\Riots\Cincinnati riot.wmv
\OCSD\Ex-deputy gets a break.wmv
...\King beating.wmv
\use of force\arrest struggle.wmv
\Police pursuit\Orl PD chase pol.wmv
...\School ofcr punches.wmv
...LASD drops,IPD takes.wmv
...\NOPD ofcrs beat,fired.wmv
...Van Nuys pursuit.wmv
\Police pursuit\Pursuit officers hurt.wmv
...Innocent hurt in pursuit.wmv
...Two deadly chases.wmv
...crazy Euro chase.wmv
...deadly LAPD tf pursuit.wmv
\Use of force\Baton Rouge PD
\Use of force\sbso shooting Pt II.wmv
accused.wmv
...\Chased, fights ofcrs.wmv
...Pepperballs end chase.wmv
\pursuit,shooting.wmv
\South LA deadly chase.wmv

• Should any category of citizen get special treatment?
• If so, what citizens? What kind of treatment?
• If not, why not?
• What consequences can result from an appearance of bias or impropriety?
• How can such consequences be avoided?



Categorical imperative (Immanuel Kant)
– Universality of decisions – same acts would be taken regardless of circumstances
– Human beings are not just means to an end
Other tests
– Is one acting from a sense of duty?
– Is an act motivated or affected by self-interest?
– Is the decision based on underlying principles or on personal preferences ?
Difficulties?


are


–
–



Concerned with consequences of an act
Utility (“greatest happiness”) to all concerned
– Calculus of costs and benefits
– Short-term (act)
– Long term (rule)
Difficulties?









Pressures to produce
–
–
–
Citizen and agency expectations
Personal goals
Limited resources: the means/ends dilemma
Officer selection
–
–
Personalities drawn into policing
Weeding out unsuitable candidates
Police culture
–
–
Peer pressures  “code of silence”
Solidarity “us” v. “them” mentality

LAPD Board of Inquiry Report into the Rampart Area Corruption Incident
March 1, 2000
Page 14: “While it is impossible to substantiate completely, it appears that the application of our hiring standards was compromised when these officers were hired during periods of accelerated hiring in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This is not to say that anyone intended to do so. But, one need only look at the pre-employment histories of these four people to see that something was seriously wrong when they were approved for hire. The fact that these men were hired with egregious information in their packages leaves only two explanations: 1)
Recognize that erosion has occurred and shore up the systems to prevent it from recurring; or,
2) Insist that the application of our standards did not erode, which means that criminal conduct, drug dealing, financial irresponsibility and violent behavior are consistent with our standards. Clearly, there has been erosion, the blame for which cannot be placed on one individual or group, but rather on a multifaceted system with competing interests. We must recognize that it has occurred and commit ourselves to never sacrificing quality for the expediency of numbers.”
Page 9: Of the 14 officers, four had questionable issues in their pre-employment background which strongly indicate they never should have been hired as Los Angeles
Police Officers. Those four officers were hired in 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1994, and three of them have since been fired for felonious conduct:

The officer hired in 1994 sold marijuana to two other students on one occasion while he was in high school. At age 15, the police detained him for investigation of tampering with vehicles on a car sales lot. He was taken to the station and released to his parents. Those law enforcement contacts were self-admitted and nothing on his criminal history printout indicates that he was ever formally arrested. However, there is a notation in the package that “All records have been sealed” indicating that he may have had a juvenile record that could not be accessed for the background investigation. In any event, the
Police Department recommended his disqualification, but it was overturned by the Personnel Department.
It is important to note that the July 9, 1991, Report of the Independent (Christopher)
Commission...all but predicted that a weak application of hiring standards was allowing risky candidates to become Los Angeles Police Officers.

