At the core of the traditional role of the police in our society is the ability and need to exercise coercion in performing some of their functions. With some unknown frequency and severity, law enforcement officers use various forms of verbal and physical coercion in performing their everyday functions of enforcing the law and maintaining order. How and when the police use and do not use physical force influence the immediate accomplishment of police functions. The use of force also affects public attitude that sustain or undermine the legitimacy of the police and the entire system of justice.
There is a long tradition of research about the police use of deadly force, and reviews of this research have identified the characteristics of who was killed, by whom, and under what circumstances, as well as plausible suggestions to explain why. The studies on use-of-force policies and training have generally been prescriptive and have rarely reported the frequency with which officers use particular levels of force. The narrative accounts by independent researchers have tended to emphasize the researchers’ personal interpretation of the police work and to highlight alleged and sometimes confirmed incidences of unusual, dramatic, illegal, or inappropriate behavior by officers or civilians (Garner, 715).
The Term Paper on Gender Police Force
... of women in male dominated police forces. The first women police officer in Canada was sworn in the Vancouver police force in 1912. '1912: Vancouver - Mrs.Lurancy ... the various functions occupied show beyond any doubt, that women are capable of performing all the tasks related to police work (LeBeuf ...
These descriptions and insights provide a valuable basis for generating hypotheses about the nature of force and the situations in which force is used.
Official police records provide more structured data on more use-of-force incidents over a broader spectrum of police behavior in an entire jurisdiction for longer periods than is typically captured in personal narrative accounts. This approach suffers from the presumption of biases introduced by using officers’ self-reports to their own use of force. Given the diversity of behaviors that are considered use of force in different departments and which types of force must be reported, this approach may be more suitable for comparisons within jurisdictions over time.
Surveys of police officers and interviews of recently arrested suspects provide a more direct source of information and are not likely to suffer from as great a selection of bias as records of official complaints. However, these designs may be suspect because both are self-reports from interested parties, are limited to samples of arrested persons, and the interviews are typically conducted while the respondents are under criminal justice supervision. Field observations of the police provide independent measures of the behavior of the police and the public that are not available in official records or public surveys. The design of these studies, however, has purposely focused on a small number of high crime precincts and shifts and, as a result, may have exaggerated the amount and nature of force in a particular jurisdiction. Ironically, the use-of-force incidents observed have been few. In addition, these studies have tended to rely on case-by-case qualitative judgments about what constitutes force, either by observers or by individuals reviewing the observers’ summaries of police behavior.
Most recently, Terrill and Mastrofski (2002) used data on 5,700 hours of observation of 222 patrol officers during 996 shifts in 24 beats during the summer of 1996 in St. Petersburg, Florida, and the summer of 1997 in Indianapolis. These statistics were based on 3,116 police encounters with suspects. Terrill and Mastrofski found that the police used more force against non-white, younger, poorer, or intoxicated suspects who resisted police authority and that the police did not use more force against angry, disrespectful, or mentally impaired suspects. They also found less force associated with an officer’s increased education or experience, but not with other characteristics or attitudes of officers. The amounts of force were higher in Indianapolis, but did not vary by whether officers were or were not assigned to respond to 911 calls (Alpert, 396).
The Essay on Becoming A Police Officer: An Insider's Guide To A Career In Law Enforcement
Law enforcement refers to agencies and individuals responsible for public safety, enforcing a set of norms and rules in a society and maintaining public order. It also refers to activities conducted by law enforcers such as dissuasion, detection and investigation of crime as well as apprehension of law offenders(Hess, Orthmann, & Cho, 2014). The most typical and organized form of law ...
From eight studies in nine jurisdictions over a 30-year period using diverse samples, measures, methods, and levels of aggregation, the multivariate research on police use of force identified only a few characteristics of widespread theoretical and policy interest: the role of the suspect’s resistance, the suspect’s demeanor, and the suspect’s race.
