Process every year, and the reason for that was as we were implementing the program, and we were learning about more and more and more costs, there just wasnt enough money in the budget. It was taking away money from other other programs, so we actually there was a a city council resolution, and we actually had our own budget. Wow. So my final question is im putting it putting you on the spot here we now know what is available to our department as the new model. Given what you know about the new model, and i know i heard you say that you dont think theres any studies, really, on the new model, given what you now know, given your experience in oakland, what youve been studying now, and what you know about the new model, and its decrease in charge, whats your position on on starting an entirely new tazer program . So if i understand your question, are you asking if i was transplanted back, and i had to start a program, given whats available today. And given your knowledge of what it takes to run it. Well, what it takes to run, its very its far more complex than any Firearms Program or d. T. Program. It definitely is that, but my big concern is not so much with the work. The work can be done. My big concern is that the weapon thats currently available, i dont believe has enough research on it. I dont think we know enough about it. I mean, its been out there for a few years, but conspicuously, there are no real independent research, as far as efficacy goes. There is on safety. Theres been a number of studies that have been on safety, but not on the efficacy issue, and that is the big question for me. One of the and just to kind of give a little context to it, im probably hypersensitive to an under powered weapon because when we started our Test Laboratory in oakland, we started to discover what we termed as cold weapons, and these were weapons that were putting out under factory specs, and we started to correlate those found cold weapons with weapon failures, and so im probably more sensitive than most to the dangers of an underperforming weapon, and thats my concern with these current weapons. Thank you very much. Commissioner melara. I have just two very short questions. Sergeant vigil, the data you presented says that you used tazers four times out of 174 uses of force, right . No. Which year are we looking at in 2016 or 2017 . I think it was 2016. 2016, the tazer was deployed 17 times, and the response was a give up, voluntary compliance, and then, four times is that the four times youre talking about, where it was yeah. Four times it was used. Out of the four times, it took more than one incident in one incident, a second cycle in another incident, more than a second cycle in another incident, and the last one is miss cycled. It didnt result in a death . Thats correct. I just want to ask, weve been working on a draft policy, and weve been including some of the your suggestions, but you were under the impressions that we wouldnt have a. E. D. s in every car and every Police Officers car . The version that i had seen was that the a. E. D. s wouldnt be available for every officer that was using them. Okay. That is not correct. Thank you sorry. Thats okay. Commissioner mazzucco oh, im sorry. Are you done . Im done. Commissioner mazzucco, one of the questions that i have when they implemented this at the u. C. Campus police, you recommended both the a. E. D. s in the car and with the tazer weapon itself. And how has that been going on u. C. S. F. . Have you heard of any problems . One thing, i do give chief scott credit for reaching out to me in the beginning. This is the first time for any police chief has reached out to me for hearing the evidence and the risks and the benefits. And again, my goal is to use the research that weve done in the real world to try to present those risks and maximize the benefits, and i do believe that we cant take away all of the risks, but we can mitigate most of the risks with careful policy, and i was pleased that u. C. S. F. Did implement all of my recommendations. Thank you. I know that your study ends in 200. Maybe somewhere down the road. We can add to that study. I also want to thacake a momeno thank your profession. We have two s. F. P. D. Officers, one being shot, and one being run over. The doctors at your hospital are modern day saints. The care and treatment they provide for our officers. I skbrust want to say thank you for that. When you testified before this commission on june 21st, 17, you told us when youre running the program in oakland, you told us there was no injuries, no deaths, no lawsuits, and no i. A. Complaints, is that correct . Correct. And do you dispute the fact that when tazers are being used and this is our concern we want to reduce injuries. Do you dispute the fact that injuries are reduced by 60 with respect to officers and suspects . Well, i dont think theres enough data to make a determination on that because again what were talking about with that number is the old weapons platform. Well stick with that, because no knows how long itll take, if we even do that, so with that old data, do you dispute that theres a 60 plus percent reduction in injuries to those involved, including Police Officers. I would have to see the study youre talking about. Some are better than others let me ask you this. Youre a professional witness. You testify a lot in federal court, state court, skm other countries. Youre a paid witness, correct . Not today. Did you pay your own expenses today . My air fair was paid. Your air fair was paid . You got paid to come here today. Folks, let me ask questions stop, stop, stop, stop. Dont mischaracterize what hes saying and dont argue with me. His air fair was paid, period. You testify for lawyers quite often in court. Do i . Yes. Yes. Okay. Now my question for you is you have concerns about this new weapon. Have you tested this new weapon. You said youve tested 10,000 weapons. I have tested this weapon. What have you found in your studies. It puts out about half of what the old weapon put out. Okay. In terms of voltage, youre saying. No, in emergency room its of charge. In terms of charge, and was that done, in your opinion, to make it safer . I wasnt involved in the design of the weapon, im just reporting on the my test my test results