steiger on the use of force by law enforcement. >> please be >> please be seated. this is a reminder you are still under oath.

>> good morning sergeant will do a brief recap to where we left off yesterday. yesterday you testified about some events thatd occurred and took place may 25, 2020 prior to the defendant's arrival. andom then events after the arrival. you testified about the resistance in the squad car and the officer's efforts to compel him to do so. then officers pulled it out of the squad car o onto the street we indicated mr. floyd went to his knees on the ground and said thank you to the officers. >> a yes. >> at that point the officers pushed him flat on the ground and prone position and you saw

mr. floyd kick with one leg. while being pushed down. >> yes. >> you set a reasonable officer could of interpreted that kick as an act of aggression or an active resistance. >> yes. >> picking up your testimony there. making notes of the various times of which things occurred. to define a restraint. based on your review of the body worn camera footage using officer keung footage as a point of reference, tell the jury at what point in time in your opinion does the restraint itself begin? >> based on my review of the body worn video the restraint started at 2019, 14 seconds. >> when does the restraint. and? >> i believe it was 2028, 43

seconds. >> what is the duration of that time. ? >> nine minutes and 29 seconds. >> in your opinion does defendants use of force during that time. need to be w reasonable within the entire time. ? >> yes. >> can you determine what forced the defendant applied to george floyd during the restraint. schleicher: yorty indicated exhibit 17 shows how the defendant was positioned on george floyd. i will ask you for additional detail in that regard based on your analysis. at this time i would like to display to the witness only, 254 for identification.

this is appear to be a composite of five different photos from materials in this case? >> yes, sir. schleicher: at a high level explain what the different photos show starting upper left to the right and then down. >> the upper left photo shows the beginning where the defendant and other officers removedol mr. floyd from the police vehicle and placed them in the prone position upper rige depicts of the emergency medical services responded and put

mr. floyd 254 on the very left what does that photo show. >> the middle photo. >> the middle photo shows the defendant with his left knee on mr. floyd's neck. >> the final photo. >> the final photo shows the defendant with his knee on mr. floyd's neck and lower neck area as well on the back of mr. floyd. >> with his composite 254 you explaining your analysis of the specific force used by the defendant upon mr. floyd during the restraint. that you were justified.

>> author exhibit 254. >> let me ask you to publish exhibit 254, and a little more detail if you could take exhibit 254 in the upper left photo, first photo and again, this is a milestone footage, and the timestamp is 819 and 17 seconds, can you please explain to the jury what this shows relevant to your analysis. >> relevant to my analysis it showed when the officer initially remove mr. floyd from the vehicle and placed him in the position where he allowed his bodyweight to control and

focusing on this individual is at the defendant and are you able to make up the relative position of his legs, relative to mr. floyd and that photo? >> it appears his knees are in a position with his bodyweight in his left knee being in the neck area of mr. floyd in his right knee being in the back area. >> take that down and move to the next photo. the photo in the lower left. for a frame of reference. >> we note the timestamp 2019 and 27 seconds, please describe to the jury what it is you see

here. >> here i believe the defendants left knee is on mr. floyd's neck in his right knee on his back area. >> if you can view the stylist and places are gone the left knee of the defendant. >> now on the right knee of the defendant. >> based on your review does it show the relative position of the defendant knees during the entirety. >> yes. >> you can take that down. >> that was a middle photo consistent with exhibit 17 which you've already reviewed from a different angle of the defendants left knee, is that

correct and you notice anything specific about the position of his feet. >> 's feet are spread apart and on the ground. >> based on your experience and training where with the majority of the defendants bodyweight be given the position of the left knee, the right knee and the feet. >> it would be on his knees and pushing down to his knee area to his body. >> if you can take that down. all right go to the upper right photo this is from the milestone video. >> what does this moment in time show.

>> shows the defendant still on mr. floyd to survey what was going on. >> this was before the end of the restraint. that you define. >> yes. >> were you able to observe the relative position of the defendant using the milestone video from the restraint. to this point. >> did it change? >> no. >> if you can take that down please if you highlight the last photo, lower right this is from kings body worn camera timestamp 202843, what you defined at the end of the restraint.

