Peerless FAILURE

FAILURE OF RESTRAINTS



All officers should be aware of the possibility of failure of a particular model/brand of wrist and leg restraints.

Synopsis

The subject was being held on two robbery charges in addition to charges from other agencies. Previously, he and his brother had robbed a drug store in Sikeston, Missouri, and then taken refuge at a local residence. A stand-off and shootout ensued, during which one officer was wounded. The brothers then had set fire to the residence before being captured. One brother subsequently died in custody.

While returning to his detention facility via transport bus from a court appearance, the subject took off his hand restraints and then his leg restraints and escaped through the emergency window on the bus. The inmate was recaptured with the assistance of a police K-9 approximately two hours later and returned to the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections.

Restraints

The inmate was restrained by using a set of Peerless Model 400 handcuffs in addition to a waist chain with the brass D-Ring. The inmate was also restrained with a set of Peerless Model 303 leg irons.

Manipulation

After being informed of how these restraints were manipulated by the inmate, officers attempted to replication the procedure as described by the inmate. By using just the restraints supplied, there are several ways to violate the security of these models.

The following attempts were made to breach the security of the Peerless Model 400 Hand Restraints and the Peerless Model 303 Leg Irons.

The first attempt was to use the brass d-ring supplied with the waist chain and force it in between the double strand side of the handcuffs. Once inserted in between the strands on the double strand portion, the brass d-ring was moved toward the pin holding the single strand to the double strand together. Once it moved to within 1/4 of an inch of the pin, the pin broke. Once the pin was broken the single strand was lifted off of the pin and removed from the ratchet area of the hand-cuff. This was completed with the handcuffs in the double locked position. Once the single strand was removed, it too could then be used to render other sets of restraints useless with ease.

Next, one of the links from the waist chain was used in an attempt to breach the security of the handcuffs. Again, by placing the link from the waist chain in between the double strand and moving it towards the pin, the pin failed and the single strand could be removed.

In addition, the removed strand could be used to break the pin on the other half of the handcuff. This was completed by placing the pin hole end in between the double strand portion of the handcuff and quickly turning the single strand 90 degrees. This took approximately four seconds to complete and remove the other single strand. At this point both single strands had been removed from the handcuffs.

Once the security of the handcuffs had been breached, an attempt was made to violate the leg restraints, Peerless Model 303. Again, several different ways was tried to attempt to violate the security of the leg restraints.

The first attempt was with the use of the single strand from the Peerless Model 400 handcuffs. As the single strand from the handcuff was placed in between the double strand of the leg restraints, the single strand was moved 90 degrees and the pin on the double strand of the leg restraints broke. This could easily be done even when wearing the leg restraints.

In addition, the security of the leg restraints could be breached using the brass d-ring and a link from the waist chain.

Comparison: Smith and Wesson Model 100

For comparison sake, a similar attempt was made to violate the security of a pair of Smith and Wesson Model 100 hand-cuffs.

The first attempt was made by trying to force the brass d-ring into the double strand side of the handcuffs. The d-ring was manually forced within 1/2 inch of the double strand/single strand pin. However, the pin did not fail.

Since the d-ring could not be moved manually any closer to the pin, a hammer was used to force the d-ring all the way to the pin. Again the pin did not fail. After removing the brass d-ring from the set of Smith and Wesson Model 100 handcuffs, the only damage was a slight spreading of the double strand side of the handcuffs. The handcuffs, however, were still operable and retained the security intended.

Next, one of the links from the waist chain was used to try to violate the security of the Smith and Wesson Model 100 handcuffs. Again, the link from the waist chain could be manually forced near the pin. Using another object, the link was forced near the pin; however, the pin did not fail with the use of the chain link.

Next, one of the single strands from the set of the Peerless Model 400 handcuffs was used to try to breach the security of the Smith and Wesson Model 100 handcuffs. The only thing this accomplished were sore hands with small cuts and abrasions.

This information is being provided for all agencies and individuals who might have the above-mentioned restraints

Interesting reading but not entirely surprised. I went and checked to make sure I had my understanding of the NIJ standards. Seems according to the standards this should not have happened. They have a specification on if the plates at the pivot hinge for the bow is seperated, that the indentations in the plates that the ditched jaws pass through are suppose to prevent the wrist from escape. I've noticed that S&W makes there indentations longer than Peerless as well as some other manufaturers. I also was surprised that the force tests are so low, only 495 lbs. of force for the cuff and chain and also on the lock. I would have thought that it would be 750 - 1000 lbs. Another thing which I think should be including in the standards is the chain links should be of a construction as to where they can not be wrapped around itself and shear the links. I have done this on a number of cuffs including high security ones like the old S&W mod 94 as well as the standard issue cuffs. The only one I have not been able to do it with is the Chicago X33 because of the shape of the links make it harder to try and bind them up into a shear knot.

