


Trustworthiness of the results
–
–
Weak-willed may falsely confess
Innocent may confess to gain leniency
–
–
Witnesses may shape their testimony to what authorities want
Officers convinced of someone’s guilt might lie or shade the truth
Democratic values
–
–
–
Balance of power between citizens and the State
Fairness to the weak – “the little guy”
Public trust and confidence in the police
Professionalism
–
–
–
Avoid brutalizing the police
Encourage craftsmanship and attention to detail
“Slippery slope”

Carl Klockars’
“The Dirty Harry Problem”





Police driven by the “noble cause” of making the world safer
Means
– ends dilemma: are “bad” means justified when seeking “good” ends?
Police frustrated by laws and regulations
–
–
–
–
Miranda v. Arizona (1966): If custodial interrogation must read rights
Exclusionary rule ( Mapp v. Ohio , 1961): Evidence gathered in violation of the
Constitution is inadmissible
Conduct that “shocks the conscience”: Due Process clause, Fourteenth
Amendment
Right to counsel: Sixth Amendment
–
–
Criminal and civil law
Agency regulations
Police frustrated by moral standards imposed by outsiders.
Police frustrated by practical obstacles
– Uncertainty, lack of information
– Uncooperative victims, witnesses and suspects

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








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 ?




In the real world, consequences of an act are important
Pressures and expectations on police
Severely limit police practices and techniques
– Lying and deception
– Undercover




What’s the worst kind of error?
– Type 1: Arrest and convict the innocent (guilty not charged)
– Type 2: Failure to arrest or convict anyone, or mistakenly exonerate or acquit the guilty
Crime control model
– Maximize efficiency of crime control
–
–
Prone to type 1 errors
Due process model
– Getting it right is more important
Prone to type 2 errors





On 8/8/09 Dinuba police tried to pull over a Dodge Neon with three occupants for a traffic infraction.
The vehicle sped away, with police in pursuit. The chase left the city and entered rural roads. The truck blew two stop signs.
At the second it collided with a pickup truck carrying a family of two adults and four children ages 1 - 7. None of the children were secured and all were ejected.
All three occupants of the Dodge Neon were killed, along with the four children. One adult occupant of the truck was killed and the other was left in critical condition.
It turns out that the Dodge Neon had been carjacked the previous evening.




Officer selection
–
–
Personalities drawn into policing
Weeding out unsuitable candidates
Workplace issues
–
–
–
Pressures to produce (how work is measured)
Meeting legal requirements for search and arrest
Getting along with coworkers
–
–
Citizen expectations
Limited resources
Police culture
–
–
Peer pressures  “code of silence”
Solidarity “us” v. “them” mentality

In September 1999 officer Rafael Perez, charged with stealing cocaine from an evidence locker, said that officers of the
Rampart “CRASH” unit (anti-gang) routinely framed suspects, beat them up, planted evidence and covered up excessive uses of force, including unnecessary shootings.
Investigation led to the dismissal of more than 150 felony convictions.
$70 million was paid to persons, mostly gang members, who were unjustly arrested, beaten or shot. Nine officers were charged with crimes, including filing false police reports, and 23 were fired or suspended. Some of the convictions and firings were later overturned.
Perez and his partner, Nino Durden, pled guilty to State drug charges for the cocaine theft and to Federal civil rights violations for covering up a shooting. Each served a total of five years.

Outcomes for other key players, from the Los Angeles Times (7/12/06)
Edward Ortiz — Convicted of obstructing justice (overturned). One of three sued for malicious prosecution, shared a $15-million jury award.
Brian Liddy — Convicted of obstructing justice (overturned.) Shared in
$15-million award. Later fired for misconduct related to a narcotics arrest.
Paul Harper — Acquitted of obstructing justice, shared the $15-million award.
Michael Buchanan — Convicted of obstructing justice (overturned)
Manuel Chavez
— Pleaded no contest to assault under color of authority for the 1996 beating of a gang member. Sentenced to 60-day jail term and placed on three years' probation.
Shawn Gomez — Pleaded no contest to filing a false report in the 1996 beating of a gang member. Sentenced to three years' probation and ordered to serve 400 hours of community service.
Ethan Cohan — Pleaded guilty to obstructing justice and filing a false report in the 1996 beating of gang member. Sentenced to one year in jail.