Four out of the five studies that did consider some measure of suspect’s resistance, reported that a suspect’s resistance was associated with the police’s increased use of force. A suspect’s demeanor is the characteristic that has been most consistently tested and consistently found to be associated with the police use of force. Seven of the eight multivariate analyses included a measure of suspects’ resistance, and an analysis reported that suspects’ disrespect or antagonism toward the police is associated with the increased use of force. In the studies in which this relationship was found, it persisted even in models in which organizational, neighborhood, suspects’ resistance, and non-recursive considerations were controlled. It was also reported that a suspects’ race is associated with the increased prevalence or severity of force. These findings suggest the relative importance of a suspect’s resistance and demeanor and, to a lesser extent, a suspect’s race as characteristics associated with the police use of force. The consistency of these findings across diverse samples, jurisdictions, measures, and analyses indicates that these three findings are robust across a variety of conditions.
Other research has found that younger officers and male officers use more force than older officers and female officers, regardless of the measure of force or the inclusion of the suspect’s resistance in the analysis. The effect of officer’s race is mixed. In all the research models, African American officers use no more force than white officers, but the odds of use of force are 52% higher for Hispanic officers than for white officers. If officers received prior medical attention for on-the-job injuries, they used more force. Also, when officers reported that they were antagonistic towards the suspect, they used a greater severity of force, but not a greater prevalence of force.
The Essay on Deadly Force Officer Life Ethics
The use of deadly force is used throughout the U. S. , and the definition of deadly force is best described by the FBI which states that: deadly force is the intentional use of a firearm or other instrument resulting in a high probability of death. But who determines when it's okay for a police officer to use deadly force? When does deadly force cross the line and when does officer feels his / her ...
In order for police use of deadly force to meet the standard of legality, each use must be in conformity with the existing law. The constitution requires that the police, as agents of the government, exercise restraint in the use of their coercive powers so that lives could be safeguarded and the innocent protected. The use of fatal force excessively and arbitrarily is a violation of the law as well as the responsibility that devolves upon the police in a democratic society. This legality requires compliance with existing law regarding the state’s use of deadly force in order to perform the policing function.
Much has been written about the use of deadly physical force by police, but little data has been generated relative to less than lethal force measures used. One such form of non-lethal force is oleoresin capsicum (OC) pepper spray, which is gaining endorsement throughout law enforcement in both the USA and Canada. As a result, police departments have increasingly been training officers in its use. Like any weapon, pepper spray cannot be assumed to be risk free. For example, controversy was generated as a result of the death of an arrestee in 1993 in North Carolina, who was sprayed with OC while in custody (Lumb, 136).
Police agencies across the nation have established a use-of-force continuum to guide officers in applying force against individuals being taken into custody. The typical model in use today includes the following steps along a continuum from easy to harsh measures. Physical presence of the officer based on the officer’s legal authority; 1st level – verbal commands; 2nd level – soft hands; 3rd level – mace; 4th level – pepper spray; 5th level – hard hands; 6th level – PR-24 (side handle baton); 7th level – swarm; 8th level – K-9; 9th level – deadly force (pointed only); 10th level – deadly force used. The escalation allows officers a degree of flexibility when confronting a person who is being unruly and who may be threatening the officer or other persons. The use of soft hands brings the officer into the suspect’s grab zone, increasing the opportunity for risk of injury or overpowerment. If it appears the individual will become a physical threat, the officer may use a chemical agent to bring about less violent custodial control. The use of force continuum guides training and policy development and establishes a consistent approach for officer encounters with hostile and resistant individuals.
The Term Paper on Evidence Law and Staff Note
Definitions Hearsay rule Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable Hearsay within hearsay Attacking and supporting credibility of declarant Hearsay exceptions; child statements in abuse cases Article IX AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION 901 902 903 Requirement of authentication or identification Self-authentication Subscribing witness’ ...
In many law enforcement agencies OC spray is placed between the passive or cooperative stage of verbal communications and the assault level stages involving impact weapons such as the baton or flashlight. OC is low on the use-of-force continuum because it does not show a propensity for serious medical injury. This is the policy of the FBI, whose agents are allowed to carry OC spray in the field, and use it prior to hands on or other control techniques. For the majority of agencies, OC spray can be used at that point in time when the officer, based on his or her experience and judgement, feels the suspect is becoming aggressive and force may be necessary. Judged by the existing evidence, the use of OC spray is justified if its effectiveness prevents the escalation of force.