-Dorson

FAILURE OF RESTRAINTS



All officers should be aware of the possibility of failure of a particular model/brand of wrist and leg restraints.

Synopsis

The subject was being held on two robbery charges in addition to charges from other agencies. Previously, he and his brother had robbed a drug store in Sikeston, Missouri, and then taken refuge at a local residence. A stand-off and shootout ensued, during which one officer was wounded. The brothers then had set fire to the residence before being captured. One brother subsequently died in custody.

While returning to his detention facility via transport bus from a court appearance, the subject took off his hand restraints and then his leg restraints and escaped through the emergency window on the bus. The inmate was recaptured with the assistance of a police K-9 approximately two hours later and returned to the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections.

Restraints

The inmate was restrained by using a set of Peerless Model 400 handcuffs in addition to a waist chain with the brass D-Ring. The inmate was also restrained with a set of Peerless Model 303 leg irons.

Manipulation

After being informed of how these restraints were manipulated by the inmate, officers attempted to replication the procedure as described by the inmate. By using just the restraints supplied, there are several ways to violate the security of these models.

The following attempts were made to breach the security of the Peerless Model 400 Hand Restraints and the Peerless Model 303 Leg Irons.

The first attempt was to use the brass d-ring supplied with the waist chain and force it in between the double strand side of the handcuffs. Once inserted in between the strands on the double strand portion, the brass d-ring was moved toward the pin holding the single strand to the double strand together. Once it moved to within 1/4 of an inch of the pin, the pin broke. Once the pin was broken the single strand was lifted off of the pin and removed from the ratchet area of the hand-cuff. This was completed with the handcuffs in the double locked position. Once the single strand was removed, it too could then be used to render other sets of restraints useless with ease.

Next, one of the links from the waist chain was used in an attempt to breach the security of the handcuffs. Again, by placing the link from the waist chain in between the double strand and moving it towards the pin, the pin failed and the single strand could be removed.

In addition, the removed strand could be used to break the pin on the other half of the handcuff. This was completed by placing the pin hole end in between the double strand portion of the handcuff and quickly turning the single strand 90 degrees. This took approximately four seconds to complete and remove the other single strand. At this point both single strands had been removed from the handcuffs.

Once the security of the handcuffs had been breached, an attempt was made to violate the leg restraints, Peerless Model 303. Again, several different ways was tried to attempt to violate the security of the leg restraints.

The first attempt was with the use of the single strand from the Peerless Model 400 handcuffs. As the single strand from the handcuff was placed in between the double strand of the leg restraints, the single strand was moved 90 degrees and the pin on the double strand of the leg restraints broke. This could easily be done even when wearing the leg restraints.

In addition, the security of the leg restraints could be breached using the brass d-ring and a link from the waist chain.

Comparison: Smith and Wesson Model 100

For comparison sake, a similar attempt was made to violate the security of a pair of Smith and Wesson Model 100 hand-cuffs.

The first attempt was made by trying to force the brass d-ring into the double strand side of the handcuffs. The d-ring was manually forced within 1/2 inch of the double strand/single strand pin. However, the pin did not fail.

Since the d-ring could not be moved manually any closer to the pin, a hammer was used to force the d-ring all the way to the pin. Again the pin did not fail. After removing the brass d-ring from the set of Smith and Wesson Model 100 handcuffs, the only damage was a slight spreading of the double strand side of the handcuffs. The handcuffs, however, were still operable and retained the security intended.

Next, one of the links from the waist chain was used to try to violate the security of the Smith and Wesson Model 100 handcuffs. Again, the link from the waist chain could be manually forced near the pin. Using another object, the link was forced near the pin; however, the pin did not fail with the use of the chain link.

Next, one of the single strands from the set of the Peerless Model 400 handcuffs was used to try to breach the security of the Smith and Wesson Model 100 handcuffs. The only thing this accomplished were sore hands with small cuts and abrasions.

This information is being provided for all agencies and individuals who might have the above-mentioned restraints

Click to expand...

Dorson,
You are correct in the summary of the NIJ standards, they are very tolerant to some security areas. Lax would be a better word.
As far as a Peerless failure and all the test conducted afterwards, being somewhat aprised of this case, I was advised two things happened to allow this escape. First, the suspect used a standard KEY that had been smuggled to him during court to get out of the retraints. I don't know of many cuffs besides Max security that are key proof.
Second, lack of proper supervision by the transporting officers. No search after the court appearance, thuis the key getting onboard. Secondly, someone moving about that much in a transport bus should have been noticed and addressed. If I were Mo. DOC, I would try to blame something like the cuffs also.

