I. THE POLICE CULTURE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON POLICING

1. POLICE CULTURE: The values, beliefs, and acceptable forms of behavior characteristic of American police.
1. The Police Personality
1. Authoritarian                    g. Insecure
2. Cynical                            h. Loyal
3. Conservative                    i. Efficient
4. Suspicious                       j. Honorable
5. Hostile                            k. Secretive
6. Individualistic                   l. Prejudiced
2. Two sources of the Police Personality
1. Socialization which occurs when rookie officers are inducted into police ranks.
2. Some of the components of the Police Personality already exist in some individuals and lead them into Police work.

 

2. POLICE DISCRETION: The exercise of the choice by individual officers in the performances of their official duties.
1. Evaluating Police
1. Good police are not simply officers who are neither corrupt nor brutal, but officers who accomplish their tasks efficiently at reasonable costs.
2. Measurements which may be used to evaluate Police Officers:
1. Number of arrests/traffic
2. Solving of Crimes
3. Reduction of fear of crimes
4. Slowing neighborhood decay or deterioration (Broken Windows/social Windows)
5. How emergency responses are handled

 

2. The Myth of Full Enforcement of the Law (see pg 179)
3. Discretion Not to Arrest
1. Police have the clear authority to investigate crimes and arrest suspects when there is sufficient evidence to do so. Laws authorizing police discretion not to arrest when they have evidence to do so is rare. However, there is a question whether they must act or instead whether they may properly decide, despite adequate evidence, not to follow through.
2. The issue arises from the expectation of full enforcement conflicting with the desire for reasonable use of the criminal process.
3. Reasons for the exercise of discretion in deciding not to arrest (Wayne R. LaFave):
1. Police belief that the legislature did not intend full enforcement (See, pg 180)
2. To act would strain limited resources (See, pg 180)
3. Other circumstances (See, pg181)
4. Discretion to make an arrest
1. Selective Enforcement rather than discriminatory enforcement (pg, 181)
5. Factors influencing the exercise of individual discretion by officers
1. Officer’s Background.
2. Suspect’s Characteristics. Suspects with personal styles with a "message" / attitude – biker’s/ dead head’s/ disdain for police or any authority – are more likely to be arrested. (Cousin in Pensacola Fl. Stopped routinely because of long hair and painted van during the 1970’s – never arrested.)
3. Department Policy. Targeted Offenses/ close supervision
4. Community Arrest. Public attitudes toward certain crimes.
5. Pressure from Victims.
6. Officer’s disagreements with the law. "Victimless" crimes.
7. Available Alternatives. Community treatment programs may be used as an alternative to arrest.
8. Officer’s personal practices.
6. Command discretion (See, pg 182)
7. Control of Police Discretion
1. Should not be abolished, but it should be structured so that all officers in the same agency are operating in the same wavelength

2. Limits on discretion, therefore, should embody and convey the objectives, priorities, and operating philosophy of the agency.
   
   II.  THE PROPRIETY OF POLICE TECHNIQUES

1. Unusual Techniques
2. High Speed Pursuit
1. Most chases start after police observe a traffic violation, usually be a male under 20, at night, and continue for only a minute or two for less than 5 miles. Most suspects are apprehended without an accident. When know felons are pursued, about half of the chases result in accident.
2. Seven possible endings to police high- speed pursuit: (see pg 186)
3. Tennessee Rule: Police can be held reliable for injuries which result from high speed chases.
4. County of Sacramento ET AL. v. Lewis (1998)

                Petitioner James Smith, A county Sheriff’s deputy, responded to a call with another officer, Murray Stapp. Stapp returned his patrol car and saw a motorcycle driven by Brian Willard and carrying Phillip Lewis as a passenger. Stapp turned on rotating lights, yelled for cycle to stop and pulled car closer to Smith in an attempt to stop the cycle. Willard went between the cars and sped off. Smith switched on his emergency lights and siren and began a high-speed pursuit. The case ended when the cycle tipped over. Smith slammed on breaks, but hit Lewis, causing massive injuries and death. Case brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging a deprivation of Lewis’ 14^th Amendment substantive due process right to life. District court granted summary judgment for smith. 9^th circuit reversed, holding, that the appropriate degree of fault for substantive due process liability for high-speed police pursuits is deliberate indifference to, or reckless disregard for, a person’s right to life and personal security. Appealed to U.S. Supreme court—

HELD: The issue in this case is whether a police violates the 14^th Amendment guarantee of substantive due process by causing death through deliberate or reckless indifference to life in a high-speed vehicle chase aimed at apprehending a suspected offender. We answer no, and hold that in such circumstances only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of an arrest will satisfy the arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation.