which, by the way, the test results that im finding in mylab match up with the published manufacturers specifications. Let me ask you one last question. If you were running the program in oakland, you talked about no injuries, no deaths, no complaints, no lawsuits. Yes. Did you see a positive effect from the tazers, then, positive effect on the officers and the public . By fielding tazers . Yes, by preventing injuries and death . I dont know that it had anything to do with preventing injuries and death. I dont know that officers necessarily think in those terms, but i did see a im sorry, you said a positive effect . Well, there was fewer injuries to officers, fewer injuries to suspects. Did i see that . Yes. Well, we didnt have any, so i guess yes, you could say that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions, commissioner mazzucco . No president , im sure. Okay. Commissioner marshall. Okay. Mr. Lionisio, come back. Dont go far. Just thanks. I remember when i calm over to my office. It seems about six months ago. I know. I appreciate we had a great conversation, and i appreciate your willingness to be a part of this, and, you know, the fact that oakland is so close makes it easier to look at. Well, ive just got one thing. Its really that. Threw me a loop deloop when you talk about the new weapon thats going to come out. Yes. But were hearing all this data and information on the old weapon, so you think throw that out . Well, its a different weapon. Its a completely different the weapon itself, the circuit that it uses, the output that it has, its a completely different weapon. Its redesigned, different well, i get that, but seeing as how people are feeding us all whatever 26 it was, so im hearing all this, but youre saying its almost like were at the guardianshiping where this weapon was back then. Right. Youre absolutely right. We are. Right, and so the way we found out about that weapon this is just my logical mind was trying it out and finding if it had this is skbrust my mind. Yes, although the big difference is with the older weapons, there fs a lot more when they were introduced there was no data on that weapon. Well, there wasnt, but the manufacturer actually sponsored a lot of studies, and we got a great dale of data fairly quickly with the with the x26. Were just not seeing that same kind of pace with the x2 or x26 piece. But you see where my mind is sort of going here. When they were first picked up by departments. Yes. Other than the i guess the manufacturers claims about them, they were used, and thats when the data was began to be collected on them. Yes, sure. So were sort of with this one, at that same place. Yes. So thats all im asking. Yes. Okay. Thats all i wanted to know. Okay. Thank you. Anything else, dr. Marshall . No, hes done. Commissioner hirsch. Mr. Lionisio, i have some questions for you again. Im trying to get a feel, a better understanding, of what your view is, of what you ended up doing in he can on land, so you were there for many years, right. I ran the program from 2006 to 2012, so six years. Six years, and you left in 12, is that right. I left . 12, yes. And at the time you left, were you satisfied with the program you are overseen or did you feel as if there was a problem with what oakland had done . I was i was satisfied to a point. We grew so much over those six years, i dont know if satisfaction is a good word to describe it. We would we would hit milestones, and then, we would discover, you know, we could make it even better by doing this, and so it was a constant strive to move to the next level, to kind of go where nobody else had gone before, and i was certainly happy with where we were going. I wont say that i was, you know, there was some sort of short coming, and i felt that i left, when i retired, but could we have continued . Absolutely, i think especially given the fact that the newer weapons are coming out, so then, there would be more research to do and those kinds of things. And do you know if theyre doing that now or unfortunately, they are not, and you are seeing the results. We had i think mr. Brave, at one point, quoted something i had in my document where we were having a high 0, low 90 efficacy rate in oakland, and theyre having a 50 now. A lot of it has to do with the management, the administration of the program, the training, your data tracking, critical. I mean, we would do i think ive described this before, but i would sit down facetoface with every officer after they used them every single time, and we would go over, and we would debrief it, and then, we would collect all that data, and wed start to compile that data, and wed start to look at it, and the dividends that paid were incredible, because what it allowed us to do was modify our policy and modify our training in realtime. We wouldnt have to wait for the next Training Cycle or wait for the next bulletin to come out. Practice of paragraph the next week when we went into class, we were changing and sending bulletins out within the department, and we were doing lineup trainings, and updating officers on the new information and new data that wed found. It was a it was incredibly labor intensive, but it paid huge dividends. And at the same time was Oakland PoliceDepartment Going through a use of force modification deescalation, time and distance . Were tremendo tremendous they implementing those changes, too . No. In fact when i took the program over, it was the only new program being implemented. Everything else, the negotiated settlement agreements, the policy updates, those things, those trainings had already been accomplished, so that was a big advantage. Okay. Thank you. Mmhmm. Anything further commissioner hirsch . No, thats it. Commissioner ong hing, im told that the budget analyst is available by phone. Would you like to speak to her . Was she listening when no, she was not, but shes available now. Okay. Do you want us to call her . Thats okay. Ill pass. Commissioner . Commissioner dejesus . Hello . Hi, miss miss campbell . Yes. Hi. This is the sergeant. Were in the Commission Office, and i think one of the commissioners has a question for you. Okay. I hope you can hear me. I can. Hi. This is commissioner dejesus. One of the questions that i had, i noticed in your report that axon