>> can you please describe to the jury what you see relative to the defendant -like position. >> the defendants left knee is on mr. floyd's neck or neck area and his right knee is on his back area. >> can you take that down please. based on your review of all of the camera footage the defendant body position with that particular force did not change during the entire restraint. >> correct. >> if you could take that down please. if you observe the defendant on a body worn camera with any other type of force upon george floyd other than what you saw with respect to his legs and his bodyweight. >> towards the beginning of the

original restraint the defendant used his right hand and he was attempting to use a paint compliance on mr. floyd left-hand. >> this time i would like to publish exhibit 255, using exhibit 255 can you please explain to the jury what you mean if the stylist would help you use that. here you can see the defendant's right hand grasping the fingers of mr. floyd's left-hand it appears to be squeezing him. >> you use the term pain complaints can you describe what that means. >> pain compliance is a technique that is used to get a subject to comply with the

command as they comply they are rewarded with the reduction of pain. >> how would this positioning induced pain. >> this can induce pain a couple of ways by squeezing of the fingers in bringing the knuckles together which can cause pain or also basically pulling the wrist into the handcuffs which can cause pain as well. >> you can see on exhibit 255 where mr. floyd is handcuffed, can you please put a circle around that, your testimony that the drawing of the fingers and the wrist down towards the handcuffs could induce pain. >> yes because the handcuffs were not double locked meaning that they could continue to ratchet tighter as the person moved.

>> were you able to hear instances of what you recognize during your review of the body worn cameras and having the subject to obey your command. >> what if there is no opportunity for compliance. >> at that point is just pain. >> you again observe the entirety of the body worn camera footage, did you see whether the defendant discontinued the use of the pain compliance technique during the restraint. >> yes i didn't know he did not. >> if you could take that down please. sir, you testified about graham versus connor and the factors that used in your analysis, your

review of minneapolis police department doesn't minneapolis integrated these factors into its policy and procedures. >> yes. >> you testify to the factors one of the actions will happen prior to the restraint. i would like you to focus on the restraint. it's self and if we can publish exhibit 217, i believe it is page two and highlight the three bullets this is from the minneapolis police department use of force procedure manual section five/300 series, you can see the factors that you previously testified, you

already spoken as the first factor of the private issue, did that change during the restraint. >> no. >> the crime that mr. floyd was in possession of a fake 20-dollar bill. >> i would like you to focus in on the second factor whether mre threat to the safety of the officers or others at the time during the restraint. >> he was in the position he was handcuffed, he was not attempting to resist and not attempting to assault the officers, kick, punch or of that nature. >> did he ever communicate and attempt to do so. >> i did not hear any verbalization and any threats toward the officers. >> to the other indicate whether he had the ability to do so. >> no we did not.

>> can you comment as to the number of other officers on the scene present at the time and how that would relate to any opinion whether mr. floyd presented a threat. >> yes, when evaluating the use of force with the use of officers in the use of subjects. this particular instance is there are five officers on scene, three officers that were using bodyweight on mr. floyd into additional officers that were on scene as well. >> in terms of the threat there is a descriptor, and needs to be an immediate threat in your analysis to pose an immediate threat would be able to presently cause some sort of harm. >> yes immediate meaning is

happening now. >> focusing on the third factorr whether mr. floyd was resisting or attempting to fade, could you describe to the jury your analysis after that third factor. >> based on my analysis b mr. floyd was not actively resisting out the time that he was in the position, nor did he communicate that he was attempting to resist. >> are you familiar with the concept of proportionality. >> sim. >> can you please explain the concept of proportionality as it relates to the use of force in the jury. >> it basically means that an officer is only allowed to use a

level force that is proportional to the seriousness of a crime oe level of resistance that is subject is using towards officers. >> are you familiar with the graphic known as a force continuum to illustrate at this point and does the minneapolis police department use a similar item to illustrates with officers. >> yes they do. >> if we can show publish exhibit 110. >> if you could take that down, exhibit 919 a demonstrative exhibit to illustrate the concept and i'm going at exhibit 919 be published atpu this poin. >> publishing exhibit 919 what i need to do is lock the jury

through the concept of proportionality using 919 demonstrative to explain if you would begin please. >> if you look on the far left you would see the subject behavior and start upping active aggression and passive resistance and we will start with active aggression in the subject behavior is active aggression then the severity of it can cause serious bodily injury or death then the officer is allowed to use deadly force, moving down if the subject actions do not meet the deadly force threshold then the officer is allowed to use att the time, also a strike in unconscious, a sudden strike is a type of force that an officer can use when he's been assaulted to

temporarily try to control them. and i believe it is when ant carotid restraint to temporarily make the person unconscious continuing moving down at the subject behavior is less aggressive moving closer to active resistance you see an officer is allowed to use acb which is a conducted electronic device which you might be known as a taser and often a chemical which is used in known as pepper spray. >> is the subject behavior, distraction technique is similar stunning but basically a

distraction technique is used to temporarily to stun the person in order to follow up with another technique possibly taken down to the ground or use it to control them as well, obviously you have a control takedown as well in unconscious and not restraint to control the person and based off of active resistance, moving down if the subject behavior is passive resistance then officer can use ointment ambulation or pressure point or hold and these are the most commonly used types of force when officers are in the field and lastly young verbalization in the officer's presence when the person is complying or passively resisting verbally. >> if no resistance is offered.