LAPD Board of Inquiry Report into Rampart, March 1, 2000
Discussion about four of the fired officers
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 preemployment 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.”

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.”

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...
[established as result of the beating of Rodney King and the riots that followed ] all but predicted that a weak application of hiring standards was allowing risky candidates to become Los Angeles Police officers...”





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 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, they wore LAPD uniforms & used LAPD 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 .





On 4/29/09 the California Atty. General released a study of Maywood PD
It concludes that Maywood officers have engaged in extensive misconduct
– Routine use of excessive force
– Lack of probable cause to justify searches and arrests
–
–
Lack of cause to stop cars, and punitive impoundments
Sexual assaults by an on-duty officer
– Discouraging the public from filing complaints
Causes and enablers of these problems
–
–
Hiring unqualified officers and those rejected from other agencies
Poor supervision, including supervisory indifference to obvious problems
– Lack (until recently) of a professional Chief
In June 2009 Maywood consented to a court order
–
–
–
Revamped selection, training and supervision
Install cameras at the station & in police cars
Officers to carry digital recorders on patrol





Slippery slope
–
“Grass eating” -- passively
– accepting gratuities
“Meat eating” -- 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 or punitive?
– Distinguish between working mistakes & willful misconduct
–
–
Communications must flow up as well as down
Enhance bond between managers and subordinates
Supervision
– Quantity and quality
– Avoiding co-optation



Technology
– Early warning programs
– 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




Selection, training and supervision often fail
–
–
–
Unsuitable candidates always slip through
Internal controls ignored or insufficient
Supervisors can’t be everywhere
Quantity v. quality
– Superiors just want numbers
– Craze for measurement and quantification far outweigh quality concerns
Means v. ends
– Frustration over bad guys getting away with it
–
–
Justification in media, culture and politics for brutality (“Dirty Harry”)
Problem of the “symbolic assailant”






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 to complain about colleagues



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

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
LOW: Verbal commands, touching
Use of hands, chemical agents

INTERMEDIATE: Punching, canine, baton, other impact weapons
Head blows, etc. are lethal

Taser, less-than-lethal projectiles (i.e., bean-bags)
Repeated application of Taser may be lethal
 Projectiles that strike the head are lethal force
LETHAL: firearms or other means



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 other tools and techniques are available?




In July 2002 an Inglewood police officer was caught on an amateur video slamming a handcuffed black youth against a patrol car and punching him.
The youth had been arrested for allegedly interfering during a traffic stop of the car his father was driving.
Two white officers were tried.
– One officer was acquitted of falsifying a police report and was reinstated.
–
–
–
Charges of assault against a second officer were dismissed after juries deadlocked twice (7-5 for conviction, then 6-6). The officer was fired.
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. The city then sued the law firm it had retained to handle the case for incompetence.

Videotaped Officer Won't Be Charged
The decision was denounced by minority leaders and L.A. Mayor 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," said
Deputy D.A. Margo Baxter.
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 Rodney King. 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 demonstrated that the officer was “at best, out of control.”
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.





Appearances are important
What we can realistically expect?
–
–
From officers?
From citizens?
Are there limits to training and rulemaking?
– Uncertain and threatening environment
– Impact of chases and critical incidents
Dispassionate oversight is often required
–
Supervisors can’t do their jobs if they’re
(a) unavailable or (b) always want to be liked
– Command staff must be present whenever there is the possibility of a confrontation between officers and multiple citizens
2009 New School sit-in




On 1/23/08 a man being questioned about drug dealing by Birmingham
(Alabama) police took off, leading officers on a long chase. One cop was struck and injured.
After 22 minutes the suspect’s vehicle rolled. The man was ejected and knocked unconscious. Five officers pounced on him, kicking and beating him with a club and fists.
The suspect pled guilty to felony assault and is serving a ten-year term. The beating was covered up for over a year. On May 19, 2009 five officers were fired for unnecessary and excessive force and face prosecution. Other officers who helped in the cover-up also face discipline.