1. Police Brutality (see pg 188- 189)
2. Corruption: Police deviance
1. Types of Corruption: Barker and Carter distinguish between occupational deviance and abuse of authority.
1. Occupational Deviance: motivated by the desire of personal gain.
2. Abuse of Authority: motivated by the desire to further the organization goals of law enforcement – arrests/convictions/etc.
2. Stoddard has described Police Officer Corruption, or " blue coat crime" in terms of: (see pages 189-190)
3. Sherman has categorized police department as: (see pg 190)
4. Strategies for fighting Corruption:
1. Managerial- new hires; supervisory accountability; closer supervision by "first line supervisors" ; and "corrupting practices" – no free meals/coffee
2. Changing the task environment: - discontinue acceptance of small gifts; high profile arrests for bribery charges.
3. Changing the Political Environment: equal enforcement of laws against everyone- including Politicians.
4. Internal Policing: Create/ Beef-up internal affairs division.

1. Some Factors associated with the use of Deadly Force
1. Individual Factors
1. Age of the officer.
2. His/her educational attainment .
3. Race of Officer (see pg 194).
2. Situational Factors
1. Physical Setting/ location of the shooting.
2. Events precipitating the incident.
3. The opponent’s weapon.
3. Organizational Factors
1. Restrictiveness of department policies.
2. Administrative philosophies regarding firearm discharges
4. Community level factors
1. Population size
2. Violent crime rate
2. Tennessee vs. Garner (1985)
1. Most agencies have a written policy as to when deadly force can/may be used. (SEE PG 194) Deviation from such policy can leave the individual officer standing on his/her own should a lawsuit charging wrongful death be filed. Historically, in most U.S. jurisdictions, police were allowed to use deadly force to stop fleeing felons even when they represented no immediate threat to the police or the public. However, in the 1985 case, Tennessee vs. Garner, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the use of deadly force by police to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon might be justified only where the suspect could reasonable be thought to represent a significant threat of serious injury or death to the public or to the officer. (Case originated in Memphis. Police Officer shot/killed 15 year old suspected burglar who refused an order to halt and tried to escape by climbing a fence. Father sued on bases that son’s constitutional rights had been violated.)
3. Use of Force continuum (SEE HANDOUT)

1. Major Sources of Police Civil Liability
1. Failure to protect property in police custody
2. Negligence in the care of persons in police custody
3. Failure to render proper emergency medical assistance
4. Failure to prevent foreseeable crime
5. Failure to aid private citizens
6. Lack of due regard for the safety of others
7. False arrest
8. False imprisonment
9. Inappropriate use of deadly force
10. Unnecessary assault or battery
11. Malicious prosecution
12. Violations of constitutional rights
2. Concepts of "Sovereign" and " Qualified" Immunity
1. Sovereign Immunity- the legal theory which held a governing body could not be sued because it made the law and therefore could not be bound by it.
2. Qualified Immunity- If acted in good "faith" and with a "reasonable belief" that actions were legally justified then no blame will be attached.
3. How Police Officers and Political Entities May Be Protected From Liability
1. U.S. Supreme Court has supported a type of "qualified Immunity" which "shields" law enforcement officers from constitutional lawsuits if reasonable officers believe their actions will be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officers possess.
2. Although departments are named in suits because of deep pockets, if they can show individual exceeded departmental or that the dept. Has standardized training and officer’s actions against training, dept. usually cut loose. (Example: departmental policy against firing warning shots; training as to the proper use of "mace") However, can be liable if negligent in hiring or failure to train properly. BUT, departmental policy can also hang the department- dispersing groups of young persons congregate in certain areas without a legal basis for so doing.

1. T 42 U.S.C. 1983 LAWSUITS- Charges defendant with denying others their constitutional rights to life, liberty, or due process of law. Generally used against state and local officers.
2. Bivens Lawsuits- Although federal agents generally have qualified immunity where found to have acted in the belief that their action was consistent with federal law, Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Agents (DEA) (1971), established the principle that individual Federal Agents (but not the U.S.) can be used for conduct which is prescribed by T 42 U.S.C. Section 1083.