This Journal-World file photo from 2010 shows a taser carried by a Lawrence police officer.

Last year, Lawrence police officers resorted to the use of force 24 times. In all but one of those instances police department policies were followed, an internal police review has determined.

The Lawrence Police Department released both its annual Taser and Use of Force reports for 2015 on April 29. Both reports briefly summarize each instance throughout the year when officers used forceful methods or a Taser.

Between Jan. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2015, 24 reports were submitted stemming from 21 incidents, the reports state. The number of reports is higher than the number of incidents because of occasions when multiple officers used force in the same incident.

While brief summaries of each use of force or Taser deployment are available to the public, the Use of Force Reports themselves are not.

In a given year, Lawrence police officers respond to 50,000 calls to service and an additional 50,000 self-generated calls, said Lawrence Police Chief Tarik Khatib.

Self-generated calls include incidents where officers are not directed by dispatch, such as traffic stops.

“So we have over 100,000 contacts with citizens on a yearly basis. So if we’re looking at 24 incidents, that’s really not a whole lot, statistically,” he said.

The two reports detail occasions when officers either used their Tasers or other types of force, which include the use of bean bag rounds, baton strikes, “improvised impact devices,” any injury requiring medical treatment and OC spray, which is more commonly known as pepper spray.

The reports show that officers used Tasers 13 times, pepper spray 10 times, police baton a single time and police dog a single time.

The cases in question involved criminal activity ranging from reckless driving and possession of a fake driver’s license to endangering a child and domestic battery, according to the reports.

None of the individuals involved in the incidents filed a complaint against the department, the reports state.

Once an officer uses force, he or she must complete a Use of Force Report, Khatib said. Each report is reviewed by the Use of Force Committee, which consists of one police captain, two sergeants, two officers and a detective.

The two sergeants, officers and detective are all department trainers in use of force, Khatib said.

“They’re the ones that have provided a lot of training to the officers and go to the schools and understand best use-of-force practices,” he said.

Lawrence Police Capt. Anthony Brixius initially declined to provide the Journal-World with Use of Force reports filed in 2015.

In his denial, Brixius cited a Kansas law stating that certain records are not subject to release if they are personnel records, criminal investigation records and notes, drafts or research data in the process of analysis.

Max Kautsch, a Lawrence attorney who focuses on First Amendment rights and open government and who has represented the Journal-World in various matters, said the department’s denial violates the Kansas Open Record Act.

In the same Kansas law cited by Brixius, Kautsch said there is a statute stipulating that any private information shall be redacted and the censored versions of the records shall be released.

“It’s an unreasonable application of KORA because the law says that redactable information can be redacted, but the rest has to be disclosed,” he said. “I just can’t imagine how every single word of these reports would fit either or all of those criteria. It just doesn’t make any sense.”

After another request, Brixius later said redacted versions of the reports could be provided for a fee.

Of the 24 Use of Force Reports, the department’s internal reviewing committee found one that deviated from police policies.

The incident was a car stop on Oct. 9, 2015, Khatib said.

“The guy fled, he was trying to get away from the officer, finally turned around on the officer and the officer used his Taser,” he said.

The incident deviates from police policy because the suspect posed no direct threat to the officer before the Taser was used, Khatib said. The incident violated only the department’s policies, not any laws, he added.

“He had run away from the officer, struggled with the officer, turned around but wasn’t necessarily coming at the officer,” Khatib said. “From a strictly legal standpoint, as far as law, that’s acceptable. From a policy standpoint it’s not.”

The suspect was not injured during the incident, Khatib said. And the officer was disciplined and re-educated on the department’s policies.

Khatib would not say who the officer is or the nature of the discipline, citing personnel issues, but he did say the officer is still with the Lawrence Police Department.

Aside from incidents involving a Taser and other uses of force, when an officer fires a gun a different line of scrutiny takes place, Khatib said.

“Whenever there is a discharge of a firearm you’re going to get a much higher level of review,” he said. “So you’re going to have the Discharge of Firearm Review Board, you’re going to have the District Attorney’s Office look at it.”

The Lawrence Police Department has not had an officer-involved shooting since June of 2014, Khatib said.

In that incident Lawrence Police Officer Skyler Richardson shot Zachary Ortiz, who was armed.

The Officer-Involved Shooting Review Board has not reviewed the two-year-old incident because Ortiz has yet to face trial, he said.

However, in July of 2014 the Douglas County District Attorney’s Office ruled the shooting was justified.

In February 2015, Khatib said he revised the department’s Use of Force policy to combine several different policies and clarify some language. The changes came as a part of an internal police department conversation discussing increasing accountability, he said.

In all, the policy didn’t change much, Khatib said, but it’s a good practice to examine important policies — like those addressing use of force — on a regular basis.

“Obviously use of force is probably something we need to look at at least every year, at least every other year to make sure that we’re still doing best practices, we have a legal review of it to make sure it comports with any legal changes or responsibilities,” he said.

When asked — because of the important nature of the department’s Use of Force policy — whether the Lawrence Police Department could benefit from community insight moving forward, Khatib said: “I think if you’re asking the question as far as a review board or a group of citizens that helped us, would help us, craft policy and procedures, absolutely, those are all win-win situations.”

Because police use of force is so serious, Kautsch said it is important for the community to weigh in on such matters.

“It involves the worst thing that can happen in a society, which is detention and death and imposition on liberty,” he said.

Currently the Lawrence Police Department has the Citizens’ Advisory Board for Fair and Impartial Policing. And while Khatib said the board does look at Taser reports, its primary function is to address instances of racial profiling.

When asked about another type of citizen review board to examine complaints filed against the police department, Khatib said there are many options to consider.

One type of board might investigate instances of misconduct, another might review the department’s internal investigations and another might audit a select sampling of misconduct reports.

Each of those options has both its advantages and disadvantages, Khatib said. Some options may contain board members unfamiliar with police practices, while others could be costly, time consuming or take careful planning to ensure that they don’t conflict with any local, state or federal laws.

“If you look at ultimately whether I think the department needs more oversight, I think that answer is it just depends on what the community wants,” he said.