>> surgery of an opinion to a degree of a professional certainty how much force was reasonable for the defendant after mr. floyd was handcuffed, placed in the prone position and not resisting. >> no for sure been used once he was in that position. >> i see on this continuum the deadly force is not defined. >> yes. >> is it defined as the minneapolis police department policy. >> i would like to publish exhibit 216 if you can move to t page two calling out the definition of deadly force. >> could you read to the record for the jury of the definition of deadly force beginning a force that the actor uses.ct

>> yes of force in which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which the actor should reasonably no of causing death or greatat bodily harm. >> i would like to be publish exhibit 254 the composite comedy of an opinion to a degree of professional certainty whether the force used is shown in exhibit 254 and whether the force being applied for the restraint. which he defined nine minutes and 29 seconds would constitutee deadly force. >> yes. >> what is thatit opinion be met that it would. >> why is that. >> at the time of the restraint. mr. floyd was not resisting he was in the proper position and he was handcuffed and he was not

attempting to evade or resist in the pressure that was being caused by the bodyweight to cause position on is fixed via or death. >> is it a known risk and law enforcement. >> yes it is. >> how long have the dangers of not been known. >> at least 20 years, i recall a department of justice memo from i believe 1995 that discussed it and i know i was trained on it in 1995 as well. >> the risk in the danger position and the potential outcome is death is not right. >> yes, sir. >> when we talk about positional asphyxia in the risk is at risk increased with increasing

pressure on the subject. >> yes positional is fixed via can occur if there is no bodyweight on a subject just being in that position and being handcuffed creates a situationhe where the person is a difficult time breathing which can cause death when you add bodyweight to that then it just increases the possibility of death. >> what additional weight did you see in your analysis. >> the defendants bodyweight as well as two other individuals. >> one of the other officers appeared to be pressing down on mr. floyd. >> yep. >> was not officer king. >> yes. >> what was the other officer doing. >> he was holding his leg. >> you can take that down please. >> sir and applying the rules of

use of force and use of reasonable force, the officer has to consider the circumstances. the circumstance can be the location, that can be important, is not right. >> yes. >> are you aware there was a group ofof bystanders who begano watch the defendant and the other officers use force on mr. floyd? >> yes. >> in your experience with the los angeles police department in the areas you were patrolling, have you ever had to use force or apply force or handcuff a suspect in the bystanders, have you ever had to handcuff and unwilling suspect or subject in the bystanders. >> yes, sir. >> have you ever had to do so in the presence of a hostile crowd. >> yes, sir. >> can you define hostile crowd in the context. >> i would define hostile crowd

in the situation i've been in where the crowd or members of the crowd are threatening and or throwing bottles at us. >> have you had that experience. >> yes, sir. >> on more than one occasion? >> yes. >> if i can publish exhibit 184, getting back to the circumstances of this case, this appeared to be the bystander that were gathered watching the defendant apply force to mr. floyd. >> when you had the body worn cameras did you see anybody throwing rocks or bottles. >> did you see anybody physically attacked the officers. >> did you hear foul language or name-calling. >> there was some name-calling and foul language but that was not the most of it. >> too that factor into your analysis.

>> no. >> why not. >> i did not perceive them as being a threat. >> why is that. >> they were filming and most of it was their concern for mr. floyd. >> in terms of o proportionality and continuum of the officers, was officer able to increase the use of force on individual base of a third party over whom thetr subject has no control. >> the officer can only use force face on the subject action. >> can you acknowledge that loud noise and name-calling can be destructive. >> yes it can be. >> what does an experienced and trained officer do and that sort of distraction. >> they continue to assess and reassess their force or they would attempt of any threat

level they may perceive. >> based on your review of the offense materials in the records as of may 25, 2020, how long had the defendant been a minneapolis police officer. >> approximately 19 years. >> if we can call a publish exhibit 203, if you can highlight the top portion, it appears to be a workforce training record of the defendant, is that right. >> yes. >> indicatesat approximately 866 hours. >> yes of paid training? >> yes. >> to think that should've been sufficient training to prepare the defendant for this distraction. >> absolutely. >> take thatbs down please.

>> would it be possible for a group, allowed group to distract the defendant from being attentive to george t floyd? >> yes. >> do you believe that accrued. >> the way do not. >> why is that. >> because mr. floyd explaining his discomfort and pain and you could hear the defendant responding to him. >> at this time i would like to publish exhibit 47 and bring us to the body worn camera footage, bring us the point of 2022 and 23 seconds. this time i would like to publish that and play that section for the jury.

[inaudible] >> is that the exchange you testify to with the defendant responding to statements of mr. floyd. >> yes, sir. >> approximately how long did the defendant continue to restrain george floyd after the exchange we just heard. >> i believe six minutes. >> thank you i have no further questions.

>> let me have just a moment to get set appear.

