POLICE DISCRETION AND THE USE OF FORCE

SENIOR LEADERSHIP PROGRAM

POLICE DISCRETION AND THE USE OF FORCE

A STUDY OF THE USE OF FORCE AMONG LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN BREVARD COUNTY

Research Project for Director Dick Stephens Due Date: January 01, 2002 Prepared by Joanna Vitek

1

INTRODUCTION This research project is about police discretion and the use of force; specifically, the use of force among law enforcement officers in Brevard County, Florida. Discretion in and of itself is not a bad thing, but the misuse of it has caused society to take a dim view of police who abuse their powers. Measures must be taken to establish clear and precise guidelines to govern the use of force by police. One does not have to look far to find evidence of the abuse and misuse of police authority and power. Stories can be found in newspapers and on television regarding incidents of police corruption and the misuse of discretion daily. One case of police abuse of force is too many. This paper shall discuss police discretion, constitutional guarantees against unnecessary force by police, landmark Supreme Court decisions relating to the use of force, state and federal civil liability, and police policy and a matrix relating the use of force to levels of resistance. Ethical considerations in relationship to the use of force by police will also be considered. A study of the use of force among law enforcement officers in Brevard County will also be discussed. Random samples of use of force incidents involving Brevard County law enforcement officers in 2000 were gathered and analyzed. A study of this type has never been done. It is expected that the results will aid administrators in better understanding when, why, where, and how law enforcement officers in Brevard County use force.

2

LITERATURE REVIEW

POLICE DISCRETION AND THE USE OF FORCE Discretion can be defined as the power to make a choice. It has been said that

police need discretion to maintain order in society. Discretion is that characteristic which allows police to balance the dynamic tension between civility and liberty in a democratic society (.ucf.edu/~rwatkins/5105_lecture5.html). According to Kenneth Culp Davis, "a police officer has discretion whenever the effective limits on his power leave him free to make a choice among possible courses of action or inaction" (Davis 1969, p. 4). A police officer's discretion not to arrest represents the triumph of common sense over the excesses and `unwisdom' of legislators. (Davis 1975, pp 62-66).

The function of the police is multifaceted. They are expected to enforce the law and maintain public order. The function of the police also extends beyond their law enforcement and peacekeeping roles to include a variety of services. According to observational data gathered during a study, it was found that the police on patrol, indeed, spend most of their time doing nothing at all--or in routine activities such as learning the beat or socializing with local people (Haller, 1976). Nevertheless, police officers find themselves conducting a variety of tasks--tasks that no one else cares to perform.

Regardless of how much time the police do or do not spend on each task, the matter still remains that they are unique in their role as enforcers. Bittner suggests that the police are a mechanism for the distribution of non-negotiable coercive force in accord with the dictates of an intuitive grasp of situational exigencies (Bittner, 1970).

"Discretion in criminal justice was `discovered' by a remarkable research project, the American Bar Foundation Survey of the Administration of Criminal Justice." (Walker, 1993, p. 6). The survey began in 1953 in response to concerns about organized crime. The research team "discovered" discretion in the administration of criminal justice in 1956. It was found that many significant decisions were made from the time an

3

individual was introduced to the criminal justice system until the time he was released from it (Walker, 1993, p.6). With the "discovery" of discretion came the attempts to control it or abolish it. "Further research and discussion indicate that discretion is an inescapable reality, and the focus of reform shifts to efforts to regulate it" (Walker, 1993, p. 16).

Criticisms of how police exercise their discretion are not new or uncommon. Police officers have the authority to arrest. Authority is power. Oftentimes, police exercise that power in complex and chaotic circumstances. Police officers use force against people for a number of reasons, i.e. to detain, arrest, self-defense, in defense of others, in defense of property, to prevent escape or injury, to prevent destruction of evidence, and to quell riots. Although there are many reasons why a police may utilize force, there is but one basic purpose--to gain control of a person and to stop any threatening action by that person ().

It is important to realize that discretion is something that both an individual police officer and a police agency may exercise (Davis, 1969). Discretion is both a choice made by an individual officer and policy made by police administrators who govern and influence the actions of officers. Additionally, it should be noted that decisions made by individual officers and agencies are discretionary insofar as they retain the power to make them. An important issue about discretion is the importance of action or inaction by the police (Davis, 1969). When attempting to overcome actual or potential resistance, a police officer can rely on one or more types of domination and control: authority, power, persuasion, and force. The first three types of domination and control are achieved mentally. However, force is physical and the will of the person coerced is irrelevant (Klockars, 1984 pp. 529-544).

If the officer uses more force than is objectively reasonable, the officer will violate the person's 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures, i.e. the unreasonable use of excessive force. ().

4

There is much debate about how to control an officer's discretion. "There is no way to eliminate a patrolman's discretion. He must work alone, or with one other patrolman at most, and he must handle chaotic situations. The solution is to make the patrolman a person who is capable of handling the discretion and responsibility that is intrinsic to his job" (Chief James Ahern, New Haven PD, 1972).