When confronted by the police, drug suspects sometimes attempt to destroy evidence by orally ingesting the contraband in their possession. Police officers have limited time to react before this evidence is destroyed. These conditions raise the question of exactly how much force officers may employ lawfully to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. If an officer overreacts and uses more force than reasonably necessary to retrieve the drugs, the evidence may be ruled as inadmissible at trial. Furthermore, the application of excessive force may expose the officer and the agency to claims of civil liability for injury or damages. Law enforcement agencies need to develop appropriate policy statements to guide officer behavior during these types of field encounters.
Grabbing a suspect by the throat, in an attempt to expel the contraband before he or she swallows it, is the first reflex of an officer. Escalating the use of force beyond merely holding the suspect’s throat to that of choking is a measure that is neither far removed nor unforeseen if pressure is applied consistently to the neck or throat for even a brief period of time. Unlike merely holding the throat until the suspect expels the ingested evidence, the judiciary views choking a suspect less favorably. There have been cases that stand for the general principle of law, stating that choking a suspect constitutes an unreasonable and, therefore, illegal exercise of police force. Then there are the cases worth noting because they permit limited exceptions to this standard.
The Essay on How policies/laws may affect family life
In this essay I will be writing about what changes state policies and laws have made to the society and how they may affect family life by doing so. There are many policies/laws out there that have had an effect on family life and one of these was the ‘Child Support Act’ which led to the formation of the ‘Child Support Agency’. Other policies/laws include the Family Law Act ...
To be sure, a very fine line exists between the holding of a suspect’s throat and the choking of his or her air supply. The various decisions in which the courts have considered the lawfulness of manual pressure being applied to a suspect’s throat are highly fact dependent. The Espinoza and Thompson cases did not condemn the choking of a suspect per se and the officers in both cases appeared to have acted with considerable restraint (Thompson, 188).
If the choking of a suspect results in physical discomfort or injury, a trial court may very well deem the use of force as constitutionally unreasonable. Certainly, the same general principle is true if the suspect is deprived of oxygen for even a brief period of time or is brutalized.
Police officers should avoid the reflexive temptation to choke a drug suspect who has orally ingested evidence for at least two reasons. First, there is the risk of physical injury to the suspect. Second, there is a strong likelihood that the judiciary may view such behavior as unfavorable. In order to ensure that officers do not utilize this particular type of force and to protect the agency from claims of civil liability, law enforcement agencies may wish to include a provision within their general use-of-force policies explicitly prohibiting the choking of a suspect for purposes of recovering orally ingested contraband.
Given that the courts vary on the acceptability of choking a suspect for purposes of retrieving evidence, coupled with the fact that a very fine line exists between the definitions of holding and choking, it should not be surprising that officers develop and make use of more creative methods for resolving such legal ambiguities. Whether or not these alternative means are discovered through chance or are exercised consciously and intentionally is unknown. What is certain, however, is the fact that such alternatives can constitute the use of excessive force if not exercised properly. One alternative to holding a suspect’s throat or choking off the air supply is to administer a strike or blow to a non-vital organ of the body that causes the suspect to expel the ingested drugs reflexively. In keeping with the theme of creativity, law enforcement officers might choose to make use of other objects or devices that are readily accessible and easily adaptable to the task at hand. Many times these devices fall outside the parameters of officially adopted equipment. Such items to be considered are: flashlights, PR-24 (side handle baton), and also the butt of their side arms.
The Term Paper on Law Enforcement Officersare They Fair
Law Enforcement OfficersAre They Fair? It is not secret that rights of people can be violated because of deception of law enforcement officers. There are many reasons for this, but in the United States the main one is probably the due to the factor of personal responsibility of officer. Law enforcement officers often times have to use deception and other covert techniques to gain access into a ...
