By Robert Sorensen
Mass disruptions to public order are common across America today. When protests or riots occur, Mobile Field Forces (MFF) with specialized tactical training are dispatched to manage demonstrations and restore public order. Should protests escalate into violence or directives to disperse be disregarded, law enforcement is likely to deploy less-lethal strategies, including chemical agents, to restore public order.
Whenever chemical agents are used by MFFs to mitigate threats posed by public disorder, there is a corresponding increase in the risks to the officers responsible for deploying these agents, whether they are used correctly or incorrectly. The most commonly used agents are oleoresin capsicum (OC) and chlorobenzalmalononitrile (CS).
While all law enforcement agencies provide training for their officers in the use of these chemical agents, crowd control tactics and the rights of protestors participating in a demonstration, the highest point of risk for officers and the public occurs once chemical agents are deployed. These risks include, but are not limited to, reputational risk, legal action, public and media scrutiny, and internal review by senior officers.
Therefore, best-practice post-deployment chemical agent risk mitigation must include a significant focus on decontamination, which commences with comprehensive training.
| RELATED: Building a 360-degree civil disturbance response team
Training in real chemical agent environments
In real-world law enforcement, chemical agent training is what officers rely on when situations escalate. But circumstances rarely unfold the way they do during training. Even with protective equipment, there is always a risk that officers will be affected when agents are deployed, experiencing the same effects as protesters.
How officers respond in these fluid situations and make split-second decisions often depends on whether they train with inert agents or with the real thing.
Training that uses inert agents or simulations is sometimes still implemented and, in certain circumstances, necessary. However, the goal of any scenario-based training is to replicate real-world conditions in a controlled and safe environment. As the saying goes, “You will not rise to the occasion, but you will fall to the level of your training” during an incident. Therefore, it is imperative that officers train in the most realistic conditions possible to replicate operational stress.
Effective training requires officers to use and be exposed to the same chemical agents they would deploy in the field on suspects and for crowd control. During training, officers must understand what it feels like to become contaminated and experience the physiological effects of the agent. Knowing what to expect and how to push through those effects without losing focus in volatile situations is essential for officers to carry out their duties, support colleagues, restore order and render aid to civilians and protesters affected by chemical agents.
If officers are unprepared for the physiological effects of an agent during a protest and inhale it or get it in their eyes, they are likely to experience its full physical effects. Some may become anxious, while others may panic. These reactions can undermine individual reliability, team effectiveness, critical decision-making and the ability to carry out post-incident protocols. Ultimately, this increases the risk profile for both the affected officers and their fellow team members.
Training in a real chemical agent environment must also include the use of protective equipment. Even the simple act of properly donning a gas mask can be challenging amid the real-time chaos of a protest.
Moreover, proficiency in post-event decontamination protocols allows officers to return to duty safely and quickly, minimizing interruptions to calls for service and significantly reducing the risk of cross-contamination to other officers and family members once they return home after their shift. These decontamination procedures apply not only to officers but also to suspects and members of the public, as they would in any incident in which law enforcement’s lawful use of force may result in injury.
Certified training and usage
Certified professionals must train officers in all aspects of chemical agent use, including providing a thorough understanding of the different agents and their effects. In addition, officers responsible for deploying agents in real-world situations must be properly accredited and possess the requisite expertise to do so.
Inadequate training across these factors increases officers’ risk and may expose them to legal action, as demonstrated by the case of Victoria Snellgrove. In addition, officers must recognize when their deployment is necessary and when alternative tactics should be employed. In Davis v. Mason County, the court found against law enforcement, holding that, while it provided “adequate training on the technical components of the use of force,” it did not have “adequate training on the constitutional limits of the use of force in effecting arrests.”
Proper training procedures are therefore essential to protect law enforcement agencies and personnel from the risk of post-deployment litigation. Using certified instructors who can accredit officers in the use of less-lethal chemical agents during public disorder events goes an extra step in mitigating risk for law enforcement agencies.
Deployment strategies and protocols
Law enforcement agencies must develop clear guidelines and protocols for deploying chemical agents and for mitigating harmful effects. These protocols should include:
- Proportionality: Chemical agents should be used only when absolutely necessary and in proportion to the level of threat or disruption posed by the situation. The use of chemical agents should never be a first resort, but rather a last resort when all other de-escalation efforts have failed.
- Targeted deployment: Chemical agents should be used in a controlled and targeted manner to prevent widespread exposure to bystanders. This may involve using more precise delivery systems, such as handheld pepper spray or small canisters, to target specific individuals or groups posing a direct threat. Officers must know how to take wind and weather conditions into account as part of their pre-deployment decision-making process.
- Provision of safety equipment: Distributing protective equipment, such as gas masks, goggles, or damp cloths, to officers at risk of exposure is essential. While this may not be feasible in all situations, it can be constructive in large protests or areas with high population density.
- Public health communication: Law enforcement agencies should provide clear, timely information to the public on their use of chemical agents, including potential health risks and guidance on minimizing exposure. This can help prevent panic and allow individuals to take protective measures in advance. Directing them to an evacuation area for safe decontamination will also help restore order.
