OFF THE WIRE
Preventing Police Abuse
Filing a Police Complaint "Click Here"
SOME OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS
THE BAD NEWS.....is that police abuse is a serious problem. It has a
long history, and it seems to defy all attempts at eradication.
The
problem is national -- no police department in the country is known to
be completely free of misconduct -- but it must be fought locally. The
nation's 19,000 law enforcement agencies are essentially independent.
While some federal statutes that specify criminal penalties for willful
violations of civil rights and conspiracies to violate civil rights, the
United States Department of Justice has been insufficiently aggressive
in prosecuting cases of police abuse.
There are shortcomings, too,
in federal law itself, which does not permit "pattern and practice"
lawsuits. The battle against police abuse must, therefore, be fought
primarily on the local level.
THE GOOD NEWS.....is that the
situation is not hopeless. Policing has seen much progress. Some reforms
do work, and some types of abuse have been reduced. Today, among both
police officials and rank and file officers it is widely recognized that
police brutality hinders good law enforcement.
To fight police
abuse effectively, you must have realistic expectations. You must not
expect too much of any one remedy because no single remedy will cure the
problem. A "mix" of reforms is required. And even after citizen action
has won reforms, your community must keep the pressure on through
monitoring and oversight to ensure that the reforms are actually
implemented.
Nonetheless, even one person, or a small group of
persistent people, can make a big difference. Sometimes outmoded and
abusive police practices prevail largely because no one has ever
questioned them. In such cases, the simple act of spotlighting a problem
can have a powerful effect that leads to reform. Just by raising
questions, one person or a few people -- who need not be experts -- can
open up some corner of the all-too-secretive and insular world of
policing to public scrutiny. Depending on what is revealed, their
inquiries can snowball into a full blown examination by the media, the
public and politicians.
II. GETTING STARTED: IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM:
You've got to address specific problems. The first step, then, is to
identify exactly what the police problems are in your city. What's wrong
with your police department is not necessarily the same as what's wrong
in another city. Police departments are different in size, quality of
management, local traditions and the severity of problems. Some
departments are gravely corrupt; others are relatively "clean" but have
poor relations with community residents. Also, a city's political
environment, which affects both how the police operate and the
possibilities for achieving reform, is different in every city. For
example, it is often easier to reform police procedures in cities that
have a tradition of "good government," or in cities where minorities are
well organized politically.
The range of police problems includes:
Excessive use of deadly force.
Excessive use of physical force.
Discriminatory patterns of arrest.
Patterns of harassment of such "undesirables" as the homeless, youth,
minorities and gays, including aggressive and discriminatory use of the
"stop-and-frisk" and overly harsh enforcement of petty offenses.
Chronic verbal abuse of citizens, including racist, sexist and homophobic slurs.
Discriminatory non-enforcement of the law, such as the failure to
respond quickly to calls in low-income areas, and half-hearted
investigations of domestic violence, rape or hate crimes.
Spying on political activists.
Employment discrimination -- in hiring, promotion and assignments, and
internal harassment of minority, women and gay or lesbian police
personnel.
The "code of silence" and retaliation against officers who report abuse and/or support reforms.
Overreaction to "gang" problems, which is driven by the assumption
that most or all associational activity is gang-related. This includes
illegal mass stops and arrests, and demanding photo IDs from young men
based on their race and dress instead of their criminal conduct.
The "war on drugs," with its overboard searches and other tactics that
endanger innocent bystanders. This "war" wastes scarce resources on
unproductive "buy and bust" operations to the neglect of more promising
community-based approaches.
Lack of accountability, such as the
failure to discipline or prosecute abusive officers, and the failure to
deter abuse by denying promotions and/or particular assignments because
of prior abusive behavior.
Crowd control tactics that infringe on free expression rights and lead to unnecessary use of physical force.
III. GATHER THE FACTS
The first thing to bear in mind about the "homework" community
residents have to do in order to build a strong case for reform is that
obtaining the most relevant information on the activities of your police
department can be a tough task. In answer to critics, police chiefs
often cite various official data to support their claim that they are
really doing a great job. "Look at the crime rate," they say, "it's
lower than in other cities." Or: "My department's arrest rate is much
higher than elsewhere." The catch is that these data, though readily
available to citizens, are deeply flawed, while the most telltale
information is not always easy to get.