FAILURE OF RESTRAINTS



All officers should be aware of the possibility of failure of a particular model/brand of wrist and leg restraints.

Synopsis

The subject was being held on two robbery charges in addition to charges from other agencies. Previously, he and his brother had robbed a drug store in Sikeston, Missouri, and then taken refuge at a local residence. A stand-off and shootout ensued, during which one officer was wounded. The brothers then had set fire to the residence before being captured. One brother subsequently died in custody.

While returning to his detention facility via transport bus from a court appearance, the subject took off his hand restraints and then his leg restraints and escaped through the emergency window on the bus. The inmate was recaptured with the assistance of a police K-9 approximately two hours later and returned to the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections.

Restraints

The inmate was restrained by using a set of Peerless Model 400 handcuffs in addition to a waist chain with the brass D-Ring. The inmate was also restrained with a set of Peerless Model 303 leg irons.

Manipulation

After being informed of how these restraints were manipulated by the inmate, officers attempted to replication the procedure as described by the inmate. By using just the restraints supplied, there are several ways to violate the security of these models.

The following attempts were made to breach the security of the Peerless Model 400 Hand Restraints and the Peerless Model 303 Leg Irons.

The first attempt was to use the brass d-ring supplied with the waist chain and force it in between the double strand side of the handcuffs. Once inserted in between the strands on the double strand portion, the brass d-ring was moved toward the pin holding the single strand to the double strand together. Once it moved to within 1/4 of an inch of the pin, the pin broke. Once the pin was broken the single strand was lifted off of the pin and removed from the ratchet area of the hand-cuff. This was completed with the handcuffs in the double locked position. Once the single strand was removed, it too could then be used to render other sets of restraints useless with ease.

Next, one of the links from the waist chain was used in an attempt to breach the security of the handcuffs. Again, by placing the link from the waist chain in between the double strand and moving it towards the pin, the pin failed and the single strand could be removed.

In addition, the removed strand could be used to break the pin on the other half of the handcuff. This was completed by placing the pin hole end in between the double strand portion of the handcuff and quickly turning the single strand 90 degrees. This took approximately four seconds to complete and remove the other single strand. At this point both single strands had been removed from the handcuffs.

Once the security of the handcuffs had been breached, an attempt was made to violate the leg restraints, Peerless Model 303. Again, several different ways was tried to attempt to violate the security of the leg restraints.

The first attempt was with the use of the single strand from the Peerless Model 400 handcuffs. As the single strand from the handcuff was placed in between the double strand of the leg restraints, the single strand was moved 90 degrees and the pin on the double strand of the leg restraints broke. This could easily be done even when wearing the leg restraints.

In addition, the security of the leg restraints could be breached using the brass d-ring and a link from the waist chain.

Comparison: Smith and Wesson Model 100

For comparison sake, a similar attempt was made to violate the security of a pair of Smith and Wesson Model 100 hand-cuffs.

The first attempt was made by trying to force the brass d-ring into the double strand side of the handcuffs. The d-ring was manually forced within 1/2 inch of the double strand/single strand pin. However, the pin did not fail.

Since the d-ring could not be moved manually any closer to the pin, a hammer was used to force the d-ring all the way to the pin. Again the pin did not fail. After removing the brass d-ring from the set of Smith and Wesson Model 100 handcuffs, the only damage was a slight spreading of the double strand side of the handcuffs. The handcuffs, however, were still operable and retained the security intended.

Next, one of the links from the waist chain was used to try to violate the security of the Smith and Wesson Model 100 handcuffs. Again, the link from the waist chain could be manually forced near the pin. Using another object, the link was forced near the pin; however, the pin did not fail with the use of the chain link.

Next, one of the single strands from the set of the Peerless Model 400 handcuffs was used to try to breach the security of the Smith and Wesson Model 100 handcuffs. The only thing this accomplished were sore hands with small cuts and abrasions.

This information is being provided for all agencies and individuals who might have the above-mentioned restraints

Click to expand...

There is couple of things troubling me too... The above stated a brass "D" ring. What on earth are they doing using brass??? Should be a welded and plated steel ring. Second, why was there a second officer whose job is to watch the prisoners and why was the emergency exit able to be operated from the inside of the secured area without some sort of key but operated from the outside without a key. Sounds like cluster f*** on many levels.

-Dorson