2.
ABOUT
GUARDIAN
8
CORPORATION
Guardian
8
Corporation
is
a
wholly
owned
subsidiary
of
Guardian
8
Holdings
(OTCQB:
GRDH),
based
in
Scottsdale,
Ariz.
Guardian
8
Corporation
is
a
member
in
good
standing
of
the
following
industry
organizations:
• ASIS
International
• Association
Security
Services
and
Investigators
of
the
State
of
Texas
(ASSIST)
• California
Association
of
Licensed
Security
Agencies,
Guards
and
Associates
(CALSAGA)
• Florida
Association
of
Security
Companies
(FASCO)
• International
Association
for
Healthcare
Security
and
Safety
(IAHSS)
• Michigan
School
Board
Association
(MSBO)
• National
Association
of
School
Resource
Officers
(NASRO)
• National
Association
of
Security
Companies
(NASCO)
• National
Center
for
Spectator
Sports
Safety
and
Security
(NCS4)
AWARDS
AND
RECOGNITIONS
Winner
of
Campus
Safety
BEST
Award
2014
in
the
Personal
Gear
and
Equipment
Category
for
Pro
V2
Named
one
of
“Ten
Companies
to
Watch”
in
March
2014
by
the
Phoenix
Business
Journal.
ASIS
Accolades
Security’s
Winner,
2011
for
Pro
V2.
3.
GUARDIAN8.com
F e b r u a r y
2 0 1 5 |
2
EXECUTIVE
BRIEFING
Managerial
Considerations
When
Deploying
Enhanced
Non-‐Lethal
[ENL]
Technologies.
The
purpose
of
this
paper
is
to
call
to
light
the
practical
considerations
and
foreseeable
outcomes
that
enhanced
non-‐lethal
[ENL]
equipment
may
have
on
security
operations
in
a
commercial
(non-‐sworn)
operating
environment.
When
evaluating
such
tools,
understanding
the
positive
impact
they
can
have
on
the
financial,
risk,
insurance
and
legal
interests
of
an
organization
is
as
critical
as
the
security
program
they
enhance.
This
paper
will
highlight
these
benefits
by
providing
medical,
legal,
and
empirical
data
that
clarifies
the
reasons
that
deployment
of
ENL
devices,
and
specifically
the
ProV2,
are
of
value
to
these
individual
departments.
The
rapid
development
of
communications
and
camera
technology
is
having
a
similar
influence
on
the
non-‐lethal
weapons
industry
as
it
did
the
wireless
phone
industry
and
with
equally
profound
effect.
As
with
cell
phones,
the
deployment
of
newer
technologies
can
have
unintended
consequences
that
may
have
both
positive
and
negative
impacts
on
their
owners.
There
is
a
dramatic
difference
between
the
mission
of
the
tactical
equipment
for
law
enforcement
and
the
defensive
gear
of
the
security
professional.
These
differences
in
mission
drive
the
technological
developments
that
come
to
each
respective
market
and
the
relevance
of
these
technologies
is
often
measured
by
the
speed
and
breadth
of
adoption
by
its
intended
market.
Products
that
are
overly
complicated
to
operate,
are
expensive
and
underperform
are
starved
from
adoption
by
products
that
are
affordable,
exceed
user
expectations
and
deliver
on
a
promise
of
quality.
The
mission
of
the
security
professional
also
shapes
the
managerial
discussions
preceding
and
following
their
deployment
to
the
field.
Policies
and
procedures
must
be
clearly
articulated
in
advance
of
the
technology
being
fielded.
First
aid
protocols
may
need
to
be
established.
Furthermore,
improved
incident
reporting
capabilities
should
be
exploited
to
their
fullest
extent
in
the
defense
of
a
legal
claim
brought
about
by
a
frivolous
plaintiff.
The
fact
that
all
of
this
must
be
done
under
the
added
pressure
of
profitability
(not
a
law
enforcement
consideration)
is
a
concern
unique
to
the
security
professional.
Standing
in
contrast
to
the
discussion
on
the
issues
related
to
adopting
a
new
technology
is
the
cost
and
legal
consequences
of
not
acting
upon
security
knowledge.
Data
from
a
risk
assessment
indicating
that
a
given
location
has
higher
risk
of
assaultive
behavior,
or
that
employees
–
such
as
emergency
room
nursesi
–
are
susceptible
to
high
rates
of
workplace
violence,
must
be
acted
upon
for
both
moral
and
legal
reasons.
