Policy Development in Policing and Law Enforcement
•Download as PPT, PDF•
2 likes•1,372 views
A single source presentation on policy development in police and law enforcement organizations.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
More from Hi Tech Criminal Justice
More from Hi Tech Criminal Justice (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Policy Development in Policing and Law Enforcement
- 1. Copyright 2005 - 2009: Hi Tech Criminal Justice, Raymond E. Foster Public Policy and PracticePublic Policy and Practice inin Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Policy in PolicingPolicy in Policing
- 2. Copyright 2005 - 2009: Hi Tech Criminal Justice, Raymond E. Foster Historical DevelopmentHistorical Development Prior to the 1960s most civil actionsPrior to the 1960s most civil actions againstagainst policepolice agencies were usuallyagencies were usually limited to claims of negligencelimited to claims of negligence Under Title 42 U.S. Code Section 1983,Under Title 42 U.S. Code Section 1983, the federal civil rights civil statute,the federal civil rights civil statute, individuals may file lawsuits against anindividuals may file lawsuits against an officer, aofficer, a policepolice department, or adepartment, or a jurisdiction.jurisdiction.
- 3. Copyright 2005 - 2009: Hi Tech Criminal Justice, Raymond E. Foster Historical DevelopmentHistorical Development Monel v. New York City Department ofMonel v. New York City Department of Social Services “the policy of aSocial Services “the policy of a municipality, as a moving force behind amunicipality, as a moving force behind a plaintiffs injury, could result in municipalplaintiffs injury, could result in municipal liability” (Alpert & Smith, P. 177).liability” (Alpert & Smith, P. 177).
- 4. Copyright 2005 - 2009: Hi Tech Criminal Justice, Raymond E. Foster Historical DevelopmentHistorical Development Deliberate Indifference “the conscious orDeliberate Indifference “the conscious or reckless disregard of the consequences ofreckless disregard of the consequences of one's acts or omissions.”one's acts or omissions.” City of Canton, Ohio v. HarrisCity of Canton, Ohio v. Harris Official Capacity ActionsOfficial Capacity Actions Hafer v. MeloHafer v. Melo
- 5. Copyright 2005 - 2009: Hi Tech Criminal Justice, Raymond E. Foster Policy and ProcedurePolicy and Procedure Policy –Policy – GuidingGuiding PrinciplesPrinciples
- 6. Copyright 2005 - 2009: Hi Tech Criminal Justice, Raymond E. Foster In Policy EventsIn Policy Events Policy – guiding principles Event Event Event Event Event
- 7. Copyright 2005 - 2009: Hi Tech Criminal Justice, Raymond E. Foster Out of PolicyOut of Policy Event Event Event Policy – guiding principles
- 8. Copyright 2005 - 2009: Hi Tech Criminal Justice, Raymond E. Foster ProcedureProcedure A specific Method ofA specific Method of Perform a taskPerform a task
- 9. Copyright 2005 - 2009: Hi Tech Criminal Justice, Raymond E. Foster Use of Force PolicyUse of Force Policy The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights hasThe U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has stated that "…in diffusing situations,stated that "…in diffusing situations, apprehending alleged criminals, andapprehending alleged criminals, and protecting themselves and others, officersprotecting themselves and others, officers are legally entitled to use appropriateare legally entitled to use appropriate means, including force."means, including force."
- 10. Copyright 2005 - 2009: Hi Tech Criminal Justice, Raymond E. Foster Use of Force PolicyUse of Force Policy TheThe International Association of Chiefs ofInternational Association of Chiefs of PolicePolice (IACP) in its study,(IACP) in its study, Police Use ofPolice Use of Force in America 2001Force in America 2001, defined use of, defined use of force as "The amount of effort required byforce as "The amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by anpolice to compel compliance by an unwilling subject."unwilling subject."
- 11. Copyright 2005 - 2009: Hi Tech Criminal Justice, Raymond E. Foster Use of Force PolicyUse of Force Policy the legal test of excessive force…is whether thethe legal test of excessive force…is whether the police officerpolice officer reasonablyreasonably believed that suchbelieved that such force wasforce was necessarynecessary to accomplish a legitimateto accomplish a legitimate police purpose…“police purpose…“ a 1999 BJS report, estimated that less than halfa 1999 BJS report, estimated that less than half of 1 percent of an estimated 44 million peopleof 1 percent of an estimated 44 million people who had face-to-face contact with a police officerwho had face-to-face contact with a police officer were threatened with or actually experiencedwere threatened with or actually experienced force.force.
