Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Soon, 6th Day of Testimony in Derek Chauvin Trial Resumes; Prosecution Resumes Questioning of Minneapolis Police Chief. Aired 2:30-3p ET
Aired April 05, 2021 - 14:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:30:00]
ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Brooke, the prosecution is going about this in a methodical manner. They spent the morning with the witness, establishing him as this sort of unimpeachable expert.
Does he know what he is talking about? He literally wrote the PMS policy. He is the chief of the Minneapolis Police Department. He is communicating extraordinarily well with that jury.
And, remember, jurors -- we don't see them. We tend to think of the jury as this object, this monolith. They are 12 human beings. We don't see them on camera but they are there in the courtroom.
By my impression, he has this jury listening to him, understanding him, and wanting to hear what he has to say.
What they are setting stage for is to ask him the big questions. Did Derek Chauvin's actions violate his training at the Minneapolis Police Department? Did his actions violate the P.D.'s use-of-force policy?
I believe, based on his prior public statements, Chief Arradondo will say unequivocally yes to both things. If and when that happens, that's going to be a huge moment for the prosecution.
BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: Chief Ramsey, I was just sitting in the commercial break refreshing the extraordinarily live TV moment in the wake of the death of George Floyd, with Sara Sidner, our correspondent, there, who was able to grab the chief in the middle of the scene.
And it's a double box. It's on the Don Lemon show. And you see a member of Mr. Floyd's family, and Ben Crump, the attorney.
And you hear this police -- first of all, you watch him, realizing he is in the presence of the family via TV, taking his hat off, out of, you know, respect to the family.
Then, he said to the family, Mr. Floyd died in our hands. So the officers -- he said -- his word was complicit. Later, we know, in video, this chief has referred to this as murder.
Will we hear these sorts of words, do you think, from this chief coming up?
CHARLES RAMSEY, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: I don't know if he'll use that term or not. But he will make it very clear that the actions of Derek Chauvin were not consistent with policy, not consistent with training, and were criminal.
I mean, I don't know if there's any other way to really describe it.
And Arradondo -- Chief Arradondo does not, you know, bite his tongue, let's say. So he may very well.
BALDWIN: Forgive me, Chief Ramsey.
They're back in the courtroom. Here is Chief Arradondo, Minneapolis Police Department.
STEVE SCHLEICHER, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: Whether the actual de- escalation techniques are embedded within the policy itself.
So I'm drawing your attention to, again, exhibit 219, which is MPD Policy 5-304. If you look at the section here been enlarged. De- escalation tactics include but are not limited to -- if you would please summarize for the jury the different bullets you see here.
MEDARIA ARRADONDO, CHIEF, MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT: Yes. Some of the bullets here for de-escalation tactics --
SCHLEICHER: Sir, one moment.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)
SCHLEICHER: Oh. All right. Thank you. All right.
All right.
Please resume.
ARRADONDO: Yes, some of the de-escalation tactics that are noted here include but are not limited to placing barriers between an uncooperative subject and an officer, communication from a safe position, to gain the subject's compliance using verbal persuasion, advisements or warnings.
Using verbal techniques to calm an agitated subject and promote rational decision making. Calling for additional resources to assist, including more officers, CIT officers, and officers equipped with less lethal tools.
SCHLEICHER: And CIT officers are those who have been through the crisis intervention training course, is that correct?
ARRADONDO: That is correct.
SCHLEICHER: And are Minneapolis police officers there at the training center taught different techniques on how to implement this policy?
ARRADONDO: That is correct.
SCHLEICHER: Have you personally attended the training?
ARRADONDO: Yes, I have.
SCHLEICHER: Did you find it useful?
ARRADONDO: I have.
SCHLEICHER: And you can remove that.
We have talked a little bit then about behavioral crises and identifying behavioral crises. How does Minneapolis Police Department respond to persons in behavioral crisis?
ARRADONDO: One of the first important things is obviously is trying to get as much information prior to the call as possible. But as soon as officers at least have knowledge that this could be a potential situation with that caller, this de-escalation piece should kick in.
And while they may not know exactly what they are going to encounter when they arrive on the scene, this body of knowledge they've been taught should at least be kind of forefront in terms of the different tools they'll be using possibly to help de-escalate that situation.