Proof
of
this
can
be
found
in
the
OSHA
directive
to
field
investigators
regarding
the
“general
duty
clause”
holding
employers
accountable
for
delivering
a
safe
working
environment
to
its
employees
and
fining
them
heavily
for
failing
to
do
so.
“Employers
may
be
found
in
violation
of
the
general
duty
clause
if
they
fail
to
reduce
or
eliminate
serious
recognized
hazards.
Under
this
directive,
inspectors
should
therefore
gather
evidence
to
demonstrate
whether
an
employer
recognized,
either
individually
or
through
its
industry,
the
existence
of
a
potential
workplace
violence
hazard
affecting
his
or
her
employees.
Furthermore,
investigations
should
focus
on
the
availability
to
employers
of
feasible
means
of
preventing
or
minimizing
such
hazards.”
ii
This
is
an
especially
important
risk
to
address
when
a
Security
Officer
is
asked
to
report
to
a
dangerous
work
setting
with
inadequate
equipment
to
protect
themselves,
and
the
risk
of
a
negative
finding
being
amplified
by
the
fact
that
OSHA
field
investigations
are
conducted
with
the
benefit
of
hindsight.
This
paper
will
discuss
a
panel
of
topics
of
interest
to
a
wide
array
of
industries
and
professional
roles.
Special
factors
such
as
industry-‐specific
regulations
on
the
use
of
force
by
civilians
should
be
included
in
your
discussion
on
the
benefits
and
risks
being
considered.
4.
GUARDIAN8.com
F e b r u a r y
2 0 1 5 |
3
Defining
Enhanced
Non-‐Lethal
Devices
This
group
of
defensive
devices
was
categorized
in
2012
as
being
any
non-‐lethal
defense
product
which
is
comprised
of
at
least
two
non-‐lethal
defensive
capabilities
and
an
integrated
2-‐way
communication
or
alerting
platform.
The
multiple
capabilities
of
the
product
category
are
a
signal
to
the
security
industry
that
defensive
devices
are
now
undergoing
a
similar
transformation
in
capability
and
ubiquity
as
during
the
advent
of
smartphones
introduced
by
IBM
in
1992.
The
addition
of
software
to
these
devices
allows
for
the
added
value
of
an
event
log
having
time
&
date
stamping
of
discrete
functions
which
can
substantiate
an
incident
report.
The
communication/alerting
aspect
of
the
ENL
technology
group
helps
to
address
a
number
of
concerns
to
the
security
industry,
namely:
(a)
improved
response
times
by
support
personnel
to
an
incident;
(b)
projecting
to
an
aggressive
subject
that
the
officer
can
provide
a
description
before
help
is
at
hand;
and,
(c)
providing
a
notification
to
a
supervisor
that
the
unit
is
being
activated,
resulting
in
a
reduced
risk
of
unauthorized
use.
In
the
case
of
the
Pro
V2
product
manufactured
by
Guardian
8
Corporation
there
are
three
levels
of
defensive
capabilities
for
the
security
officer,
all
of
which
can
be
recorded
in
high
definition
video
(720p),
still
images,
and
audio.
The
video
files
are
captured
in
an
.avi
file
format
while
still
pictures
are
captured
in
.jpg
files.
Audio
recordings
are
.wav
files.
Each
of
these
formats
were
chosen
due
to
their
ease
in
handling
within
e-‐mail
systems
and
secure
file
storage
servers.
Communication
is
facilitated
through
a
secure
Bluetooth®
connection
with
a
Pro
V2
operator’s
cell
phone.
All
discrete
functions
(e.g.
power
on,
arming,
½
trigger
and
full
trigger
pull)
are
recorded
in
an
event
log
which
can
be
exported
into
a
text
file,
or
printed.
Why
Are
ENLs
Being
Considered
Now?
There
are
several
reasons
that
ENLs
are
being
considered
by
security
professionals
but
the
core
reason
is
that
the
enhanced
accountability
of
all
parties
to
a
conflict
reduces
litigation
risk.iii
The
drivers
for
your
particular
company
adopting
new
tools
for
security
personnel
come
in
the
form
of
a
risk
assessment,
often
performed
concurrently
with
the
issuance
of
an
RFP
for
security
services.
Risk
assessments
generally
identify
security
matters
(past
and
present)
for
a
specific
property,
its
perimeter
and
the
surrounding
community.