On 5/13/09 El Monte PD pursued a vehicle that did not yield for a traffic stop. Three gang members were inside.
During a slow-speed part of the chase one of the gang members exited the vehicle and gave himself up. The others remained in the car until it crashed some time later into a parked car. The passenger surrendered; the driver, Richard
Rodriguez, a parolee at large, ran off.
Rodriguez was eventually cornered and lay down. Newscopter video depicts an El Monte police officer, gun drawn, approaching Rodriguez. The officer kicks Rodriguez for no obvious reason, striking him in the head. Other officers then arrive and Rodriguez is handcuffed.




California Penal Code, sec. 196, homicide by public officers
– When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to execution of legal process, or in the discharge of a legal duty
– When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped, or when necessarily committed to arrest persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing or resisting
California Penal Code, sec. 197, homicide by any person
– When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person
– When necessary to arrest for a felony, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace
BUT: Tennessee v. Garner , 471 U.S. 1 (US Supreme Court, 1985)
– Cannot use deadly force to apprehend escaping suspects unless they pose a threat of serious injury to the officer or other persons

“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 are 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 third party?
If third party, is the person reliable?
Are the events believable?
Timeliness 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 unarmed 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.
The detectives, members of a night club squad, thought that one or two of the men were armed and that a shot had been fired.
Officers approached the car and ordered the men to exit. Instead the driver, Sean Bell, gunned it forward, striking an officer in the leg and a police van. Bell was legally drunk.
Two officers were indicted for manslaughter, one for reckless endangerment.
In April 2008 the officers were tried by a judge and acquitted. The judge said that he did not believe the victim’s witnesses, in part because they had records and had changed their stories.
Officers after acquittal
Listen to NY Times podcast






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.

Chief Bratton and the Police
Commission disagree



Chief Bratton ruled that the shooting was consistent with department policy, which allows officers to shoot at a vehicle if it presents an immediate danger. The D.A. declined to file charges against the officer.
Later, on 1/31/06, the LA Police
Commission voted 4-1 that the officer who shot Devin Brown violated departmental policy. It based its decision on a reconstruction showing that the rounds entered the car at an angle, placing the officer to its side.
John Mack was appointed
Chairperson of the Commission after the shooting. A “civil rights activist and long-time LAPD critic,” he had already criticized the officer’s actions.

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.






In December 1998 four Riverside
PD officers responded to a citizen in distress call. They found a black
19year old woman in the driver’s seat of a parked car, foaming at the mouth and apparently unconscious. A handgun was in her lap.
The car was locked and the officers couldn’t get the woman to respond so they decided to break in. As they tried the woman suddenly woke up. One or more officers thought that she went for her gun and fired. So did the others. In all they fired 24 rounds, with half hitting the woman, who was instantly killed.
The shooting provoked great anger. The four officers were fired along with their Sergeant, who made inappropriate comments about black persons.
The D.A. refused to prosecute. The California Atty. General had Riverside PD placed under court supervision to improve training, tactics and equipment.
Steps were taken to improve community relations. A new chief was hired.
Each officer sued. Three were reinstated and given disability retirements. The other two, both probationers, were not reinstated.







On May 9, 2005 LASD deputies approached the victim’s vehicle while investigating a shots fired call.
The victim, a multi-convicted felon who was unarmed but on drugs, panicked and led officers on a slow-speed chase through a residential area of Compton.
His path blocked, the victim tried to drive around a police car while a dozen deputies approach on foot. They opened fire -- each deputy said he was protecting another from being potentially run down.
Ten deputies fired a total of one-hundred twenty shots were fired by ten deputies. Nine struck the victim. Sixty-six struck his vehicle. Eleven hit other deputies’ vehicles. Eleven struck residences.
Sheriff Baca disciplined the deputies for their uncontrolled fire.
A civil jury awarded the victim $1,326,468 for excessive force.

• 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”?