One of the tasks of Urbana’s Civilian Police Review Board (CPRB) is to review TASER displays.  On January 22^nd of 2020, such a review was performed on an incident which occurred on February 6^th, 2019 and the CPRB voted to approve the TASER usage.  However, after 10 months of prodding by concerned residents, new video was finally admitted at the November 18^th CPRB meeting.  This video tells a very different story, and shows something very similar to the Aleyah Lewis incident: extreme propensity for violence on the part of Urbana Police.  As in the Lewis incident, the target individual was never even suspected of having committed a crime, but they went to jail all the same.

The original TASER video, which was taken from a camera mounted on the TASER gun itself, contained virtually no useful information, as the camera was not activated until officers were already in the process of tackling the target individual.  In January, CPRB members asked Deputy Chief Richard Surles, who was presenting the TASER usage, if there existed other video, such as body camera or dash camera video.  Surles gave a number of dodgy and defensive responses to the board members’ inquiries about the possibility of additional video, but eventually agreed to check for other video and return an answer to the board.

It seems Surles put little weight into his promise, because the CPRB did not get an answer until ten months later.  Nine CPRB meetings went by, and after repeated prodding by concerned residents, Surles finally presented supplementary video which clearly shows the incident:

The video shows an individual, who was not wanted or suspect of any crime, slowly and casually approaching two officers with his hands at his sides.  The individual was concerned about his girlfriend being arrested for an active warrant.  One officer reaches out and pushes on the individual’s arm or chest, and the individual responds by attempting to swat the officer’s hand off of him (he missed, and only swatted air) and slowly backing away.

With approximately one second response time, another officer draws and discharges his TASER gun at the individual.  The individual did not have a weapon, had not made any threats, and the officers had not given any verbal warnings or instructions to the individual.  At the moment two of the officers moved toward the individual, he held is hands up and said “alright, alright”, in an attempt to surrender and indicate his compliance.  The officers then tackled him to the ground.

The officer had failed to discharge his TASER gun properly before the tackle, so the stun did not work.  After the individual had indicated his compliance, and the officers had already tackled him to the ground, the officer with the TASER initiated a “drive stun”.  A “drive stun” is effected by pressing the tip of the TASER gun into the target individual while pulling the trigger.

At the time that the officer was stunning the individual, he was lying on the ground and surrounded by four police officers.  The individual, who was previously not even suspected of having committed any crime, was arrested and charged with aggravated battery and intimidation.

Even though they didn’t have any meaningful evidence at their January meeting, and fully expected that additional video must exist, the CPRB voted to agree with UPD’s determination that the TASER usage was proper.  Such an action is in alignment with the historical tendency of the board, which has been to act almost entirely subordinate to the Urbana Police Department, with little indication that they are capable of making their own determinations.

The supplementary video clearly demonstrates an unreasonable amount of force and an escalation to violence based entirely on the officers’ actions.  Whereas in January Surles repeatedly claimed that the suspect had “shoved” an officer, the new video appears to show that it was the officer that shoved the individual, and that is what caused the individual to swing his hand and slowly back away.

Surles had originally claimed that after the initial TASER discharge did not work, “the officer then completed a drive-stun follow up to enact neuromuscular incapacitation”.  This statement is in conflict with the claims of TASER manufacturer Axon, which indicates that “the drive-stun mode generally will not cause NMI and becomes primarily a pain compliance option.”  Neither of these claims explain why an individual, who was already complying and lying on the ground surrounded by four police officers, needed to be suffer any flavor of electrocution.

The incident also shows clear violations of Urbana Police Department Policy.  UPD policy requires that individuals be given reasonable opportunity to comply, including verbal orders.  There was no indication that the individual was threatening or that a TASER was necessary.  From UPD Policy 304.5.1:

“The TASER may be used when the circumstances perceived by the officer at the time indicate that such application is reasonably necessary to control a subject or suspect who is actively aggressive and the behavior imminently threatens serious physical harm to any person.”

It should also be noted the use of a TASER drive stun is explicitly forbidden in UPD Policy 304.5:

“The use of drive stuns (the physical application of the TASER to the body of another for the specific purpose of pain compliance) is prohibited.”

This incident appears to be another demonstration of the complete incompetence (more likely, corruption) of the Urbana Police Department in regards to its ability to recognize misconduct in its own actions.  It is also another example of the failure of the CPRB to provide any meaningful oversight for the residents of Urbana.  Even with the new video showing obvious misconduct, CPRB member Scott Dossett (who has been on the board since its founding in 2007) said “this doesn’t really substantially change my rendering of the original case”.

Dossett, who seems to have developed a chummy relationship with the Urbana Police Department, has been quick to dismiss issues of concern.  However, the new video evidence did garner the attention of recently appointed CPRB member Tony Allegretti, who was not on the board in January when the case was first reviewed.  After watching the video twice, Allegretti picked the incident apart quite readily. 

A series of video clips from CPRB meetings can be viewed below.  The sequence shows part of the original TASER review in January, some public input from June and September, and the discussion on November 18^th (including Allegretti’s perspective).  The reader may consider skipping directly to timestamp 8:35 to view the November 18^th discussion on the incident.

In many ways, this incident is very similar to the incident involving the arrest and prosecution of Aleyah Lewis, and there is every expectation that many more such incidents litter the Urban Police Department, hidden away from public view.

The reader may also be interested in knowing that Deputy Chief Richard Surles, along with several of his fellow UPD officers, is currently being sued for falsifying evidence and witness coercion in regards to arrests made in January of 2018.  Check CU has made repeated attempts to obtain public records from the State’s Attorney in regards to that incident, but each attempt has thus far been denied by Assistant States Attorney Matthew Banach.  The same Matthew Banach falsely prosecuted the author of this article in 2015.

The CPRB will review and discuss this incident one more time at their next meeting, which has not yet been scheduled.

-Christopher Hansen, Urbana