SCHLEICHER: What is an EDP, that acronym.
[14:35:00]
ARRADONDO: The acronym EDP is labeled through our Minneapolis Emergency Communications Center as an emotional -- emotionally disturbed person.
And so when our Minneapolis police officers receive an EDP call, that is prompting them that there's at least initial information that they're going to be responding to someone who may be in crisis.
SCHLEICHER: And that's something that the officer would then be communicated via dispatcher prior to going to the scene, correct?
ARRADONDO: That is correct.
SCHLEICHER: However, if that information is not imparted upon them, they make their own assessment at the scene as to whether the person could potentially be an EDP, is that correct?
ARRADONDO: That is correct.
SCHLEICHER: You indicated that Minneapolis Police Department receives over 100,000 calls a year, calls for services. Is that right?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: Do you have an idea of how many calls for service involved people in crisis?
ARRADONDO: I believe in 2019, Minneapolis police officers responded to about 4,500 of those signified as EDP calls, yes.
SCHLEICHER: Now, in terms of teaching officers how to recognize a person who may potentially be in crisis and, therefore, unable to comply with commands, you place these different signs into MPD policy?
ARRADONDO: That is correct.
SCHLEICHER: And I'd like to direct your attention now to exhibit 231.
And ask that to be published.
And this is 7-809, the crisis intervention policy.
You say it begins here. Sorry. But we'll go ahead and -- over to page two. And I'd like to highlight, please, for the jury, the definition of a crisis.
And, again, in the definition of a crisis under the MPD policy, generally speaking, we're talking about some of the same things that we saw before in the de-escalation policy, is that right?
ARRADONDO: That is correct.
SCHLEICHER: There can be mental illness, is that right?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: Substance abuse can be a crisis or a barrier to communication, correct?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: And, say, with various stressors, is that right?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: And then further, if you could emphasize the crisis intervention definition. And officers, when they either respond to an EDP or are aware the person may be in crisis and attempt crisis intervention method, is that correct?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: And generally speaking, what is the officer supposed to do to a person in crisis?
ARRADONDO: It's an attempt to de-escalate that situation.
SCHLEICHER: And the policy then of Minneapolis Police Department in handling persons in crisis -- if we could look at Section 3 in the policy, it would be the next page, highlight Roman III.
In accordance with the Minneapolis police policy, what are officers supposed to do in how are they supposed to handle encounters with individuals who are experiencing a crisis?
ARRADONDO: We really want to -- den we want to meet people where they are. We want to bring our values our principles to those situations.
We recognize that often times people who are experiencing crisis, it's not something that they brought on themselves that they're dealing with. And so there's a sense of dignity and respect that we should be honoring when we come to those calls.
And so, as it's mentioned here, the values of protection, safety and sanctity of life.
Often times, again, we are that first face of government that they're going to see. That may be 3:00 in the morning. And so we have to wear many hats.
But we want to be respectful in that care we are trying to provide for this that individual.
SCHLEICHER: And -- and sometimes persons might be experiencing some sort of a breakdown that, you know, maybe they did partially bring upon themselves, is that right?
ARRADONDO: That is correct.
SCHLEICHER: And are those people still entitled to be treated in accordance with MPD policy?
ARRADONDO: Yes, they are.
SCHLEICHER: And this -- this policy, again, is imparted in training at the training center by that group, is that right?
ARRADONDO: That is correct.
[14:40:01]
SCHLEICHER: Now I'd like to -- if you could take that down, please -- talk a little bit about officers role as first responders, in terms of providing basic medical care. All right?
And so with that, can you tell the jury, are Minneapolis police officers trained to provide basic medical care?
ARRADONDO: Yes, we are.
SCHLEICHER: Can you please describe what level and where there are various different levels of medical care that someone could be trained in?
ARRADONDO: So most department members will have at least a basic training in terms of first responders. The ABCs, airway, breathing, circulation. The effects of applying direct pressure on wounds to stop bleeding.
Many of the things that we will respond to, perhaps just because we are closer to a call than perhaps our EMS or fire before they get there -- and they obviously have a higher degree level of training.
But the training that we have and that we receive it's very vital because the seconds are vital.