National
crime
trends
matter
little
to
a
site-‐specific
security
plan.
The
use
of
crime
risk
“heat
maps”
such
as
the
example
here
of
a
Chicago
address,
is
becoming
common
practice
and
improves
the
visual
context
of
the
types
of
risks,
their
severity
and
proximity.iv
Once
a
risk
profile
for
a
property
is
established,
the
task
of
selecting
the
proper
tools
for
security
personnel
can
begin.
Until
2009
the
Federal
Law
Enforcement
Training
Center
(FLETC)
used
a
“force
continuum”
to
aid
discussion
on
the
appropriate
and
legally
defensible
response
to
an
evolving
set
of
threats.
However,
the
landmark
US
Supreme
Court
case
of
Graham
vs
Connor
shifted
the
discussion
of
force
to
an
“objective
reasonableness”
standard.v
In
doing
so,
confusing
standards
such
as
“minimal
force
necessary”
were
made
obsolete
and
replaced
with
a
more
practical
determination
of
appropriate
force.
While
a
law
enforcement
issue
at
its
core
(4th
Amendment
rights)
the
case
nonetheless
shifted
the
standards
of
5.
GUARDIAN8.com
F e b r u a r y
2 0 1 5 |
4
appropriate
force
for
the
security
industry
and
your
organization.
The
discussion
of
reasonableness
in
the
civilian
security
role
now
includes
the
ability
to
illustrate
restraint
in
an
officer’s
actions
when
confronted
by
someone
who
jeopardizes
people
or
assets
under
the
officer’s
duty
to
protect.
In
matching
the
risks
with
equipment,
a
discussion
on
the
cost
of
insuring
the
security
function
should
take
place.
It
is
reasonable
to
expect
insurance
costs
to
be
higher
when
issuing
a
firearm
to
trained
personnel
versus
issuing
a
product
such
as
the
Pro
V2,
which
is
essentially
a
sophisticated
incident
recording
and
pepper
spray
delivery
system.
This
is
not
to
say
that
a
Pro
V2
can
address
the
need
for
a
lethal
response
if
your
risk
assessment
substantiates
this
response.
It
cannot.
However,
the
advent
of
the
ENL
category
disrupted
the
binary
choice
of
armed
vs.
unarmed
security
personnel
in
favor
of
adding
a
more
accurate
term
for
the
middle
ground:
Intermediate
Services.
Unarmed,
Intermediate
or
Armed
officers?
Whether
your
employer
issues,
or
responds
to
RFPs
for
security
services
you
have
likely
seen
only
two
choices
in
the
description
of
the
services
needed.
It
is
here
that
the
similarities
end
because
of
the
conflicting
descriptions
of
what
each
category
means.
Across
the
United
States,
regional
differences
in
describing
an
armed
officer
range
from
firearms
carry,
to
having
a
single
tool
on
the
duty
belt
as
innocuous
as
a
pair
of
handcuffs.
This
ambiguity
does
not
serve
the
client
or
the
security
service
provider
well
and
may
result
in
the
inadvertent
cost
exposure
to
an
insurance
policy
covering
“armed”
officers.
Furthermore,
the
unnecessary
use
of
“armed”
in
discussing
a
security
profile
created
anxiety
in
risk
management
roles
and
often
cut
short
productive
dialogue
between
management
and
practitioners
regarding
the
potentially
significant
consequences
of
insufficient
security,
such
as
the
$281
million
suit
being
brought
against
the
New
York
Housing
Authority.
vi
There
has
yet
to
be
a
codified
standard
for
the
Intermediate
Services
terminology,
however,
a
security
industry
association
is
developing
a
definition
that
fits
the
goals
of
companies
interested
in
an
enhanced
security
profile
while
shielding
them
from
the
newly
signed
legislation
requiring
a
$1,000,000
liability
policy
covering
armed
officers.vii
The
prevailing
opinion
is
that
items
which
are
inherently
lethal,
or
are
regulated
as
a
lethal
item
(batons),
or
are
prohibited
by
law
in
several
states
from
use
on
the
job
by
a
security
professionalviii
,
all
belong
in
the
armed
category.
In
the
illustration
above,
the
progression
of
low-‐profile
to
high-‐profile
security
is
arranged
from
left
to
right.
In
outfitting
an
officer’s
uniform
the
category
chosen
can,
and
likely
would,
also
include
items
in
a
lower
ranking
profile.