training for officers, we heard from the department that they want to plan their own training, but it looked to me, from your report, that you were taking the perf training, which is a four hour training, and i understand officers are going to do their own were going to develop our own training program, which will include when its appropriate in training to draw the weapon, and perour use of the dgo, do you have an estimate to how much it would cost the department to setup a separate atraining in the polie academy for officers or after overall cost of the academy training. No, we dont. What we used is the Sheriff Department cost as an indicator, so if the department were to do their own training, i wouldnt be able to know that if they were to hire a consultant to help them with the outside training. We wouldnt have that cost. Okay. I appreciate that. Okay. And then, another thing that was really important is we do have a firearm discharge review board, and when i was looking at your analysis, you theres theres a review of officer involved shootings, which is called a firearm discharge review board, with this new, potentially lethal weapon, the number of reviews that you indicated would be an average of 102 tazers peryear based on the percap at that yeah, the amount of people that we have, and the tazers that were used in cities very substantial or similar to San Francisco, your estimate is 102 as an average. So based on your estimation so what would the amount be to review well, first of all, is it appropriate to review an existing officer involved shooting setup, and what would it cost to ramp up that particular unit to include 102 potential tazer shootings, considering there are different you have different parameters, different legal requirements . We did not actually look at that. We didnt as we sort of said in our presentation, the rate implementation issues, that we just didnt have enough details on how that was to be implemented, so we looked at sort of the medical costs of the 102 i wants, but we didnt know anything about the costs of the department of doing an actual review. So i guess i read in there in terms of over sight, it would be folded into current over sight, and i guess thats the statement i got hung up on. No, i think what we actually said it might be i think we said over sight might be incorporated into current process of reviewing, but we couldnt estimate what the plan might be. Additional resources might be needed. There could be additional cost if they felt they needed Additional Resources to skur the review. How much would you need for a separate a separate intensive review of potential, up to 102 incidents . So the question you would have would be the review costs for 102 incidents . Yes. I think we could do that by next week. Okay. And how about the training portion of it. And the training for in house training . We could also do that for next week. And the last thing was data collection. I understand the weapon has a very limited data collection, in terms of how long the thing was held down, when it was how many how many voltage we want out ant os very limited, so when i looked at the data issue, i thought that would be huge costs. Theres also the congrs gregate factors, factors on race, disability, injury, how many officers were present, the basis for the shooting. Given that potentially over 1800 pe18 1800 weapons are going to be given to maim and kill, that would seem to be a great cost, and i just want today clarify if those costs are included in the report. No. We were of the understanding that the surnt data system would be sufficient. My understanding from after we put out the report was that data oakland perhaps had tried to use their existing data system and found it not workable. If that is the case, then wed have to go back and look if the existing data system was sufficient, or if they would need more. So would that mean that you would need to reach out to the San FranciscoPolice Department staff to learn what additional sums would be needed to integrate and link the significant data that would need to be collected through the tazer and other systems we have, such as the existing reporting, sergeants report, and things like that . Thats correct. How much time do you think youd need to do that. We could look at that next week. In terms of the data that would be available, wed try to do it next week. I want to move onto replacement costs and the sheriffs, i know they travel, but they dont travel as much as Police Department does, and my understanding is they dont use their tazers are locked up when its inside when theyre working within the jails, i think the tazers are locked up. Im not sure theyre there, and so for the for the 10 replacement cost, these are expensive equipment, and it looks like you have them replaced every five years. Im just considering, did we look at what the wear and tear would be for 2100 units that are out about, jostled, running, bicycles, in police cars, being used. Im wondering if we have a more accurate picture of what a replacement cost would be, what a percentage of the replacement costs would be . What we were told, and what we understood it to be was there was an average of 10 peryear. If its more than that, thats not something that we had data on. The 10 data peryear is the data that we had. And did you get that from the Police Department . I believe i would have to go back and check on our source. I was not the one who came up with that particular number, but no, i dont think we got that from the Police Department. So and this question might be if we spread the cost over replacement about over five years, and we divided by the number of deployments, would you estimate a cost of 10,000 every time a weapon is deployed. I saw that number out there today. I dont have any reason to validate that number. What we were what we were given was an estimate we could work with was 10 peryear. If its greater than that, wed have to do more research, because i dont have any source that says it would be other than that. And then, you stated these weapons were developed as a weapon as a replacement for guns. I just want to clarify these are additional weapons thats being added to the Police Department. Their guns will still be there, cost for the guns will still be