[silence] >> good morning thank you for. being here, did you enjoy the rain last night. >> no different thann californi. >> we don't get that much. >> i have a few questions first and foremost about your experience have you ever previously testified in any court or state where federal court has an export on the use of force. >> neu have not. >> ibuprofen qualified for jurisdictionon as an expert in e use of police force? >> yes. >> where. >> los angeles during a trial use of force that i was the investigatoror for. >> is not the only time in that case. >> yes. >> you are hearing your own

court personal capacity are not here as a representative of either of the los angeles police department or the office ofal inspector general, correct. >> correct. >> the training that you've experienced and youou haveas conducted, that is alden by the los angeles police department, correct. >> yes. >> the training you received to become a police officer is primarily conducted by the loson angeles police department. >> correct. >> you may have gone to outside vendor training but they had to be approved by the los angeles police department,ou right. >> yes. >> the training that you attended outside of lapd stuff all would have to be consistent with los angeles police department policies. >> not necessarily know. >> they had to be in compliance with california.

you would agree the policies of the los angeles police department are there policies, correct. >> correct. >> the policies of every police department are going to be different to some degree. >> to some degree, yes. >> some police department may authorize a particular form of force while others don't, correct. >> to a certain extent, yes. >> that is a question of the reasonableness of that type of force, one department may say this is not aot reasonable use f force and another may say this is a reasonable use of force. >> the margin and experience every agency that i've seen is pretty standard. , in terms of the actual tactics of the use of force, a odepartment may authorize the ue of a particular tool and anotheo department may not authorize

that tool. >> correct. >> and thus there both uses of force or potential uses of force in the instruments to use that force may be different. >> yes they all have to fall into the executive. >> understood but one department can determine that that type of anns instrument or that techniqe is within the reasonable standard while another department may not. >> is another way of saying reasonable minds can differ. >> correct. >> you testify you have been a trainer for the los angeleses police department in terms of the tactics, when you talk about your training experience are you doing it from a teacher lecturing that type of standpoint or are you doing the training on the maps or both.

>> both. >> you never been trained by the minneapolis police department, correct. >> no i have not. >> upon being hired on this case you received a lot of materials in this case, right. >> yes, i did. >> he received an extensive amount of minneapolis police department training materials. >> you received investigative reports from the bureau of criminal comprehension. >> and he received video cameras, or videotapes. >> correct. >> any received materials within the training materials that also contained videos or examples in the type of material a part of the training materials, right? >> let me rephrase sometimes in a powerpoint presentation there may be a a video embedded in the

powerpoint presentation in the video is an example of a specific move or maybe training exercises or the scenario-based trainings, did you see all of those. >> i was not able to because most of the powerpoint presentations weren't pdf. >> you have not seen the training videos prepared by the department?police >> no. >> all the material that you have received is in fact what you've used in part to form your opinion in this case, right. >> you relied on those materials to a certain extent. >> yes. >> some of those materials were completely irrelevant to this case. >> yes. >> such of the use of the taser. >> such as the mountain patrol unit. >> yes. >> but you received other

information that was informative and had an effect on your analysis. >> yes. >> thisho training material of n important part of how you form your opinion. >> yes. >> you ultimately prepared a written report, correct. >> yes. >> in your written report you detailed your opinions and findings on your case, correct. >> guesser, you made an exhibit of the materials. >> yes, sir. >> would you agree your report in total is 461 pages. >> yes. >> i have it here 461 pages of the 461 pages, 26 pages constitute your opinions.

>> correct. >> from page 27 to 461 this is a list of the materials that you reviewed in preparation of this case. >> that i received. >> you reviewed but not all of these materials. >> correct. >> ultimately concluded that you received a total of 5737 different training materials or items to review i don't know the exact number, what is the last number 5737, would you dispute that. >> i would have to look at it but i would disagree. >> in addition to your analysis you're relying on your own trainings, your own experiences as a police officer, your

experiences in doing the. review of use of force with the los angeles police department and your investigation of uses of force. >> correct. >> you ultimately submitted your report to the state of minnesota on january 31 of this year. >> that is correct. >> sent you submitted your report having received any additional information investigative or otherwise about this case. >> no. >> any training materials that came to us subsequent to januare information that was received you have not had an opportunity to review that? >> correct. >> since reading your report it's fair to say you've had several conversation with prosecutors in connection with this case. >> correct. >> i believe you met for converse with prosecutors on

february 1 of this year, march 1, march 11 of this year and april 3 of this year, would you dispute me if i told you those were the dates. >> i would have to look at my calendar but i believe that is correct. [silence]

>> in addition you had an additional meeting with prosecutors last may. in addition to thee date that u referenced you had additional trial preparation yesterday with the prosecution? after your testimony? >> we had a briefwe conversation but no trial prep. >> you and i have never met or spoke, correct? >> correct. >> you're aware prosecutors give you summaries of those meetings. >> yes. >> you also testified yesterday in your role with the los angeles police department in the office of inspector general you reviewed thousands of use of force cases. >> yes. >> it's fair to say the cases range in terms of the use of force, the type of force used is

variable. >> some cases may involve whether an officern should've punched a person and some may involve whether they should have used a particular technique or not, taser for example, some involve the use of deadly force. >> but they're not all the thousands deadly force orsu resulting in a death of an individual. >> correct, the vast majority are based upon civilian complaints perhaps or sergeants review of use of force. >> sergeants review or investigation, yes, not a civilian complaint but primarily a sergeants investigation. >> the los angeles police department is similar to the minneapolis if the officer used his force there certain resources they have to report to the superior and then the sergeant will review and investigate that use of force.