As
an
example,
if
Intermediate
Service
was
the
desired
level
of
“reasonableness”
based
on
a
specific
risk
assessment,
the
officer
could
carry
a
Pro
V2
device,
close-‐quarters
battle
(CQB)
training,
handcuffs
and
radio.
By
creating
the
Intermediate
Service
category,
insurance
underwriters
can
now
dramatically
reduce
the
risk
of
permanent
injury
and/or
loss
of
life
while
allowing
the
risk
owners
(possibly
you)
to
enhance
their
security
profile
in
a
reasonable
manner.
6.
GUARDIAN8.com
F e b r u a r y
2 0 1 5 |
5
Product
Effectiveness
Would
you
rather
be
pepper
sprayed,
or
Tasered?
It’s
a
question
that
often
circulates
in
the
world
of
security
practitioners,
but
the
reality
is
that
it
is
not
a
matter
of
preference
so
much
as
it
is
a
question
of
which
product
works
best
the
first
time
it’s
used
so
that
it
only
needs
to
be
used
once,
and
consequently
illustrates
restraint
on
behalf
of
the
officer.
This
concept
is
called
“first
iteration”
effectiveness,
and
the
fewer
iterations
necessary
not
only
show
restraint,
it
creates
a
safer
environment
for
officers
and
aggressors.ix
In
a
2008
study
funded
by
the
National
Institute
of
Justice,
first
iteration
effectiveness
of
an
array
of
non-‐lethal
devices
was
assessed
by
conducting
a
5-‐year
(retroactive)
forensic
evaluation
of
police
use
of
force
in
two
Florida
agencies:
the
Orlando
Police
Department
and
its
sister
agency,
the
Orange
County
Sheriff
Department.
The
full
report
is
103
pages
in
length
and
is
considered
one
of
the
most
comprehensive
studies
of
non-‐lethal
devices
ever
conducted.
The
report
findings,
below,
show
that
the
use
of
chemical
agents
(which
includes
pepper
spray)
was
virtually
as
effective
as
police
K9
units
or
Taser®
devices.x
In
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
letter
of
the
report,
the
above
findings
do
not
factor
in
safety
considerations
such
as
infections
from
dog
bites
or
cardiac
safety.
Additionally,
a
“value”
consideration
or
cost
comparison
is
not
made
or
implied.
7.
GUARDIAN8.com
F e b r u a r y
2 0 1 5 |
6
Safety
Earlier
in
this
document
the
Pro
V2
devices
was
characterized
as
a
sophisticated
incident
recording
and
pepper
spray
device.
The
OC,
in
actuality,
is
a
tight
stream
that
can
be
precisely
delivered
to
a
laser
spotter
calibrated
to
a
10-‐foot
distance.
This
separation
between
security
officers
and
an
aggressive
subject
is
essential
to
officer
safety.
The
industry
adage
“distance
+
time
=
safety”
is
well
known
and
for
good
cause.
Officers
who
feel
safer
on
the
job
and
are
properly
equipped
have
a
lower
absentee
rate
and
lower
turnover
rate
in
an
industry
that
averages
200%
to
400%,
hiring
and
training
up
to
four
officers
for
every
position
to
be
manned.xi
Training
bears
a
costly
operational
load
to
security
departments.
In
addition
to
officer
safety,
management
and
executives
must
be
aware
of
the
safety
inherent
to
the
devices
being
carried
by
security
officers.
The
use
of
OC
(pepper
spray)
in
the
security
industry
and
law
enforcement
has
been
established
for
decades,
offering
ample
opportunity
to
prove
its
safe
usage.
In
a
research
brief
published
by
the
US
Department
of
Justice,
OC
was
specifically
excluded
as
a
contributing
factor
to
any
in-‐custody
deaths,
with
additional
comments
that
OC
does
not
require
any
special
decontamination
procedures
because
it
is
a
biodegradable
plant
oil.xii
When
operating
a
Pro
V2
device,
the
deployment
of
OC
is
preceded
by
an
alerting
siren
and
strobe
light
as
a
warning
to
aggressive
subjects
that
force
may
be
applied
if
their
behavior
isn’t
changed.
The
alerting
siren
is
temporary
in
operation
(30
seconds)
and
automatically
turns
off
so
the
officer
does
not
need
to
compete
with
the
siren
when
communicating
with
field
supervisors
or
a
command
center
via
their
Pro
V2
device.