- 12. Copyright 2005 - 2009: Hi Tech Criminal Justice, Raymond E. Foster Use of Force PolicyUse of Force Policy Police departmentPolice department policies can have apolicies can have a significant impact onsignificant impact on how force is used inhow force is used in street-levelstreet-level encounters,encounters, What ComponentsWhat Components should a good policyshould a good policy have?have?
- 13. Copyright 2005 - 2009: Hi Tech Criminal Justice, Raymond E. Foster Use of Force PolicyUse of Force Policy PurposePurpose Policy (statement of philosophy)Policy (statement of philosophy) DefinitionsDefinitions ProceduresProcedures Parameters of use of deadly forceParameters of use of deadly force Parameters of use of less-lethal forceParameters of use of less-lethal force Training and qualificationsTraining and qualifications ReportingReporting Administrative reviewAdministrative review
- 14. Copyright 2005 - 2009: Hi Tech Criminal Justice, Raymond E. Foster Pursuit PolicyPursuit Policy Vehicular Pursuit:Vehicular Pursuit: An active attempt by anAn active attempt by an officer in an authorized emergency vehicleofficer in an authorized emergency vehicle to apprehend a fleeing suspect who isto apprehend a fleeing suspect who is actively attempting to elude the police,actively attempting to elude the police, IACP Best PracticesIACP Best Practices WhatWhat ComponentsComponents of a goodof a good Policy?Policy?
- 15. Copyright 2005 - 2009: Hi Tech Criminal Justice, Raymond E. Foster Elements of Model PoliciesElements of Model Policies WorkableWorkable Adaptable to trainingAdaptable to training Written in a positive mannerWritten in a positive manner Incorporate relevant lawIncorporate relevant law Pre-tested to assure understandPre-tested to assure understand TrainingTraining ExamplesExamples
- 16. Copyright 2005 - 2009: Hi Tech Criminal Justice, Raymond E. Foster Public Policy and PracticePublic Policy and Practice in Criminal Justicein Criminal Justice For more information onFor more information on Public Safety TechnologyPublic Safety Technology VisitVisit www.police-technology.netwww.police-technology.net
Editor's Notes
- In Canton, the plaintiff was arrested for a traffic offense, and after refusing to cooperate, was carried to the patrol wagon because she could not or would not walk on her own. Upon arrival at the police station, she was discovered on the wagon's floor and responded incoherently when a shift commander asked if she needed medical attention. During booking she fell off a chair several times and was allegedly left on the floor to prevent further injury. No medical attention was summoned by the police. After being released, she was transported by private ambulance to the hospital where she was diagnosed as suffering severe emotional ailments and was hospitalized for a week. She sued under Section 1983, alleging that the city deprived her of a constitutional right to medical care by failing to adequately train officers at detention facilities in deciding when prisoners required medical attention. Trial evidence disclosed that it was city policy to give shift commanders sole discretion to decide when a prisoner needed medical care and that these commanders received no special medical training to assist them in that decision. The jury returned a $200,000 judgment against the city, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed (6) that the proper standard for municipal liability regarding inadequate training is gross negligence. In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that lower court ruling and held that inadequate police training can serve as the basis for liability only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference by city policymakers to the constitutional rights of persons contacted by police officers. By adopting the higher deliberate indifference standard, the Court rejected the gross negligence standard that had been adopted by many lower Federal courts. (7) The Court explained that inadequate training meets the deliberate indifference standard only when the need for more or different training is obvious and the failure to implement such training is likely to result in constitutional violations. The Court offered two examples of what would constitute deliberate indifference. First, where city policymakers know that officers are required to arrest fleeing felons and are armed to accomplish that goal, the need to train officers in the constitutional limitations regarding the use of deadly force to apprehend fleeing felons is obvious, and the failure to do so amounts to deliberate indifference. Second, deliberate indifference could be based on a pattern of officer misconduct, which should have been obvious to police officials who fail to provide the necessary remedial training.