>> correct. >> then that process from once the report is completed you were on the panel of people that reviewed the investigation. >> in your capacity of reviewing the use of force you would agree that graham versus connor is in standard, it is a universal standard for all police officers in the united states, right. >> to my knowledge yes. >> that's because it comes from the united states m supreme cout under thewl highest lawmaking? [silence]

>> yes i believe so. >> the graham versus connor factor if you have a second. you talked yesterday and today about the graham d connor factors and you have done thousands of use of force reviews and you're comfortable discussing graham versus connor.

>> yes i am. >> you me just a second. >> you reviewed the minneapolis police department policy that incorporates graham versus connor in the minneapolis police pdepartment policy i asked the

court -- i would like you to exhibit 106, there is exhibit 106, there is the incorporation of grandma versus connor. >> yes. >> the authorized use of force in the state of minnesota exist primarily from a state statute, correct. >> that statute in terms of the police department policy have to be consistent with the graham graham versus connor. >> it's fair to say there's mora to the analysis of grandma versus connor of the severity of the crime, the threat or the active resistance. >> yes. >> in fact with the ultimateat police department policy says here is because the test of reasonableness under the fourth

amendment is not capable of personalized definition or mechanical application is proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case including those three factors, not limited to those three factors. >> correct. [screams] after the policy discusses those three factors, the policyy goes on to say the reasonableness of be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer. >> correct. >> on the scene. >> correct. >> rather than a 2020 vision of hindsight. >> correct. >> the reason that becomes important is because the next paragraph which reads the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second

judgments and circumstances that are tense uncertain and rapidly involving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation, agreed? >> this is the minneapolis police department policy. >> then it includes that the authorized use of force pays careful attention to the facts and circumstances ofas each cas. >> ultimately the analysis of the objective reasonableness of any case has to be a consideration of all of these thoughts that are contained within the policy. >> this is not an exclusive list of factors that apply. >> correct. >> ultimately it's what called the totality of the

circumstances. >> yes. >> we have to look at the entirety of everything that is going on. >> yes we have to look at the subject action as well as officer's actions and typically to my analysis the actions before, during and after with the officer knowing at the time and things of that nature. >> sometimes the use of force is instantaneous. >> sometimes but not in this case. >> understood but sometimes the use of force is instantaneous. >> sometimes. >> i should've done that very fast action by punching in the face is a quicker type of reaction. >> correct. >> if i taser it's a quicker reaction, it's inherently a fast reaction. >> in some cases correct. >> ultimately you concluded this was an excessive use of force.

>> yes. >> that's not the standard is it. >> the question whether it's an objectively reasonable use of force. >> correct. >> when we review whether a use of force is authorized there is layers to that analysis, would you agree with that. >> yes. >> i minister out and work my way and there is a general training that officer has in his experience or her experience. there is a mid-level of surrounding circumstances, what do we know about the geography in the neighborhood and what we know about the people involved, what is the type of force being used, how long is it being used what are the subject and the officers actionable reaction.

>> yes. >> under the reasonable officer standard we have to take into consideration the officers training. >> yes. >> we have to take into account his or her personalie experienc. >> yes. >> we have to take into account tactical advantages or disadvantages. >> correct. >> we have to take into account scene security. >> yes. >> the safety t and security of our partners. >> yes. >> we have to take into account the public safety. >> yes. >> we have to take into account the location generally speaking is this a high crime, low crime, we have to take that into account. >> we have to take into account the specific location meaning in

my in the middle of a busy intersection where buses and cars are driving by or am i in someone's backyard. >> we have to take into account the escalation possibilities, you have seen and discussed a little bit yesterday, i'm sorry we can take this down the minneapolis police department critical decision-making model, d.you reviewed that and you understand what an officer is supposed to do is go through the cycle process taking information, assessing the risk in deciding is it lawful for me too do this, how do i react and ultimately with the goal of keeping everybody safe. >> that is a pretty standard thing to continue to reassess as

you are using force. >> reassessment is a specific tool. >> that is common to police officer's. >> you have to take into account that sometimes incidents or interactions with the citizen are benign at best, they are not risky in any sense, but that not risky situation can s very quicy become a very risky situation. >> agree. >> there are certain circumstances the officers walk into knowing this could be a higher risk situation. >> yes depending on the nature heof the call. >> for example domestic assault calls have a high risk too an officer. >> just like a robbery,

shooting. >> matzoh situations officers are expected to go into they go into a heightened sense of awareness. >> correct. >> sometimes an officer will walk into a situation have noit sense of risk or no sense of concern but thereafter prepare for the unexpected. >> i would not agree with that based on my training experience most officers when they respond to a call we know there's a risk factor but we don't know what level depending on the severity of the call. every single time an officer response to a call there is an inherent risk. >> correct. >> that is the nature of policing. >> a reasonable officer has to be prepared for that risk level to change.