The
siren
operates
at
88
decibels
(88dB)
when
measured
from
a
10
foot
distance
and
it
is
not
considered
“weaponized
sound”
such
as
that
used
in
military
applications.
On
occasion,
questions
surface
regarding
the
incorporation
of
a
strobe
light
in
the
Pro
V2
and
the
risk
of
instigating
an
epileptic
response
in
people
susceptible
to
these
episodes.
Guardian
8
management
shared
this
concern
and
investigated
the
matter
prior
to
the
final
design
of
the
unit.
In
the
process,
we
learned
from
The
Epilepsy
Foundation
research
that
these
photosensitive
seizures
were
affected
by
the
frequency
and
color
of
the
light
flashes.
In
their
findings,
light
flashing
between
5
and
30
flashes
per
second
were
most
provocative
of
a
seizure
and
the
Foundation
makes
the
recommendation
that
flashes
higher
than
3
per
second
should
be
avoided.
For
this
reason,
the
Pro
V2
flashes
white
light
at
a
controlled
rate
of
two
times
per
second.
As
an
added
safety
measure,
the
strobe
light
and
any
other
electronic
function
of
the
Pro
V2
can
be
configured
“off”
by
qualified
staff.
Regulatory
Considerations
Use
of
OC:
The
use
of
OC
by
security
personnel
is
allowed
in
all
fifty
states,
however,
some
states
and
municipalities
may
require
that
each
officer
certify
on
the
use
of
OC
when
it
is
used
in
their
occupation.
The
primary
goal
of
these
certifications
is
to
instill
upon
the
OC
carrier
that
use
of
the
product
for
any
other
purpose
than
self-‐defense
is
unlawful
and
may
result
in
assault
charges.
Some
states
regulate
the
quantity
and/or
8.
GUARDIAN8.com
F e b r u a r y
2 0 1 5 |
7
concentration
of
OC
that
may
be
carried
by
people
other
than
law
enforcement.
The
Pro
V2
formula
is
10%
OC
measuring
one
million
Scovill
Heat
Units
(SHU)
and
is
manufactured
for
us
by
the
same
company
that
produces
the
highly
popular
SabreRed®
brand,
which
is
compliant
with
all
of
these
restrictions.xiii
On
occasion,
questions
arise
regarding
the
safety
of
OC
use
on
people
with
compromised
breathing
ability
(eg:
obesity,
asthma,
history
of
smoking,
or
hogtie
position
as
used
in
law
enforcement)
and
these
symptoms
were
researched
in
a
National
Institute
of
Justice
study
published
in
December
of
2001.xiv
The
findings
of
the
research
concluded
the
following:
• OC
does
not
pose
a
significant
risk
to
subjects
in
terms
of
respiratory
or
pulmonary
function
even
when
it
occurs
with
positional
restraints;
• There
was
no
evidence
of
abnormally
low
oxygen
or
abnormally
high
CO2
levels
in
test
subjects,
in
fact,
lower
CO2
levels
indicated
slightly
increased
ventilation;
• OC
did
result
in
slightly
increased
blood
pressure,
the
clinical
implications
of
which
were
not
understood.
Two-‐Party
Consent:
Laws
regarding
video
and
audio
recordings
vary
by
state
and
are
often
discussed
as
“two
party
consent”
laws.
These
laws
are
generally
intended
to
protect
constitutional
rights
to
privacy,
when
privacy
is
a
reasonable
expectation.
Public
settings
are
often
exempt
from
these
laws
as
are
many
sporting
venues,
shopping
malls
and
other
locations
which
are
privately
owned
or
operated
but
rely
on
allowing
the
public
to
access
the
property
as
a
condition
of
doing
business.
Pro
V2
Instructor
(train-‐the-‐trainer)
course
scenarios
emphasize
providing
verbal
commands
that
include
the
phrase
“I
have
an
ability
to
protect
myself,
your
behavior
is
being
recorded
and
my
next
move
is
to
call
the
authorities.”
In
doing
this,
the
expectation
of
privacy
is
eliminated
but
this
may
not
be
sufficient
protection
for
your
company.
Before
launching
any
on-‐officer
recording
technology,
management
should
discuss
two-‐party
consent
with
qualified
counsel.
Healthcare:
It
may
come
as
little
surprise
to
seasoned
management
that
there
are
government
regulations
which
seemingly
operate
in
contrast
to
each
other.