Our officers carry tourniquets. We respond to situations when members in the community will have gunshot wounds.
And a matter of fact, a couple of my officers, a couple of weeks ago, saved a young man shot in the femur and was bleeding profusely. Because they got there quickly, knew how to apply the tourniquet, those are some of basics applied.
The baby-not-breathing calls -- our officers are saved lives of children who have chocked or what have you because they've been able to help start emergency breathing for them.
So those are some of the basic types of first aid that are -- chest compressions, those types of basic first aid.
SCHLEICHER: And are officers then, you know, specifically trained at the training center to provide this basic sort of first aid?
ARRADONDO: That is correct.
SCHLEICHER: And does the Minneapolis Police Department have a policy regarding any duty that an officer would have to apply that training to a real-life situation?
ARRADONDO: Yes. We -- we recognize -- again, I mentioned that we are often times going to be the first ones to respond to someone who needs medical attention. And so we absolutely have a duty to render that aid.
SCHLEICHER: And that, of course, is in the policy and procedure manual, is that right?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: If I can display exhibit 230, which is MPD policy 7-350, Emergency medical response.
And under Roman I, you see that the purpose of the policy is to lay out in writing the roles and responsibilities of Minneapolis Police Department employees in incidents involving a medical emergency. Is that right?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: If we could take a look at the policy itself under Roman II, does that explain what a Minneapolis police officer is supposed to do when they come upon a medical emergency or a medical emergency develops on a call?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: What are they supposed to do? ARRADONDO: While awaiting EMS any of the employee assisting an
individual having an acute medical crisis shall provide any necessary first aid consistent with our MPD training as soon as practical.
SCHLEICHER: And so then that presumes, of course, they are waiting for EMS or waiting for some kind of emergency services, is that right?
ARRADONDO: That is correct.
SCHLEICHER: Would it be fair to say that this policy then is in two parts. The officer has to request EMS or ambulance, correct?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: And while waiting for the ambulance, they have to provide -- they are required to provide what medical training and skills they have to attempt to save a person?
ARRADONDO: That is correct.
SCHLEICHER: Are Minneapolis police officers provided Naloxone or NARCAN kits?
ARRADONDO: Yes, we are.
SCHLEICHER: What are those?
ARRADONDO: It's basically an inhaler for community members who we may respond to who have overdosed. It's to -- if they've overdosed and are out, it's to give them that inhaler injection so that they can hopefully come to.
And so we have -- it was a few years ago, where, for the most part, the Minneapolis Fire Department were the ones responding to overdose and carried NARCAN.
Unfortunately, in our cities, and cities across the country, saw an uptick in heroin and opioid overdoses.
We had to make sure we were -- again, because we were often times the first ones to come across these situations, we wanted to make sure we were in service to our communities in making sure that we could save lives if we were equipping our folks with NARCAN.
[14:45:10]
SCHLEICHER: And a policy developed as a result of this, is that right?
ARRADONDO: That is correct.
SCHLEICHER: If I can show you exhibit 229.
Publish that.
Just the NARCAN policy, 7-348.
ARRADONDO: That is correct, yes.
SCHLEICHER: And are officers provided training in the administration of NARCAN.
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: Under appropriate circumstances?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: And I'd like to talk to you a little bit about the use of force. Does Minneapolis have a written policy governing proper authorized use of force?
ARRADONDO: Yes, we do.
SCHLEICHER: And is this generally covered in the 5-300 series of the policy and procedure manual?
ARRADONDO: Yes, it is.
SCHLEICHER: I'd like to discuss some of that manual with you and the policy with you at this time.
If we could pull and display exhibit 216.
Under the purpose of the policy, which is 5-301, can you please read the first sentence under subparagraph A.
ARRADONDO: Yes. Sanctity of life and the protection of the public shall be the cornerstones of the MPD's use-of-force policy.
SCHLEICHER: What does that mean?
ARRADONDO: Of all the things that we do as peace officers for the Minneapolis Police Department -- and I mentioned the thousands of calls that our men and women respond to -- it's my firm belief that the one singular incident we will be judged forever on will be our use of force.
So while it is absolutely imperative that officers go home at the end of their shift, we want to make sure and ensure that our community members go home, too.