FORGET The "Crime Rate." The
"crime rate" figures cited by government officials are based on the
FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) system, which has several serious
flaws. To name only a few: First, the UCR only measures reported crime.
Second, since the system is not independently audited there are no
meaningful controls over how police departments use their crime data.
Police officers can and do "unfounded" crimes, meaning they decide that
no crime occurred. They also "downgrade" crimes -- for example, by
officially classifying a rape as an assault. Third, reports can get
"lost," either deliberately or inadvertently.
There are many other
technical problems that make the UCR a dubious measure of the extent of
crime problems. The National Crime Survey (NCS), published by another
part of the U.S. Justice Department, provides a far more accurate
estimate of the national crime rate and of long-term trends in crime.
But it is a national-level estimate and does not provide data on
individual cities. So the NCS isn't much help on the local level.
FORGET The "Clearance Rate." A police department's official data on its
"clearance rate," which refers to the percentage of crimes solved, do
not accurately reflect that department's performance. The fact that one
department "clears" 40 percent of all robberies, compared with 25
percent by another department, doesn't necessarily mean it is more
effective. There are too many ways to manipulate the data, either by
claiming a larger number of crimes "cleared" (inflating the numerator),
or by artificially lowering the number of reported crimes (lowering the
denominator).
FORGET The arrest rate. Police officers have broad
discretion in making and recording arrests. The Police Foundation (in
Washington, D.C.), which conducts research on policing issues, has found
great variations among police departments in their recording of
arrests. In many departments, police officers take people into custody,
hold them at the station, question and then release them without filling
out an arrest report. For all practical purposes, these people were
"arrested," but their arrests don't show up in the official data. Other
departments record such arrests. Thus, the department that reports a
lower number of arrests may actually be taking more people into custody
than the department that reports more arrests.
FORGET The citizen
complaint rate. Official data on the complaints filed by citizens
regarding police conduct are important but present a number of problems.
Many departments do not release any information on this subject. Some
publish a smattering of information on complaints and the percentage of
complaints sustained by the department. In more and more cities, the
civilian review agency publishes this data.
Data on citizen
complaints are difficult to interpret. Some examples: In 1990, it was
widely reported that San Francisco, with less than 2,000 police
officers, had more citizen complaints than Los Angeles, which has more
than 8,000 officers. What that may mean, however, is that Los Angeles
residents are afraid to file reports or don't believe it would do any
good. San Francisco has a relatively independent civilian review
process, which may encourage the filing of more complaints. Also in
1990, New York City reported a decline from previous years in the number
of citizen complaints filed. But many analysts believe that simply
reflected New Yorkers' widespread disillusionment with their civilian
review board. Citizen complaints filed in Omaha, Nebraska doubled after
the mayor allowed people to file their complaints at City Hall, as well
as the police department.
Another problem is that in some police
departments with internal affairs systems, officers often try to
dissuade people from filing formal complaints that will later become
part of an officer's file. And the number of complaints counted is also
affected by whether or not the internal affairs system accepts anonymous
complaints and complaints by phone or mail, or requires in-person,
sworn statements.
Thus, the official "complaint rate" (complaints
per 1,000 citizens), rather than being a reliable measure of police
performance, more than likely reflects the administrative customs of a
particular police department.
WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO KNOW, AND WHY
Police shootings. You need to know about police firearms discharges,
which refer to the number of times a police weapon has been fired. This
information is more complete than statistics on the number of persons
shot and wounded or killed. (However, information on the race of persons
shot and wounded or killed is important.) Particularly important is
information on repeat shooters, which can tell you whether some officers
fire their weapons at a suspiciously high rate.
With this
information, you can evaluate the use of deadly force in your
department. You can also evaluate the long-term trends in shootings. Are
shootings increasing or decreasing? Has there been a recent upsurge?
How does the department compare with other departments -- are officers
shooting at a significantly higher rate in your department than
elsewhere?
SIDEBAR: WHO SHOOTS?
*Do some officers shoot more
often than others? *Do white officers shoot more often that black
officers? *Do young officers shoot more often than veteran officers?
