Numerous authorized and program limitations control the use of force by law enforcement, starting with the 4th Amendment’s prevention against arbitrary searches and seizures and decentralizing downhill to state decrees and departmental guidelines that manage how and under what circumstances police officer may use force. In most police agencies at present, the use of force is closely regulated by guidelines, and more critical employments of force are evaluated and/or examined by directorial staffs or internal affairs sections. Whenever the law enforcement agency or a defendant uses force, there is a likelihood of harm. Until lately, a small amount was known concerning the incidence, reasons, or associates of force- linked damages. Over the previous few epochs, there have been progressions in preparation and knowledge with the purpose of decreasing the regularity and seriousness of injuries to the law enforcement agency and the community while sustaining the protected and real control over fighting accused.
Along with use of force continuum the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has continuously had a well-made procedure concerning the use of force; nevertheless, the situations encompassing the Rodney King event triggered a reappraisal of this guidelines, for not merely the CHP, but also countless other police organizations all through the nation. Seventy-five percent of attackers who confrontation Highway Patrol officers depend on hands and feet. The CHP answer is practically always something other than a sidearm, at the beginning – while use of a firearm is not prohibited if conditions command (California, 2013). Regrettably, the instructing simulants used by countless police departments introduce typical “shoot / don’t shoot” circumstances that discount the more mainstream conflicts when a revolver is not a choice. The capability to neutralize or influence a condition before
it achieves crisis is a vital ability needed for any police officer.
The query for CHP’s top administration was Can a preparation course be produced that exposes both an officer’s perception of procedure, and the ability to make the best selections in any category of circumstances where force may be mandatory? The Missouri Highway Patrol on the other hand has a progression of use of force. The General Order further states that when the use of force is authorized, officers should consider a progressive range of options for which they have been trained or equipped. Officers are not restricted to these options, nor must they use them in a particular sequence. Available options include:
1. Professional presence of the officer or a Patrol canine
2. Tactical communication including verbal dialogue, requests, instructions, and commands
3. Tire deflation devices, to encourage the safe stopping of fleeing vehicles
4. Physical force, which causes little or no pain, such as using empty hands
5. OC aerosol
6. Level I of the lateral vascular neck restraint and the shoulder pin restraint
7. Physical force, which causes moderate or greater pain
8. Chemical irritants such as tear gas, CN, and CS
9. Immediate force, including physical strikes, Levels II, and III of the lateral vascular neck restraint and the shoulder pin restraint
10. Strikes using an approved baton, contact by a Patrol canine, SERT beanbag rounds, and similar force impact
11. Deadly force.
The General Order goes on to provide that the decision to use a firearm must be based on facts and the totality of circumstances known to the officer involved at the time (STATE CROWE v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, 2005). The similarities in these use of force policies is that both states stress the use of alternatives in their use of force continuum. Both policies stressed the use of alternatives such as officer presence, verbal communication, nonlethal use of force, chemical munitions, and finally deadly force. Both states have remedial training each year on the updated version of use of force. The differences are substantial for example; California Highway Patrol uses high-tech versions and video scenarios to train their officers in the properties of alternatives to the use of force. Each scenario gets a number of alternatives and outcomes to that specific scenario. On the other hand, Missouri have established General orders outline all stages and alternatives to the use of force. Even the nonlethal use of force can be very subjective over the years there has the meaning different devices used by law enforcement that were considered less than lethal. However, surveys have shown that even the ease less than lethal devices can prove to be very deadly in certain circumstances (Cole & Gertz, 2013).
While writing my use of force policy many considerations were taken into effect to generate the final product. Such as perception, public view, policy, and training. With regard to Perception, there is continuously an instant merit conclusion made concerning the suitability of the specific use of force. Good shooting versus bad shooting, for example. However, what of a state when an offender is shot in the back? Alternatively, no firearm is discovered on or nearby the offender? Every veteran officer recognizes these particulars unaccompanied are not developmental of the justifiability of the use of force, yet mass media, populace, and even several inside the organization will create the importance of the evidences. However, the community is frequently ignorant of the authentic permissible criteria related to the use of force. They are similarly uninformed of the instruction afforded to police officer on the use of force frequently depend on the expositions made by the mass media, which has an enormous impact on the Perception point.
Furthermore, public anxiety pre-existing anytime use of force is confront may aggravate an at present anxious condition. Policy what is frequently imply to as whichever the organization liberator or the evil spirit it did not recognize is the authentic guidelines, principles, and preparation that are in position. In its development and application, effective policy will protect the organization from legal responsibility. Terrible policy or no policy in position will be an understandable obstruction for the organization. Training that is in position is merely an issue of whether the procedure is adhering. Simply retaining a policy in position is not sufficient; it needs to be executed and obeyed.
Preferably, the Policy and the Training should echo one another. Retaining a policy in position on the use of force and no training officials in the appropriate implementation of that policy can be the frontrunner to legal responsibility for an unauthorized policy by neglecting to train or to manage. These privileges may give development to a statement of premeditated apathy against superintendents and the city, which is similar to claiming an unrecorded policy of unauthorized conduct. Use of force policy should have a ACHIEVE result, which is to say that the division supervisors must inform police officer of the policy, Teach police officer on the policy, and Train police officer on the policy.