And so sanctity of life is absolutely vital that that is the pillar for use of force.
SCHLEICHER: Has this generally always been the case with Minneapolis use-of-force policy?
ARRADONDO: It has not.
SCHLEICHER: When did that change?
ARRADONDO: We implemented this particular in 2016.
SCHLEICHER: Um-hum.
Has the training in use of force and application of use-of-force policy been imparted, including this philosophy, onto police officers in training at the training center?
ARRADONDO: It certainly has, yes.
SCHLEICHER: Does the policy itself define force, what is force?
ARRADONDO: Yes, it does.
SCHLEICHER: If we would take a look at exhibit 217.
Publish that.
If you'd highlight use of force.
I think, generally speaking, what is force?
ARRADONDO: It can be any physical contact. It can be with a weapon. It can be with a vehicle. But it's any sort of physical contact that is more likely to render harm or injury to someone.
SCHLEICHER: And that is a restraint. Is use of restraint considered force.
ARRADONDO: That would be considered force.
SCHLEICHER: And what type of force is authorized under departmental policy?
ARRADONDO: We -- under 609, we operate under the use of force, the statute, objectively reasonable force.
SCHLEICHER: If I could display exhibit 217.
Let's see.
Now, first go back to 5-303.
And 5-303 authorizes force, is that right? And you mentioned 60906, a state statute authorizing force under certain circumstances. Is that right?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: And the phrases that's used for the authorization of force is what type of force?
ARRADONDO: Reasonable.
SCHLEICHER: And that force can be authorized under certain circumstances, is that right?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: All right. So now if you would go to the next page.
Let's talk about the circumstances under which a police officer is authorized properly to use force.
If you'd highlight that.
What are the circumstances under which an officer is authorized to use force?
ARRADONDO: An officer is authorized to use force effecting a lawful arrest, executing a legal process, enforcing an order of the court, and any other duties imposed upon that officer.
[14:50:07]
SCHLEICHER: And that term "reasonable force" is further delineated in the policy, is that right?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: If we look at exhibit 217, I believe under the definition of objectively reasonable force.
Could you please read that definition?
ARRADONDO: Yes. The amount and type of force that would be considered rational and logical to an objective officer on the scene as supported by facts and circumstances known to an officer at the time the force is used.
SCHLEICHER: You discussed a case, Conner, the Conner Factors.
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: And I would like you to -- well, first of all, does the policy reference the Conner Factors you just mentioned?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: If you could display 217, page two.
We have three bullet points here under the Connor Factor. And that is the officer is supposed to look at the totality of the circumstances, right?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: And the three bullets here that the officer is supposed to consider are what?
ARRADONDO: The officer should consider the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
SCHLEICHER: And fair to say these three different considerations are things that you can attribute to the subject, correct?
ARRADONDO: Yes, sir.
SCHLEICHER: The subject's conduct, not someone else's?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: And, of course, it has to be judged by a reasonable police officer on the scene at the time, correct?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: Now, do you recall -- obviously, you're here talking about what happened on May 25, 2020 involving George Floyd. Do you recall why the officers were responding to Cup Foods on that day, the original reason for the call?
ARRADONDO: The reason for the call was response regarding a counterfeit situation at the store at the intersection of 38th and Chicago.
SCHLEICHER: And in terms of, you know, the deployment of your resources at the Minneapolis Police Department, and as chief, how do you rate, I guess, the severity of that offense, the seriousness of that offense?
ARRADONDO: It would probably not rise to the level of -- particularly in light of last year, the level of violent crime we've experienced in the city, but we would certainly respond to it. But it would not rise to the level in terms of severity of the crime here.
SCHLEICHER: In looking at that, the particular type of crime, is that one for which the suspect is typically taken into a custodial arrest?
ARRADONDO: Typically not.
SCHLEICHER: Why is that?
ARRADONDO: If it's not a violent felony. We also, in coordination with our jail system and our courts, we -- there's been a visit over the years to make sure that the individuals going to jail are those who, from a public safety standpoint, need to be at least in that facility, in the county jail.
And if we can probably identify and it's not a violent situation, you know, we can always charge via complaint and other things. So that's one of the reasons why.
