practice post-deployment chemical agent risk mitigation must include a significant focus on decontamination, which commences with comprehensive training.

Training in real chemical agent environments

In real-world law enforcement, chemical agent training is what officers fall back on when situations escalate. However, circumstances rarely unfold as they do during training. Despite protective equipment, there is always a risk that officers will be affected when agents are deployed and experience the same effects as protesters.

How officers respond to fluid situations and make on-the-spot decisions will depend on whether they train with inert agents or with the real thing.

Training involving the use of inert agents or simulations is sometimes still implemented and at times is necessary. However, the focus of any scenario-based training is to replicate actual situations in a controlled and safe environment. As the saying goes, “You will not rise to the occasion, but you will fall to the level of your training” during an incident. Therefore, it’s imperative officers train in the most realistic situations as they can to replicate the stress.

Effective training requires officers to use and be exposed to the same chemical agents that they would use in the field, on suspects, and for crowd control. During training, officers must know what it feels like to become contaminated and experience the physiological effects of the agent. Knowing what to expect and how to power through its impact without losing focus during volatile situations is essential for officers to fulfill their duties, support their colleagues, restore order, and render aid to civilians and protestors impacted by chemical agents.

If officers are unprepared for the physiological effects of an agent during a protest and breath it in or it gets into their eyes, they are likely to experience the physical effects of the agent, some will become anxious and some may panic. These responses will negatively impact their reliability, the effectiveness of their team, overall critical decision making, and ability to implement their post-incident protocols. This ultimately increases their risk profile, and that of their fellow officers.

Training in a real chemical agent environment must also include the use of protective equipment. The simple act of properly putting on a gas mask can be challenging in the real-time chaos of a protest.

Moreover, proficiency in post-event decontamination protocols enables officers to return to duty safely and quickly, minimizing interruptions to calls for service, and significantly reducing the possibility of cross-contamination to other officers, and family members when they return home after their shift ends. The decontamination procedures apply not only to officers but also to any suspects or members of the public, as they would in any case in which law enforcement's legitimate use of force may injure people.

Certified training and usage

Certified professionals must train officers in all aspects of chemical agent use, including imparting a thorough understanding of the different agents and their effects. Additionally, officers responsible for deploying agents in real-world situations must be accredited to do so and possess the requisite expertise to deploy them.

Inadequate training across these factors increases officers' risk and may expose them to legal action, as demonstrated by the case of Victoria Snellgrove. In addition, officers must recognize when their deployment is necessary and when alternative tactics should be employed. In Davis v. Mason County, the court found against law enforcement, holding that, while it provided "adequate training on the technical components of the use of force", it did not have "adequate training on the constitutional limits of the use of force in effecting arrests".

Proper training procedures are therefore essential to protect law enforcement agencies and personnel from the risk of post-deployment litigation. Using certified instructors who are capable of accrediting officers in the use of less lethal chemical agents at public disorder events will go the extra mile for law enforcement risk mitigation.

Deployment strategies and protocols

Law enforcement agencies must therefore develop clear guidelines and protocols for deploying chemical agents and for mitigating harmful effects, thereby minimizing risks. These protocols should include:

• Proportionality: Chemical agents should be used only when absolutely necessary and in proportion to the level of threat or disruption posed by the situation. The use of chemical agents should never be a first resort, but rather a last resort when all other de-escalation efforts have failed.
• Targeted deployment: Chemical agents should be used in a controlled and targeted manner to prevent widespread exposure to bystanders. This may involve using more precise delivery systems, such as handheld pepper spray or small canisters, to target specific individuals or groups posing a direct threat. Officers must know how to take wind and weather conditions into account as part of their pre-deployment decision-making process.
• Provision of safety equipment: Distributing protective equipment, such as gas masks, goggles, or damp cloths, to officers at risk of exposure is essential. While this may not be feasible in all situations, it can be constructive in large protests or areas with high population density.
• Public health communication: Law enforcement agencies should provide clear, timely information to the public on their use of chemical agents, including potential health risks and guidance on minimizing exposure. This can help prevent panic and allow individuals to take protective measures in advance. Directing them to an evacuation area for safe decontamination will also help restore order.

The most significant risk of using chemical agents is cross-contamination. While an excellent tool for dispersing a crowd, restricting agents to a specific area is impossible. Once deployed, there is no way to stop the chemical reactions until the area and all affected officers, protesters, and even bystanders have been decontaminated.

Cross-contamination risks

Failing to follow decontamination protocols may turn a temporary crowd-control measure into an ongoing hazard, causing undue stress and discomfort for all involved. When an officer is contaminated with a chemical agent, they can also transfer these agents to others.