The officer hired in 1988 had been arrested as an adult for grand theft. The incident occurred when he struck a public bus driver during a dispute over a transfer. When the driver's watch fell to the ground, the officer picked it up and began walking away, which resulted in his arrest. The Department did not recommended his disqualification or deselect him under three whole scores.
The officer hired in 1989 admitted losing his temper during arguments with his wife and pushing her on six different occasions. He was psychologically eliminated due to
"temperament/impulse control." However, he was eventually cleared for hiring by the
Personnel Department psychologist.
The officer hired in 1990 had been arrested three times before he became an officer at the age of 24. As a juvenile, he was arrested for stealing hubcaps. As an adult, he was arrested and convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). One year before his hire, he was cited for having an open container of an alcoholic beverage in his car and was arrested for driving on a suspended license (suspended from the earlier DUI) for which he was sentenced to ten days in jail. In the military, he was disciplined for disobeying a lawful order. His background investigation disclosed that he "loses his cool very easily“ over minor incidents, and acted like a "big macho man." The psychological examiner advised the Personnel Department that there was not enough negative information to warrant his disqualification.”





On 2/9/06 a Federal court jury awarded
$5 million each to LAPD Sgt. Edward Ortiz, former officer Paul Harper and former Sgt.
Brian Liddy, who were fired in 2000 and tried for allegedly framing a suspect while working at Rampart.
After being acquitted or having their cases dismissed, each sued the City for malicious prosecution. They accused prosecutors, detectives and former Chief
Parks of making them “scapegoats” by suborning false testimony from officer
Rafael Perez, who informed on his colleagues in exchange for a greatly reduced sentence for stealing three kilograms of cocaine from evidence.
Ortiz and Harper are back on the force. Liddy is now working in private security.
In July 2008 the Federal awards to the three officers were upheld by the Ninth
Circuit, which agreed that City of Los Angeles disciplinary policies encouraged filing charges against officers even if there was no probable cause.






On February 28, 2005 19 persons, including five former cops, were charged for twenty robberies between 1999-2001.
Led by LAPD officer Ruben Palomares, the group LAPD uniforms & cars to stage phony raids, stealing drugs, guns and money from drug dealers and others.
Those charged include former LAPD officers William Ferguson and Jesse
Moya, former LBPD officer Joseph Ferguson, and former LASD deputy
Rodrigo Duran.
William Ferguson was appointed an LAPD officer even though his background check turned up five prior arrests for theft and burglary.
Many of those charged have pled guilty. Palomares, serving 15 years for trying to buy ten kilos of cocaine from DEA agents in 2001, is cooperating.
He was originally fingered as corrupt by Rampart figure Rafael Perez, who encouraged investigators to check out all of Palomares’ arrests.





Slippery slope
–
“Grass eating” to “meat eating”
– Passively accepting gratuities to actively seeking illicit gain
Causes
–
–
Rotten apples: one infects others
Environmental: political atmosphere allows corruption to flourish
Most serious corruption is drug-related
– Large sums of money
– Social ambivalence about drugs
Neutralizers
–
Drugs are “victimless” crimes
–
Drug dealers don’t deserve profits
–
–
Taking money punishes drug dealers
Officers are poorly paid and deserve more

th







Impoverished high-crime drug sales area
Officer misconduct
–
–
Illegal drugs and alcohol abuse
New officers “tested” to see if they “measured up”
“Tough on crime” - extralegal means to punish offenders
– Falsification of arrest reports, perjury
Burning money “psychological” abuse of suspects
Traditional corruption – payoffs, thefts of evidence, robberies of drug dealers, resale of drugs, housebreaks disguised as “searches”
Dumping ground for problem officers
“Grass eating” to “meat eating”
– Began with burning and flushing confiscated dope
– Progressed to selling dope to other dealers




Continuous dialogue within an agency
“Supply side” issues
–
–
Officer selection
Internal and external pressures
– Measuring performance
Agency climate
– Corrective, not punitive
–
–
–
Distinguish between working mistakes and willful misconduct
Communications must flow up as well as down
Bond between managers and subordinates