SCHLEICHER: You use the phrase "violent felony." What's the more important part, whether it's violent or whether it's a felony?
ARRADONDO: Violence.
SCHLEICHER: Why is that?
ARRADONDO: It can certainly endanger not only the officers but the community.
SCHLEICHER: Where something that's merely labeled a felony may or may not require a full custodial arrest?
ARRADONDO: That is correct.
SCHLEICHER: And are Minneapolis police officers trained in the use of force?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: In pre-service, in the academy and also in post service, can serve as training?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: And are officers taught the standard of force must be reasonable at the time it is applied?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: The entire time it's applied?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: Are officers taught the need to assess and reassess and re-evaluate situations in the field?
ARRADONDO: Yes, we are.
SCHLEICHER: Are you familiar with Minneapolis Police Department's critical thinking model?
[14:55:00]
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: How are you familiar with that?
ARRADONDO: It was something that I wanted to embark, and make sure that it was part of our training curriculum, that also includes the aspects of procedural justice.
And procedural justice is really -- it's actually research and evidence-based learning that has shown that if police departments treat people with respect, give them voice, establish neutral engagements, and build areas of trust, our communities are more likely to cooperate with us. We're likely to be seen more as legitimate.
It has actually shown our employees come to work. Their wellness is better. And so this is very important work.
So, it's part of that procedural justice I just mentioned, is part of that critical thinking in our training.
SCHLEICHER: At this time, I'd ask to display only to the witness exhibit for identification 276.
Sir, do you recognize exhibit 276 as being MPD's critical decision- making model?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: Offer exhibit 276.
PETER CAHILL, HENNEPIN COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE: Any objection?
ERIC NELSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No objection.
CAHILL: And 276 is received.
SCHLEICHER: Permission to publish?
So we heard about the model, now we get to actually see it.
And if you could enlarge the graphic, please.
So this is what the model looks like. It's sort of a wheel. Is that right?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: The first stage of the critical thinking model, critical decision-making model is information gathering?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: Explain that, please.
ARRADONDO: It's very vital. We rely upon trying to gather as much information as possible so that we can try our best to effectively go in, respond, and manage that situation.
Trying to gather as much information at the onset is very important. But we also need to make sure that we're continuing to try to gather as much information as we're dealing with the scene or the call.
SCHLEICHER: I see the arrow points in two directions. And one, it points to the middle of the circle, voice, neutrality, respect and trust. And the other arrow points to the threat/risk assessment.
Let's talk about the middle of the circle first.
What is that middle circle supposed to be representing?
ARRADONDO: Well, that's the principles, really, of what continues to guide us.
So, for example, information gathering, while we may associate it specifically with receiving a 911 call and the dispatcher giving us information, but information gathering could be that officers come across a call that they weren't dispatched to and they need to talk to a community member. If they don't treat that community member with respect or give them
voice, it's likely that they will receive less information that will be less helpful in them resolving that call.
So, that voice, neutrality, respect and trust, that has to guide and be a part of all of that critical decision-making model.
SCHLEICHER: So, let's go to the next step. The officers gathered some initial information and now the officer is in a position to need to think about it or assess it, is that right?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: And so the next step is a threat or risk assessment. Is there a difference between a threat and a risk?
ARRADONDO: There can be, in terms of what is being played out at the time. You're constantly evaluating that. Of course, the information that you're receiving, which may be fluid, is going to dictate that threat or risk, yes.
SCHLEICHER: So then once the officer has made an assessment of a threat or a risk, the next step, authority to act. What does that mean?
ARRADONDO: That may mean the officer, now based upon the information they've received, evaluating that threat or risk, am I going to act. Is this going to be a physical arrest? Am I going to separate parties? Am I going to -- does this require a report, all of these things?
But it's giving more information for the officer to guide he or she in terms of what is the next appropriate step they need to act and take.
SCHLEICHER: So, if we're to, at least to this point in the model, put a scenario into action, the information gathering, the officer perceives someone is approaching them with a weapon, like a bat.
[14:59:55]
And so then they would reflect on that and determine whether or not this is a risk. It's a bat. Maybe the person is at a baseball game. Or a threat. The bat is being brandished, correct?
ARRADONDO: Yes.