Unfortunately, even competent and responsible officers have abused their discretion as it relates to the use of force. Therefore, it cannot be left up to the individual officer or his agency to exercise discretion in his use of force. Other external parameters must govern the use of force by police. How much force an officer can use against a "free citizen" is governed by the Constitution of the United States and by state law. Individual agencies also govern how much force their personnel can use through standard operating procedures. One such standard operating procedure governing the use of force by police mandates that officers will employ only that amount of force necessary to effect arrest, overcome resistance, prevent injury, or otherwise restore order (Cocoa Beach PD SOP 040, p 2).

"Discretion is not doing what you please. Discretion is bounded by norms-- professional norms, community norms, legal norms, and moral norms. The future of policing as a profession depends upon whether discretion can be put to good use."(). THE 4th, 8th, and 14th AMENDMENTS AND THE USE OF FORCE

A police officer is authorized to use force against individuals in society. This authorization makes policing a unique profession. The use of force includes the use of deadly force. "In some ways one can think of the use of force as a necessary evil...the choice of two evils. For example, to physically harm someone to prevent a greater harm" (). According to the United States Supreme Court, an officer's use of force against a free citizen must be objectively

5

reasonable, based upon the totality of the circumstances known to him at the time ().

Any use of force upon a free citizen by a police officer is governed by the 4th Amendment's "objective reasonableness" test:

(1) the severity of the crime at issue. (2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers and

others . (3) whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by

flight. These three considerations fall under the umbrella of the "totality of the circumstances" known to the police officer at the time the force was utilized (). If the police officer uses an unreasonable amount of force, he may be liable under 42 USC ? 1983 rulings for violation of the person's constitutional rights. Additionally, the officer could face federal criminal prosecution under 18 USC 242-- Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (http: finalre2.htm). If the police officer violates an individual's constitutional rights by the use of restraints, the officer's employer may also be liable as well. A policy and procedure must be in place regarding the use of restraints. An employer is responsible for training and supervising officers in the proper use of restraint devices. If the employer fails to have an adequate policy in place on the use of restraints, they may be held liable. In Canton v. Harris, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the department is responsible for training officers in core tasks, e.g. the use of restraints (http:finalre2.htm). Harris was arrested and brought to the police department. She collapsed a few times while being booked. The officers decided to leave her on the floor so she would not hurt herself falling. She was not given any medical attention. After one hour, she was released from custody and transported to a nearby hospital. She

6

was diagnosed as suffering from emotional ailments and was hospitalized for a week (http:police_civil_issues.html). Harris filed a due process suit under the 14th Amendment and claimed that the officers failed to provide her with necessary medical attention while in custody. The Supreme Court set the "deliberate indifference" rule in this case. It was found that the department's policy was valid, but unconstitutionally applied by its employees. "If policy-makers know to a moral certainty that a police officer will have to perform a certain duty and fail to provide the officer with proper training given the task to be performed, then the policy-makers are deliberately indifferent" (http: police_civil_issues.html).

In order to determine whether or not an officer's use of force is justifiable or acceptable certain standards have been established by the criminal justice community that dictates how much force is justifiable to use. To be acceptable, a police officer's use of force must:

1. Be within the boundaries of the United States Constitutional and Statutory Law.

2. Be within the boundaries of the applicable state constitutional and statutory law if that state law is more restrictive than federal law.

3. Be within the acceptable limits of the applicable department policies, procedures, and training.

4. Be in compliance with applicable equipment manufacturers' guidelines (http: uof6acc.htm). "Over the years the federal constitutional limits of a law enforcement officer's

use of force have varied as the court's definitions have matured and become more detailed and the officer's ability to use force has come under greater scrutiny" (http: uof6acc.htm). Years ago the amount of force used by an officer was not controlled. "A 1964 survey found that the policies in ten of forty-five departments

7

merely advised officers to use `good judgement' in shootings, while three had no written policies at all (Walker, 1993, p.26).

In 1974, Memphis Police Officer Elton Hymon shot and killed Edward Garner, a fifteen-year-old black male juvenile. In 1983, Garner's father contended that under 42 U.S.C. 1983, his son's constitutional rights had been violated so he brought his action before the Western District of Tennessee. The District Court ruled in favor of Hymon. The decision was reversed and remanded by the court of appeals. Eventually, the decision was brought before the United States Supreme Court (Israel, 1998, pp148154). It was found that a police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead.

The Johnson v. Glick test was an analysis of the officer's use of force under the 14th Amendment's "due process clause." Whenever a law enforcement officer uses force on a person who is not "seized" "free citizen" the Johnson v. Glick test will be the federal analysis used. This test is "subjective" rather than the "objective" test of the 4th Amendment and asks four questions:

1. What was the need for the officer's use of force upon the person? 2. What was the relationship between the officer's need to use force and

the amount of force that the officer used? 3. What was the extent of the injuries inflicted on the person by the

officer's use of force? 4. (the "subjective" element of the test) Was the officer's use of force

applied in good faith or maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm? (http:uof6acc.htm). If an individual is convicted and incarcerated the standard is the "cruel and unusual punishment" standard under the 8th Amendment. "In the years following Johnson v. Glick, the vast majority of lower federal courts have applied a four-part "substantive due process" test indiscriminately to all

8

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download