>> correct. >> that's why we use tactics. >> one of the things the authors have to take into consideration is the department's policies. and you would agree, every single use of force policy that minneapolis have have some form eof a qualifier meaning if it's reasonable or if it's safe or tactically proper. all of the analysis have to depend upon the safety, the practicality and in some certain circumstance tactics. >> if you look at the objective reasonableness, when we look at the use of force we don't look at the use of force in a vacuum. >> no we do not. >> i'm seen some that's all they

focus on the use of force and i look at the totality of the circumstances and look at the officers tactics as well as a subject actions during the whole entire incident. . . . objectively reasonable based on the fact of this particular case. >> correct. >> so we need to look closely at all of the facts and assessing whether or not the use of force was reasonable. >> agreed read. >> so let's talk by the facts of this case, you understand that officer derek chauvin was the initial officer dispatched to the skull. >> yes. >> in the dispatch ultimately was called the sector call sector took over the call and officer chauvin was no longer responding. it is reasonable for ao police

officer to rely upon information he or she receives from dispatch, correct? >> correct. >> so you understand in this particular case, dispatch advised the officers the suspect was still on scene. >> correct. a. >> that it was a priority number one. >> correct. >> that means get there quick, code three with lights and sirens. >> i don't know if iton is that code for minneapolis pd, but i believe. >> and the defendant was six to six and a half feet tall and possibly under the influence. >> correct. >> sorr it's reasonable for an officer to rely upon that information in response to a call, right? >> yes, they can confirm it. >> they can confirm it but it also sets the stage. we are talking about the inherent risks. so it's much different how a

police officer, a reasonable police officer would respond to an intoxicated large person versus a smaller person who's just a little crabby. >> in some cases, yes. i've seen small people put up a bigger fight than big people.of >> so it's reasonable to be in a heightened sense of awareness based on the information they receive from dispatch. >> agreed. >> ultimately, you understand under the facts of the case, officer chauvin was dispatched a second time. >> correct. >> that is because the dispatcher heard officers were taking someone out of the car. right?. >> yes. >> let's stop there for a second. when you consider the fact that this was a forgery or counterfeit call and you don't expect to use force in that type of situation, wouldn't normally

-- >> correct. >> -- but now you hear dispatch send you on an emergency basis to the scene because officers are using force. they took somebody out of the car. >> took them out of the car, not necessarily using force. >> have you listened to the dispatch of the audio of the dispatch of the case? >> i t believe so. >> and the testimony of the 911 operator was she heard screaming and scuffling or some sort of a noise that prompted her to dispatch a second car.pr >> i didn't hear her testimony. >> but officers do get the radio traffic. they do hear all of the communication among all of the heofficers. >> correct. >> and to rely on that information. >> right.

>> if you are in officer and you hear a scuffle on the radio, you here we are taking one out and you get dispatch code three or emergent situation, reasonable for an officer to come in with a heightened sense of alertness. >> absolutely. >> and you responded to these calls thousands of times. so now you have an officer, aer reasonable officer would have a heightened sense of concern about this call. >> correct. >> so, when officer chauvin arrived at 8:13 he knew some degree of force was being used because what he heard on the

dispatch, presumably, correct? >> correct. >> he knew other officers were there. he knew he was being dispatched back to the situation. he knew that the individual suspect was possibly impaired, right? >> yes. >> based on the dispatch.nd and he knew that he was six to six and a half feet tall. >> yes. >> so when officer chauvin arrived on scene, he had a certain amount of information that a reasonable police officer can rely on in forming his or her next steps, right? >> yes. >> when he arrived, he observed mr. floyd and two officers at the back seat of a squad car, and what you described is mr. floyd actively resisting their attempt to put him in the

back seat of the squad car. at that point, according to the model, the use of force continuum, officer chauvin theoretically based on what he saw, active resistance, he could have come up and tased him. that would be within the active resistance struggling use of force? >> yes. >> he didn't do that. sometimes an officer has to back down in their use of force, right? >> in certain situations, yes. >> a reasonable officer who comes up to you, based on all the information he has at that particular time, right, comes to the scene, sees two other police officers struggling with an actively resisting person. it's reasonable for that officer to assist fellow officers in their efforts.