Glass use of force policy;
Prior to a police officer authorization to carry department firearms, he/she will obtain trainings in the department guidelines, rules, and techniques regarding the use of force. Police officer obtaining this training must acceptably demonstrate a functioning understanding of the topic by way of realistic and written examination. The officer will use just those methods and abilities appropriate under the Glass Police Department and the Municipal Police Training Committee. A yearly evaluation and examination practice will be controlled and recognized by specialized firearm’s trainers concurring to the permitted training policy. An illustration of this use-of-force continuum is as followed:
* Officer Presence
No force is used.
* The simple attendance of a police officer works to discourage corruption or verbose a circumstances.
* Police officer approaches are professional and nonthreatening.
* Verbalization —
Force is not physical.
* Police officer delivery composed, nonthreatening instructions, for example, “Let me see your ID and registration.” * Police officer may upsurge their degree and abbreviate instructions in an effort to increase obedience. Concise instructions may contain “Stop,” or “Don’t move.” * Empty-Hand Control
Police officer use physical force to increase influence of circumstances. * Soft technique. Police officer use grips holds and joint locks to detain a person. * Hard technique. Police officer use blows and kicks to detain a person. * Less-Lethal Methods
Police officer use less-lethal knowledge to increase command of circumstances. * Blunt impact. Police officer may use a stick or rubber bullet to restrain a belligerent individual. * Chemical. Police officer may use chemical aerosols or shells entrenched with chemicals to detain a person. * Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs). Police officer may use CEDs to restrain a person. CEDs release a high-voltage, low-amperage shock of electricity at a gap. * Lethal Force
Police officer use lethal arms to increase the command of circumstances. Should only be used if an accused postures a dangerous threat to the police officer or another person. * Police officer use deadly armaments such as weapons to halt a person’s activities. The investigation of Officer Edward Smith, the police officer enmeshed with the scene of a discharging of a weapon or other event causing a death or critical injury of an individual occasioning from the activities or participation of a representative of the Glass Police Department. The police officer shall take actions that are rationally conceivable and suitable to defend their safety, the security of others, and to realm proof vital to the examination of the occurrence (Police, 2011). Safeguard facts from damage, obliteration, or harm that is possible to transpire before reinforcement can arrive.
Safeguard that evidentiary articles are not relocated, note unique situation and place of individuals, firearms, and other pertinent matters and verification. Sheltered the location, create a boundary with crime scene tape, and regulate admission to approved individuals essential to investigate the event and help the injured. Document the person’s name, addresses, and phone number of all eyewitnesses and other individuals at the scene and ask that they stay on hand in order to make a short declaration whether or not they observed the occurrence. Until supervisory, arrive and establishes a command center. The supervisor after taking control at the scene executes the following. Confirm that the police officer family is informed on a precedence foundation and personally if the police officer is injured.
Send for Crime Scene Technicians to the scene. Certify that the attiring of police officer and other injured individuals is gathered for possible evidentiary resolutions and that connected gear of the police officer is protected. If the police officer is not injured, transport him/her away from the middle of action escorted by another police officer. Safeguard the police officer (s) firearms as evidence. This shall be accomplished in as inconspicuous method as achievable and away from the direct scene. Confirm that the direct area is controlled and restrain any suspects within. Illustrate the scene and take picture as soon as probable. Uncover and secure in place if possible the police officers weapon(s) and ammo casings. Check the firearms of all police officer at the scene, for release and secure the firearm when indication of release is present. Find the accused’s firearm(s), ammunition and used cartridges (Police, 2011).
Investigators responsibilities are to ensure that tasks itemized of this procedure have been properly and sufficiently accomplished. Obtain an overall update and walk-through by the controlling police officer concerning the situations encompassing the shooting/use of deadly force. Confirm that the general scene and evidentiary objects are photographed and recorded. Record all individuals’ current at the scene. Certify thorough examination of the scene and appropriate gathering of all articles and materials of evidentiary worth. Acquire taped testimonials from the accused. Find and detect eyewitnesses and perform preliminary tape-recorded questioning. Remove any firearm expended by the police officer(s) into care and control it as evidence. Weapons shall be removed from police officer in a detached method.
Make contact with the medical examiner and be present at any autopsy of police officer and/or accused. Conclude entry and departure wounds, approximations of the firearm’s location, the existence of regulated materials in the decedent’s blood, or other linked evidence. Acquire search warrants as essential for examinations of cars, vessels, and residences. Complete an account specifying the conclusion of the investigation. The Chief of Police will organize the actions of replying superiors. The Chief of Police will decide the suitable time to publish the names of participating participants to the media. The Chief of Police shall begin an Internal Affairs investigation to be started in episodes resultant in death or life-threatening injury of a police officer or resident, occasioning from or in the implementation of the police officer functions (Police, 2011).
STATE CROWE v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, No. WD 64374. (Missouri Court of Appeals,Western District. August 02, 2005).
California, S. o. (2013). California Highway Patrol. Retrieved from http://www.chp.ca.gov/programs/fots.html
Cole & Gertz. (2013). The Criminal Justice System, Politics and Policies. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Cengage learning.
Police, I. S. (2011, AUGUST 25). OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS / LETHAL INCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS. Retrieved from http://www.icgov.org/site/CMSv2/File/police/generalOrders/genorder40.pdf