This situation often arises when people interact closely, such as when sharing vehicles, locker rooms, or equipment that has not been properly disinfected in accordance with decontamination protocols. Touching contaminated surfaces can spread chemical agents, resulting in effects, including burning sensations, respiratory difficulties, and eye irritation. Such indirect contamination can occur even during routine activities, such as assisting a member of the public out of a contaminated area or offering a simple gesture, such as a pat on the back to a colleague.

If contaminated clothing and equipment are not properly decontaminated on the scene or securely stored post incident for later sanitization, even a breeze caused by someone walking past can disturb the substance, and it may land on a third party who does not understand the symptoms they experience. Only once an incident is deemed ‘over’ can proper post-event decontamination occur. This creates an added dimension of risk if it is incorrectly implemented.

Taking care of equipment is not merely a matter of protocol. Properly sanitizing equipment ensures it is safe and ready for reuse without risking reactivation and potentially incapacitating the next officer to use it. In a worst-case emergency scenario, there may not be time for a complete decontamination of equipment, only a partial wipe-down, which puts all officers at risk and must be avoided. Additionally, proper care ensures the equipment lasts longer and provides the officer with maximum protection.

Decontamination also extends to paraphernalia used by protesters. Before these items are entered into evidence or handled by supervisors, evidence custodians or prosecutors, they must be rendered safe through controlled decontamination procedures that preserve evidentiary integrity while preventing secondary exposure. Decontaminating suspects is equally critical, as the effects of chemical agents can trigger panic, reduce compliance with instructions and escalate already volatile situations.

To expedite decontamination and minimize risks, commercial products specifically designed to remove chemical agents are available and, ideally, should be used on-site to neutralize equipment, uniforms, and people. Many officers in the field still resort to ‘DIY’ formulations, which are largely ineffective. Training programs should include the proper use of appropriate products, and careful planning ensures law enforcement officers have sufficient on-site supplies to contain post-event contamination for both themselves and civilians. Contingency planning is crucial and should be included in any training or actual situations.

Duty of care

While officers are justified in using less-lethal force in certain situations, they also have a duty of care to the public in general, as well as to the protesters impacted by chemical agents. This is a critical component in their risk mitigation efforts and will help minimize the negative public and media scrutiny their police department could face. In each deployment, officers must ensure that there is a safe escape route to a non-contaminated evacuation zone, where officers and the public can decontaminate safely in fresh air and obtain medical and decontamination support, if needed.

Medical personnel must be deployed to the predesignated treatment zone to monitor individuals exposed to chemical agents and provide immediate treatment if necessary. This is especially important in high-risk fluid situations where large numbers of people are affected. Calming the contaminated and assisting in reducing the pain and anxiety also serves to de-escalate the situation and mitigate the risk of excessive force claims. The goal of chemical agents is not to cause pain, but to control the situation, and providing care and pain relief supports this goal.

Ensuring that individuals exposed to chemical agents can be quickly decontaminated can reduce symptom severity and prevent long-term health effects. Until law enforcement officers or EMTs are able to treat individuals with professional-grade products, water is still the most effective method for tackling chemical agent contamination in the field.

Public order and trust can also be re-established by offering medical follow-up for individuals who have been exposed to chemical agents, particularly those with pre-existing health conditions or those who experience severe reactions.

With the knowledge and experience in decontaminating themselves and others, officers fulfill their duty of care and ensure those affected receive adequate aid, thereby reducing the risk of legal and political repercussions after an event.

Post-incident review

A thorough after-action review of each situation in which agents were used is crucial, covering the planning, the event itself, and post-event activities. Considering the environment, crowd size, location, and the actions of both the public and law enforcement enables police to manage risk more effectively and update their protocols and procedures by identifying which actions deliver the desired results and which require improvement.

The post-incident review will guide future protest responses, ensure that officers’ actions comply with all applicable laws, uphold their duty of care, and assess whether people were left to their own devices without support or assistance in dealing with the effects of chemical agents.

All the points above are addressed to some degree in MFF training and deployment scenarios involving chemical agents. Still, to ensure law enforcement agencies and officers mitigate the associated risks effectively, a holistic approach to training and deployment is required.

In conclusion

Effective post-incident decontamination is a core component of the entire public order management process.

Training officers in effective decontamination will reduce officers' and their departments' liability and risks. This training will ensure they understand the effects of the agents, how to decontaminate them thoroughly, and how public trust can be strengthened by demonstrating a duty to protect and serve. It also contributes significantly to how law enforcement agencies manage their operational and reputational risks.

This article first appeared on Police1. Read the original article here.

Robert Sorensen assisted the National Tactical Officers Association to develop their less lethal tactical protocols which are used by a wide variety of law enforcement entities to manage public order. He served as an FBI Task Force Officer and is a retired Department of Justice GS-13 Special Agent. Robert is currently the director of strategic partnerships and agency liaison at SoRite. Contact him at rsorensen@sorite.com