As
an
example,
OSHA
has
recently
been
showing
special
attention
to
the
issue
of
workplace
violence
in
US
hospitals
by
fining
their
operators
for
failing
to
provide
adequate
security
for
nurses
and
doctors.
These
fines
are
published
through
press
releases
made
by
OSHA
for
public
consumption
and
occasionally
reference
civil
lawsuits
affiliated
with
the
fines
(e.g.
permanent
brain
injury
litigation).
The
issues
facing
hospital
workers
are
very
real
and
they
have
seen
a
25%
increase
year-‐over-‐year
in
violent
incidences
with
patients/visitors
being
the
primary
culprits.xv
Patient
(culprit)
care
is
regulated
by
CMS
for
hospitals
that
accept
Medicare
payments
for
their
patients.
The
bounty
of
regulation
creates
confusion
and
hearsay
by
those
who
are
unwilling
or
too
over-‐tasked
to
conduct
their
own
research
on
the
specifics
of
CMS’s
position
on
the
use
of
force
involving
a
patient
in
a
hospital
setting.
Management
and
professionally
certified
security
9.
GUARDIAN8.com
F e b r u a r y
2 0 1 5 |
8
personnel
have
a
duty
to
comprehend
these
regulations
and
understand
that
use
of
force
as
part
of
a
medical
intervention
(e.g.
returning
an
unwilling
patient
to
their
bed
for
restraint)
is
viewed
differently
than
force
applied
by
security
personnel
in
the
defense
of
staff
or
in
the
intervention
of
a
criminal
act
(self
injury).
It
is
permissible
in
these
cases
and
there
need
not
be
a
conflict
between
OSHA
desires
for
a
safe
workplace
and
the
“do
no
harm”
oath
of
the
medical
profession.
Costs
and
Value
Determining
the
cash
outlay
for
a
Pro
V2
deployment
is
dependent
upon
the
decision
whether
to
share
equipment
between
oncoming
and
outgoing
shift
workers.
The
benefit
is
reduced
cost
(see
illustration
below)
but
the
trade-‐off
is
that
equipment
typically
is
abused
more
when
a
sense
of
ownership
is
absent.
Regardless,
the
holster
was
designed
in
such
a
way
as
to
easily
facilitate
removal
from
the
duty
belt
by
incorporating
a
secure
hinge
and
locking
mechanism.
Management
should
seriously
consider
assigning
dedicated
units
to
each
security
staff
member
so
tracking
of
serial
numbers
and
authenticating
digital
evidence
is
a
much
easier
task
to
accomplish.
The
pricing
of
the
Pro
V2
unit
was
a
major
consideration
when
developing
the
product.
Guardian
8
management
understood
that
a
$1,400
stun
device
carried
by
law
enforcement
is
difficult
to
justify
in
a
commercial,
profit-‐focused
environment.
Security
service
providers
have
adopted
two
primary
methods
of
incorporating
the
Pro
V2
in
their
responses
to
RFPs:
up-‐
charging
customers
to
a
mid-‐range
between
Unarmed
and
Armed
service
levels;
or,
leveraging
the
added
service
level
of
the
Pro
V2
to
win
new
business
and
categorize
the
equipment
cost
as
a
marketing
expense.
Companies
may
choose
to
own
the
equipment
and
contract
with
the
security
provider
to
train
and
protect
using
a
company
asset,
rather
than
incorporating
the
cost
into
the
Security
department
overhead.
There
is
no
right
or
wrong
approach
and
management
is
best
positioned
to
understand
the
budgeting
and
timing
of
expenses.
Legal
Considerations
In
addition
to
the
other
considerations,
use
of
the
Pro
V2
(i.e.,
lights,
noise,
video/audio
recording,
and
OC
delivery)
is
legally
authorized,
significantly
increases
officer
safety,
protects
the
employer
and
employee
against
“spurious”
and/or
“frivolous”
claims
and
may
even
be
required
by
relevant
regulatory
mandate.
As
to
the
legal
authority,
use
of
force
by
law
enforcement/security
personnel
has
long
been
construed
by
the
courts
using
a
“use
of
force”
balancing
test.
See,
Graham
v.
Connor,
490
U.S.
386,
109
S.Ct.
1865,
104
L.Ed.2d
443
(1989).
Even
under
the
Graham
analysis,
courts
have
repeatedly
found
that
reasonable
use
of
OC
is
justified
and
appropriate.
See,
for
example,
Shreve
v.