>> correct. and you observed the body camera >> and you would agree that from the time officer chauvin gets on the scene, to the time that mr. floyd is prone to on the ground, mr. floyd was actively resisting efforts to go into the backseat of the squad car. >> yes, sir. >> and the officers were reasonable in their use of force and attempt to get him into the back of the squad car, agreed? >> agreed. >> now, in this context mr. floyd was saying certain things as he was attempted to be put in the back of the squad car? >> yes. >> you recall him at that point saying things like i'm not a bad guy. >> yes.

>> do you remember him saying i just got over covid. >> yes. >> do you remember him saying at that point i can't breathe? >> yes. >> he was saying to the police officers at that point i can't breathe as he was actively resisting their efforts to put him into the squad car. >> yes. >> and again, over the course of your career and your training experience and all the context that you've done, have you ever had somebody say to you, attempt to bargain with you to avoid being arrested? >> yes. >> sort of like hey man, i will do what you want as long as i don't have to go to jail, right? >> yes. >> or somebody may be fighting and they agreedg to stop fightig with you through a bargaining process, saying if i get to sit on the curb i will stop fighting. >> yes, sir.

>> have you ever had a person, say a physical ailment as you attempt to arrest them? >> yes. >> sometimes people will say i think i'm having a heart attack, don't take me to jail. take me to the hospital. >> yes. >> and it's fair to say the vast say the, or shouldn't vast majority but it's fair to say that one of the things that an officer has to do in their assessment of the reasonableness of the use of force is take into consideration what the suspect is saying and how he's acting. >> yes, 100%. >> so if somebody is saying i can't breathe and they are passing out and they are not resisting, that's one form of and an analysis, because the actions of the suspect are consistent witht the verbal utterances he's making, right? >> yes. >> other times, and in this

particular case when mr. floyd was initially saying he couldn't breathe, he was actively resisting arrest. >> initially, when he was in the backseat of the vehicle, yes. >> and in fact, he was using his legs to push back, to use his body weight against the officers, right? >> yes. >> and at one point, three minneapolis police officers were attempting to get him into the backseat through the passenger side. and they were not able to do so. >> no. >> in your report, you described it as the futility of their efforts it became clear i think is the term you used. >> i can't recall using that word, but yes maybe i did. >> would you disagree or what it refresh your recollection to view your report? >> yes, absolutely. >> may i approach the witness, your honor?

does that refresh your recollection? >> yes, it does. >> and what you wrote is when the futility of the officers continuing their efforts forcibly to get him in the back seat became clear, they put him on the ground in the prone position. >> yes.

>> so again in this context of assessing what someone is saying in their physical characteristics what characteristics a person is displaying. and you are analyzing it against what youre a person says. >> did anybody ask are you consuming, what did you take, what drugs are you on and they deny that they are on drugs. in this case officers asked mr. floyd repeatedly what kind of drugs he was using.

it would be consistent in your experience with somebody that is possible using controlled substances. >> correct. is it common in your experience for people who have been using drugs or alcohol to deny that they've used drugs or alcohol? >> in some instances.es >> kind of the proverbial drunk driver. >> i haven't had anything, officer. i've had two beers. people have a tendency to minimize what they have consumed, right? >> yes. now, you've testified as i understand that once the

officers putting mr. floyd into the prone position was initially reasonable use of force and your familiar with the sworn technique where multiple officers are on top of a resisting suspect trying to control the extremities. >> right. prior to handcuffing. >> but once someone is handcuffed and they are on the ground, a person in handcuffs can continue to be a threat, agreed? >> yes. >> they can kick you and bite you, thrash and gete, free and start running. >> yes in certain instances. >> and in certain instances they escan even get your weapon even though they are handcuffed. >> so the notion that a handcuffed suspect no longer presents a threat to an officer

is not correct. >> it depends on the circumstances. >> a handcuffed suspect can continue to present a risk. >> based on those actions, yes. inonce you have a suspect the prone position and they continue to kick, it may require more force than if they were compliant. >> that's why we have devices like the red representative hob. >> you would agree mr. floyd continued to make certain protests about his inability to breathe. and he was saying things like he was in pain and he was hurting, correct? >> correct.

>> and a reasonable officer, to communicate with each other. a reasonable officer will rely on information that his fellow officer tells him. a reasonable officer again is going to take into consideration what the suspect is saying and compare that against the actions and at a point during the exchange initially, the officers will talk in figure out what's going to happen next, right? what has just happened.

why are we involved here, what's going to happen next. you can sometimes take time to formulate options and decisions. >> yes. and at the scene of an arrest even just in the immediate wings inthen, that can be very chaoti. people can be talking to each each other.er the suspect may be saying some things. bystanders may be saying some things. in the chaos if using to miss things. >> in certain instances, yes.