The most significant risk associated with using chemical agents is cross-contamination. While they can be effective tools for dispersing crowds, it is impossible to confine agents to a specific area. Once deployed, chemical reactions cannot be stopped until the area and all affected officers, protesters and bystanders have been fully decontaminated.
Cross-contamination risks
Failing to follow decontamination protocols can turn a temporary crowd-control measure into an ongoing hazard, causing unnecessary stress and discomfort for everyone involved. When an officer is contaminated with a chemical agent, that agent can be transferred to others.
This often occurs during close interactions, such as sharing vehicles, locker rooms or equipment that has not been properly decontaminated. Contact with contaminated surfaces can spread chemical agents, resulting in effects such as burning sensations, respiratory distress and eye irritation. This type of secondary exposure can occur even during routine activities, including assisting a member of the public out of a contaminated area or offering a simple gesture, such as a pat on the back to a colleague.
If contaminated clothing and equipment are not properly decontaminated at the scene or securely stored after an incident for later sanitization, even a slight breeze caused by someone walking past can disturb the substance and transfer it to a third party who may not recognize the symptoms they are experiencing. Proper post-event decontamination can occur only once an incident is deemed over, creating an additional layer of risk if those procedures are not correctly implemented.
Caring for equipment is not merely a matter of protocol. Proper sanitization ensures equipment is safe and ready for reuse without the risk of reactivation that could incapacitate the next officer who uses it. In a worst-case emergency, there may not be time for full decontamination and only a partial wipe-down may occur, which places all officers at risk and should be avoided whenever possible. Proper care also extends the life of the equipment and ensures it provides maximum protection when needed.
Decontamination also extends to paraphernalia used by protesters. Before these items are entered into evidence or handled by supervisors, evidence custodians or prosecutors, they must be rendered safe through controlled decontamination procedures that preserve evidentiary integrity while preventing secondary exposure. Decontaminating suspects is equally critical, as the effects of chemical agents can trigger panic, reduce compliance with instructions and escalate already volatile situations.
To expedite decontamination and minimize risk, commercial products specifically designed to neutralize chemical agents are available and should ideally be used on-site to treat equipment, uniforms and individuals. Many officers in the field still rely on do-it-yourself formulations, which are largely ineffective. Training programs should include instruction on the proper use of approved products, and advance planning should ensure officers have sufficient on-site supplies to manage post-event contamination affecting both officers and civilians. Contingency planning is essential and should be incorporated into both training and operational response.
Duty of care
While officers may be justified in using less-lethal force in certain situations, they also have a duty of care to the public at large and to protesters affected by chemical agents. Fulfilling that duty is a critical element of risk mitigation and helps reduce negative public and media scrutiny of the department. With each deployment, officers must ensure a safe escape route to a non-contaminated evacuation zone, where both officers and members of the public can decontaminate in fresh air and receive medical or decontamination support if needed.
Medical personnel must be deployed to a predesignated treatment zone to monitor individuals exposed to chemical agents and provide immediate care when necessary. This is especially critical in high-risk, fluid situations where large numbers of people may be affected. Calming those who have been exposed and helping reduce pain and anxiety can also de-escalate tensions and mitigate the risk of excessive-force claims. The purpose of chemical agents is not to cause pain, but to restore control, and providing care and pain relief supports that objective.
Ensuring that individuals exposed to chemical agents can be rapidly decontaminated helps reduce symptom severity and prevent potential long-term health effects. Until law enforcement officers or EMTs can apply professional-grade products, water remains the most effective field-expedient method for addressing chemical agent exposure.
Public order and trust can also be reinforced by offering medical follow-up to those who have been exposed, particularly individuals with pre-existing health conditions or those who experience severe reactions.
By possessing the knowledge and experience to decontaminate themselves and others, officers fulfill their duty of care and help ensure affected individuals receive appropriate aid, reducing the risk of legal and political repercussions following an incident.
Post-incident review
Planning before, during the event itself, and throughout post-event activities is essential. Considering the environment, crowd size, location, and the actions of both the public and law enforcement allows agencies to manage risk more effectively and refine protocols by identifying which actions achieve the desired outcomes and which require improvement.
Post-incident reviews help guide future protest responses, ensure officers’ actions comply with applicable laws, uphold their duty of care, and assess whether individuals were left without adequate support or assistance in managing the effects of chemical agents.
While many of the points above are addressed to some degree in MFF training and chemical agent deployment scenarios, effectively mitigating risk requires a truly holistic approach to training and operational deployment.
Conclusion
Effective post-incident decontamination is a core component of public order management.
Training officers in proper decontamination procedures reduces risk and liability for both officers and their agencies. It ensures officers understand the effects of chemical agents, how to decontaminate thoroughly, and how demonstrating a clear duty to protect and serve can strengthen public trust. This training also plays a critical role in managing both operational and reputational risk for law enforcement agencies.
About the author
Robert Sorensen assisted the National Tactical Officers Association to develop its less lethal tactical protocols, which are used by a wide variety of law enforcement entities to manage public order. He served as an FBI Task Force Officer and is a retired Department of Justice GS-13 Special Agent. Robert is currently the director of strategic partnerships and agency liaison at SoRite. Contact him at rsorensen@sorite.com.
| NEXT: What officers need to know about organized protest tactics