Supervision
– Time and opportunity
– Avoid co-optation
Technology
– Recorders, cameras
Agency guidelines
– Establish explicit boundaries
–
–
Thorough and realistic
Enforce through inspection
– Disclose results of internal investigations
“High-risk” units (drugs, intelligence)
– Oversight by command staff
–
–
Careful, merit-based selection
Rotation
LAPD website




Profiling
–
–
–
Race and ethnicity
Social class
Imperatives of policing
– Conveying details about suspect appearance
Looking for what is out of place
Some criminal activity is ethnically-based
– Street gangs – White, Black, Hispanic
– Organized crime – Mafia (Italian), Asian, Russian
– Certain fraud and scams






Historical abuses of minorities and poor
Physical force used infrequently
– Actual prevalence is uncertain, as most policing is done in private
–
–
Officers may downplay or not report
Citizens may not report or exaggerate
Police culture and workplace
–
“Whatever it takes”, “don’t back down”
–
Losing “face”
Physical confrontations with police
–
–
Race, ethnicity, social class
Nature of officers, antagonists and encounters in lower class areas
Many excessive force complaints involve persons already in custody
– Officers often fail to restrain or complain about colleagues



In July, 2002 Inglewood police officers allegedly brutalized a black youth when he allegedly interfered during a traffic stop.
Two white officers were tried.
–
–
–
One officer was acquitted of falsifying a police report.
Charges of assault against a second officer were dismissed after juries deadlocked twice (7-5 for conviction, then 6-6).
A black officer was also disciplined. Both white officers later won a lawsuit against the city for reverse discrimination and were awarded a total of more than $1.5 million.




Authority and responsibility devolves on individual officer
Must act reasonably actions cannot violate law or “clearly established” legal precedent
Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386 (US Supreme Court, 1989)
– Claims of excessive force are evaluated by the Fourth
Amendment's "reasonableness" standard: were the officers' actions "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances at the time?
–
–
The "reasonableness" must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene
There must be an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.

4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.

“Deadly force may be used to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject if there is probable cause to believe: (1) the subject has committed a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury or death, and (2) the escape of the subject would pose an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.”
Armed carjacker pursued by several agencies. He bails out, runs away, is pursued by a police officer on foot. Officer shoots and kills the suspect, whom he said turned at him a pointed the pistol. The weapon is recovered at the scene.

Some situations seem ambiguous
Parolee suspected of jewelry thefts drives off with associate as plainclothes deputies prepare to serve a search warrant at his residence. Deputies chase parolee, shoot and kill him when he bangs up police cars and refuses to surrender. Passenger is arrested. He allegedly tells police that he and the driver knew it was the cops. Passenger later became a suspect in the thefts and a fugitive.
L.A. Times , 12/9/05

Information processing in rapidly shifting situations
Constraints on decision-making
• Confusion and uncertainty
• Personal observation or knowledge? From a third party?
• If third party, is the person reliable? Are the events believable?
• Timeliness of receipt of information
Could deadly force have been used? Should it have been used?
If so, at what point(s)? What would be the justification?



On 11/25/06 five NYPD detectives, two white and three black, shot 50 rounds at a vehicle occupied by three black men, killing Sean Bell, a 23-year old man on his wedding day, and seriously wounding his companions. One detective fired 31 shots, reloading once. No weapons were found. The detectives, members of an enforcement squad that investigates problem night clubs, thought that one or two of the men were armed and that a shot had been fired. When they ordered the men to exit the car they did not comply, instead gunning their car forward and striking an officer and a police van.
Two officers were indicted for manslaughter, one for reckless endangerment.