>> i would like to publish the body worn camera, officer kueng's body worn camera starting at 20:21:01. >> received. >> no objection. >> i would like you to tell me what mr. floyd says in this instance. >> [inaudible] >> did you hear what he said? >> i couldn't make it out. >> does it sound like he says i ate too many drugs? >> i can't make that out, no. >> so, in the chaos of the situation, things can be missed,

right? >> yes. >> you would agree that at one point during the exchange, mr. floyd was advised that he was under arrest. in fact that happened a couple of times, right? at the point they had mr. floyd on the ground you would agree and you are aware officers called for ems. it's reasonable for an officer to call f ems, right? if there's an injury or need or complaint or some discomfort. and you understand that in this particular instance, very shortly afternc mr. floyd was on the ground, officers called for ems.

>> initially for an injury to his head, face, mouth injury. >> and they called ems in a non- emergent situation. >> correct. >> and that happenedap at 8:19:. coded to furry mouth injury. and this occurred at the point when officers were discussing whether or not to use the hobble restraint. and ultimately, officers did not use the hobble restraint. the hobble restraint more generally would require officers to consider calling ems according to the minneapolis police department. and it may be different in other jurisdictions. >> so, as officers are discussing and ultimately they

decide not to use the hobble device. and we talked a little bit earlier about the de-escalation component of things. a decision to use or not use a form of use you may have been authorized to use can be a de-escalation technique. so, officers making a decision not to increase the level of force can be viewed as a de-escalation technique. >> yes. now again, we talked a lot about the need for a reassessment and things as they come about, reassessment and officers need

to continue to take in information,n, process it, figue things out. >> yes. they have to as a part of that process continue to attempt to de-escalate. would you agree that an officer saying things like relax, take a deep breath, that is a way of trying to calm somebody? >> if it isn't going with othery actions. you can say relax, calm down. >> but if you have somebody restrained and they are complaining they can't breathe but they are speaking and moving and talking you might say relax, calm down, take a deep breath as

ag way of reassuring that person we've got you. >> you can understand what they are trying to communicate with you. >> and again in this reassessment process in this case reassessed the need for quick ems response. >> after i believe there an initial call they asked for a quick response. >> and its stepping it up is the question. they increase to the priority of the call from a code two to code three which means get here with your lights and sirens. as a part of your analysis again at any level did you consider what the average 911 or ems response time is? do you have that information?

>> ei know some average typicaly between five to seven minutes and that isn't specific to minneapolis. it obviously depends on certain circumstances if there is a fire house three blocks away it may be 90 seconds or a minute and sometimes if all of the ambulances are busy and all of the fire trucks are busy, it could be much longer. or they are going to the wrong location. part of the analysis that a reasonable officer is making is i've got ems coming, how long should i expect them to be here? they are taking that into their analysis. >> yes, they should.

now at the point they stepped up the analysis would you agree that is about thet time people began to congregate? >> i would have to look at the video again but yes that's around the same time. >> so if they would step up at 20:21:25 about 90 seconds after the initial call and ms. frazier is seen coming into the area 20:21:17 it's about the same period of time. >> the bystander with the video who started recording. >> okay. >> she started recording about the same time. she was concerned about what she saw, agreed?

and again the review of the body cameras, she wasn't saying anything initially. she was there recording and wasn't in any way interfering with what the police were doing. >> right. >> but more people started coming together. there was another gentle man that was there before, actually as they were attempting to put him into the car, the older gentleman. >> and i believe, correct me if i'm wrong, do you anticipate were present a training or have anything to do with the training? you would agree the general concept is sometimes the use of force. it looks really bad and

sometimes it may be it looks bad. but it's still lawful. >> based on the policies and based on that states law i did a presentation at a conference for that. the police use of force has a tendency at times to attract. and in the course of your career i'm assuming at the beginning of your career, not every single person was walking around with a video camera 24 hours a day, seven days a week with it in their hand. we didn't have people walking around with video cameras. there was a gentle man that was known for doing it.

so it's become and the more recent history, the smart phone has become as prevalent as it is a more common experience. and in fact officers themselves now where cameras. and in the city of minneapolis, every uniformed police officer wears ary body worn cameras. and those cameras are supposed to be running when they have interactions with citizens, peaceful or not peaceful. there is a limitation to cameras though. >> the camera sees what the camera sees. meaning everything outside of the field of view is not observable to the camera. and certainly, the officer or

certainly the cameras have a feeling or a sensation. you can't determine when there's tension in their body based on a camera. if someone was struggling and you've got them handcuffed they could still be attendance but not reallyen look hence. to be able to pick up whether someone is having a particular sensory experience, it can't. >> sidebar.

[sidebar] please

>> or someone else takes over or as you say -- >> thank you your honor. sergeant stiger, what was left off i think we were talking about how bystanders began to congregate around the event, right? >> i believe so yes. >> and you would agree that over the course