Jessamine
County
Fiscal
Court,
453
F.3rd
681
(2006)
at
688,
holding,
in
part:
“…the
deputies
did
not
use
excessive
force
when
they
used
pepper
spray…”).
Moreover,
under
recently
promulgated
authority
from
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(OSHA),
an
employer
who
has
notice
of
appropriate
and
necessary
equipment
and/or
training
available
to
its
employees
(like
the
Pro
V2)
and
then
fails
to
provide
that
equipment
and/or
training
can
be
held
liable
for
that
failure.
10.
GUARDIAN8.com
F e b r u a r y
2 0 1 5 |
9
Specifically,
in
Clarification
of
Employer
Duty
To
Provide
Personal
Protective
Equipment
and
Train
Each
Employee,
Final
Rule,
73
Fed.
Reg.
75568-‐75589
(December
12,
2008),
OSHA
provided
a
broad
ranging
analysis
of
the
employers
duty
to
provide
appropriate
training
and
personal
protective
equipment
(PPE).
In
its
Final
Rule,
OSHA
recognized
that,
“[m]any
OSHA
standards
.
.
.
require
employers
to
provide
PPE
to
their
employees
and
ensure
the
use
of
PPE.
Some
general
standards
require
the
employer
to
provide
appropriate
PPE
wherever
necessary
to
protect
employees
from
hazards.”
In
its
analysis,
OSHA
was
unequivocal
in
that
“[t]he
new
sections
provide
unmistakable
notice
to
employers
that
they
are
responsible
for
protecting
each
employee
covered
by
the
PPE
and
training
standards,
and
consequently,
that
they
may
be
subject
to
per-‐employee
citations
and
proposed
penalties
for
violations
.
.
.
.
.
The
employer
must
provide
PPE
to
each
employee
required
to
use
the
PPE,
and
each
failure
to
provide
PPE
to
an
employee
may
be
considered
a
separate
violation.”
While
the
OSHA
ruling
was
predominantly
directed
to
the
use
of
respirators,
OSHA
made
it
clear
in
response
to
a
challenge
by
the
AFL-‐CIO
that
the
ruling
was
much
broader
and
applied
to
all
employees
and
all
PPE.
Specifically,
in
adopting
language
proposed
by
the
AFL-‐CIO,
OSHA
clearly
stated,
“[t]he
Agency
agrees
with
these
recommendations
[by
the
AFL-‐CIO]
in
large
part
and
has
made
corresponding
changes
in
the
final
rule.
It
is
not
OSHA's
intent
to
limit
the
PPE
duties
referenced
in
these
sections
to
respirators
only
(emphasis
added).”
In
sum,
the
use
of
the
Pro
V2
is
not
only
reasonable
and,
in
some
cases,
necessary
for
officer
safety
and
incident
documentation,
when
an
entity
is
on
notice
that
such
personal
protective
equipment
is
available
to
its
personnel,
that
entity
may
well
be
liable
for
not
deploying
it,
where
appropriate.
Summary
• Defensive
devices
are
now
undergoing
a
similar
transformation
in
capability
and
ubiquity
as
during
the
advent
of
smartphones;
• All
discrete
functions
of
a
Pro
V2
(e.g.
power
on,
arming,
½
trigger
and
full
trigger
pull)
are
recorded
in
an
event
log
which
can
be
exported
into
a
text
file,
or
printed;
• There
is
a
more
accurate
term
for
labeling
security
RFPs
that
include
defensive
items:
Intermediate
Service;
• The
strobe
light
and
any
other
electronic
function
of
the
Pro
V2
can
be
configured
“off”
by
qualified
staff;
• The
use
of
OC
by
security
personnel
is
allowed
in
all
fifty
states;
• In
a
research
brief
published
by
the
US
Department
of
Justice,
OC
was
specifically
excluded
as
a
contributing
factor
to
any
in-‐custody
deaths;
• There
are
significant
consequences
of
insufficient
security,
such
as
the
$281
million
NY
lawsuit;
• Before
launching
any
on-‐officer
recording
technology,
management
should
discuss
two-‐party
consent
with
qualified
counsel;
• Management
should
seriously
consider
assigning
dedicated
units
to
each
security
staff
member
so
tracking
of
serial
numbers
and
authenticating
digital
evidence
is
a
much
easier
task
to
accomplish;
• Own
the
equipment
and
contract
with
the
security
provider
to
train
and
protect
using
a
company
asset,
rather
than
incorporating
the
cost
into
the
security
department
overhead.