Videotaped Officer Won't Be Charged
The decision was denounced by minority community leaders and Mayor James Hahn.
After a five-month review, the LA District Attorney concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to charge Officer John Hatfield, who struck suspect
Stanley Miller 11 times with a 2-pound steel flashlight after a June 23, 2004 car-and-foot chase in South L.A.
"In light of the totality of the circumstances facing
Officer Hatfield, we cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt that [his] actions were without legal necessity," Deputy District Attorney Margo Baxter said in a statement.
Miller, who is black, was beaten on the ground after he appeared to surrender. The arrest, which was videotaped by television news helicopters, was compared to the 1991 beating of black motorist Rodney King by four white officers. Hatfield, who is Hispanic, ran up and joined other officers who had pushed Miller to the ground at the end of a foot chase.
Officer Hatfield was fired by LAPD Chief Bratton after a three-officer police board of rights found that the one kick, 11 flashlight blows and five knee blows administered by
Officer Hatfield demonstrated that he was “at best, out of control.”
L.A. Times , 7/30/05
Chief Bratton said this type of flashlight would be “phased out. In November 2006
Miller’s civil rights lawsuit was settled by Los Angeles for $450,000.
L.A. Times , 11/29/06






On 2/6/05 an LAPD officer shot and killed
Devin Brown at the end of an early-morning pursuit. The 13-year old was driving a stolen car while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
After stopping Brown jammed his car in reverse and backed up, striking the police car.
The officer said he fired because he thought that Brown was trying to crush him. A late-coming witness said that the officer, who had exited his car, was nearly “sandwiched”, leapt out of the way at the last moment and instantly began firing.
On 12/5/05 the L.A. County DA issued a detailed report on the incident. The
DA refused to charge the officer, concluding that his use of force was not unreasonable under the circumstances.
The shooting was later determined to be “in policy” by Chief Bratton, who said the officer was defending himself. But Chief Bratton was overruled by the L.A. Police Commission, which determined the shooting was unnecessary.

Airman shot by San Bernardino deputy – part II
(L.A. Times, 2/1/06)
On January 29, 2005 a 21-year old man was shot by a SBSO deputy after the vehicle he was riding in crashed during a pursuit.
Witnesses say that a deputy ordered
Elio Carrion, 21, an Air Force security officer, to the ground and that Carrion complied. There is confusion about what happened later, but a grainy videotape made by an onlooker suggests that Carrion was told to get up. When he did so, the deputy fired, striking Carrion three times. Carrion will recover. The videotape recorded Carrion’s preshooting comments, that he was “on the deputy’s side”, expletives shouted by the deputy at Carrion, and Carrion’s protests after he was shot, that he was complying with the deputies.
Deputies were trying to stop the Corvette for speeding. Its driver has an extensive driving record. Neither he nor Carrion were armed or wanted.
The officer, Deputy Ivory Webb, was charged with attempted voluntary manslaughter, a felony, and is awaiting trial.



1965 Watts Riot
– DUI arrest; intervention by family
1992 Rodney King riot 
–
–
–
–
Rodney King, drunk and high on drugs, was speeding.
After a high-speed pursuit he finally stopped. He refused officers’ orders and was nearly shot by a nervous CHP officer.
An LAPD sergeant and three officers beat King with their batons.
All were fired. Their acquittal of assault charges in State court sparked rioting
Two were later convicted of Federal civil rights violations and served prison terms.






Are kicking and punching legitimate tactics?
– Should they be?
– If so, under what circumstances?
Were they necessary in these cases?
– Do the videos provide sufficient info?
– What are tools are available?
Are appearances important?
Are there limits to training and rulemaking?
What we can realistically expect from officers?
–
–
–
Uncertain and threatening environment
Reaction to chases and critical incidents
What we can realistically expect from citizens?

 You arrested an unruly bar patron and are transporting him to the station with another officer.
On arrival, your partner opens the prisoner’s car door. The prisoner spits on your partner, landing a big goober on his forehead. Your partner reacts by punching the handcuffed prisoner in the face, hard.
This is clearly an excessive use of force, which by departmental rule you must report.
What do you do?

• Hurtling down the street in a 4,500 pound block of steel is a use of force.
• It differs from other uses of force in its potential effects on innocent persons.
• Can this particular use of force ever be
“reasonable”?