The most extreme end of the force continuum is the threat or use of deadly force. To be sure, deadly force weapons are always present in abundance when law enforcement officers execute a narcotics search warrant or arrest a drug suspect. Given the intensity of these situations, it is not wholly unforeseeable that an overzealous officer may threaten the use of deadly force against a suspect who has orally ingested evidence in his or her presence. Clearly, given the standard adopted in previous cases, such behavior poses serious legal issues that one must address (Mars, 465).
Many of the levels of force previously discussed border between reasonable and unreasonable. It becomes readily apparent both why and how the placing of a gun to a suspect’s head constitutes an unreasonable and illegal use of force. While the preceding levels of lesser force certainly pose the potential for the exclusion of evidence in the event that they are carried to an extreme, each pales in comparison to the unreasonable use of deadly force. Any evidence recovered under such conditions is destined to be excluded from admission during trial. In addition, both the officer and the employing agency may be held liable for civil damages under as excessive use of force claim.
Much more is at stake in situations where police officers exercise force to recover orally ingested evidence than the simple consideration of whether or not the evidence will be admitted against the suspect at trial. Also at stake are an agency’s fiscal resources, as well as the professional careers of those who are responsible for the oversight and control of such matters. Civil damages paid to citizens for the excessive use of police force can be costly. The amounts of these rewards can vary widely. However, civil suits have the potential to ruin governments, agencies, their administrators, and individual officers, both financially and professionally. For this reason, law enforcement administrators should note the extreme potential for adverse civil judgments arising from the exercise of use of force by officers attempting to recover evidence orally ingested by a narcotics suspect.
As the war on drugs continues to escalate, law enforcement officers are expected to battle the illegal drug market more aggressively. Forcible seizure incidents are bound to become more frequent. In light of this likelihood, law enforcement administrators must act with reasoned foresight in recognizing the unique legal and practical problems these situations pose. Officers are forced to make split second judgments in circumstances that are tense and rapidly evolving. An obvious way to address legal and practical problems is through the development of specific policies intended to guide officer behavior in such situations. Absent the active development of such explicit policies, law enforcement agencies and the personnel are likely to find themselves in the midst of an undesirable legal situation arising from an officer’s misguided use of force against a non-cooperative drug suspect.
Deadly or lethal force is force that is highly likely to result in death or serious physical injury. Self restraint may be enhanced by several factors, including the proper use of less-than-lethal (LTL) force, such as physical force, batons and chemical sprays. The need for LTL weapons derives from the fact that law enforcement officers regularly encounter situations that require some type of coercive action or force, but not deadly force. Common scenarios include close encounters (i.e. breaking up bar fights and intervening in domestic disputes), flights by suspects, hostage situations, barricades and crowd control. Officers clearly respond to many situations where LTL force is the appropriate action. It is therefore important that agencies select the most appropriate LTL weapons for the officers, provide the necessary training, and develop clear policies and procedures for weapon use.
A department’s use of force policy contains guidelines and limitations on the use of lethal and LTL force by department personnel. It gives direction on when officers should use lethal force, when they should use LTL force, what weapons they are allowed to carry both on and off duty, training requirements for all weapons and reporting requirements when force is used. Developing a policy statement on the use of LTL force is not a straightforward task. If more than one LTL weapon is used, guidance must be provided on when to use one over another. Policies should also contain provisions on
training and reporting requirements. The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) are two national organizations that have developed policy guidelines on use of force. CALEA has established standards for use-of-force policies, and the IACP offers its members a model policy on use of force. Many departments take these guidelines as starting points and make modifications to comply with state laws and reflect local law enforcement philosophies (McEwen, 39).
Some policies expand the definition of LTL force, and divide t into three categories: restraining force, physical force and defensive force. There are also definitions for each, giving officers a more detailed overview. Restraining force is force limited to holding and restraining persons, including but not limited to, arm lock and take down holds, but not including carotid artery holds. Physical force is pain inflicting submission holds to overcome resistance to arrest. Defensive force is physical battery with hands, fists, or defensive equipment to overcome violent resistance or to protect self or others from assault or injury. The advantage of these expanded definitions is that they are more specific about what constitutes lethal and LTL force. Several departments recognize that lethal force can occur with vehicles and LTL weapons, and their policies expand their definitions to make clear that lethal force goes beyond use of firearms.