The most detailed analysis of police shootings was produced by James
Fyfe, a former police officer who is now a criminologist and expert on
police practices. He concluded that the single most important factor
determining patterns of shooting is place of assignment. Fyfe's findings
showed that: Black and white officers assigned to similar precincts
fired their weapons at essentially the same rate; since new officers are
assigned to less desirable, high crime precincts based on the seniority
system, younger officers shoot more often than older officers; and
since a disproportionate number of black officers are young due to
recent affirmative action programs, black officers shoot more often than
white officers -- but as a function of assignment, not race.
Fyfe
found significant differences in shooting patterns between police
departments. The overall shooting rate in some departments was
significantly higher than in others, a disparity that he attributed to
differences in department policy.
SOURCE: James J. Fyfe, "Who
Shoots? - - A Look At Officer, Race And Police Shooting." Journal of
Police Science And Administration; Volume 9, December 1981; pp. 367-382.
B. Use of physical force. You need to know how frequently, day to day,
police officers in your city use physical force in the course of their
encounters with citizens. Do officers try to refrain from using such
force against citizens, or do they quickly and casually resort to force?
In its report on the Los Angeles police department in the aftermath of
the March 1991 beating of Rodney King, the Christopher Commission
confirmed a long held suspicion: a small number of officers are involved
in an extraordinarily high percentage of use of force incidents. Ten
percent of the officers accounted for 33.2% of all use of force
incidents. The Commission was able to identify 44 such officers who were
not disciplined despite the fact that they were the subjects of
numerous citizen complaints.
In 1981, the U.S. Civil Rights
Commission found a similar pattern in Houston and recommended, as a
remedy, that police departments establish "early warning systems" to
identify officers with high rates of citizen complaints.
Patterns
in the use of physical force reveal a lot about the "culture" of a
particular police department. Clearly, a department whose officers
repeatedly engage in physically coercive conduct needs reform. Police
officials often deny that their personnel are prone to using force
inappropriately, so if your community believes it has a problem in this
area citizens must be able to support their claims with existing data,
or data they have gathered themselves.
SIDEBAR: RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN POLICE SHOOTINGS
These data indicate a clear pattern of racial discrimination. The
disparity between whites and blacks shot and killed is extreme in the
category of persons "unarmed and not assaultive." These are classic
"fleeing felon" situations in which, prior to 1985, Memphis Police
Department policy and the common law of many states permitted officers
to use deadly force. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is
unconstitutional for a police officer to shoot a suspected felon in
flight who does not pose an immediate danger to the officer or public.
The case -- Tennessee v. Garner -- involved Edward Garner, a 15 year-old
black youth who, though unarmed, was shot and killed while trying to
flee the scene of a suspected burglary.
POLICE SHOOTINGS IN MEMPHIS 1969-1974
Person Shot and Killed Number Shot and Killed White Black
Armed and Assaultive 5 7
Unarmed and Assaultive 2 6
Unarmed and Not Assaultive 1 13
In examining official policies, you need to evaluate them in comparison to recommended standards.
D. Lawsuits. You need to know how many lawsuits citizens have filed
against your local police department. You want to know what the charges
were, the number of officers involved, whether certain officers are
named repeatedly in suits, what was the outcome and, in the case of
successful suits, how much did the city pay in damages.
The number
of lawsuits filed against a police department can be very revealing. For
example, the Los Angeles Times reported that the city paid $64 million
(of citizens' tax money!) in damages for abuses by the Los Angeles
Police Department and county sheriff's office in just three years --
1989-1991. In 1990 alone, New York City paid victims of police
misconduct a record high of more than $13 million. This kind of
information can be used to mobilize middle-class taxpayers and
"good-government" activists, who can then be brought into a community
coalition against police abuse.
E. Minority employment. You need to
know how many African Americans, panics, Asians, other minorities and
women are employed by your police department and their distribution
throughout the department's ranks.
This information is useful in
assessing, again, the "culture" of your local police department -- is it
internally diverse, fair and equitable? It also suggests how much value
the department places on the "human relations" aspects of its work, and
how responsive it is to community concerns.
WHERE TO GET THE INFORMATION, AND HOW
Police business is generally shrouded in secrecy, which conceals
outdated policies and departmental inertia, encourages cover-ups and, of
course, breeds public suspicion. But remember: Police departments are
an arm of government, and *the government's business is your business*.
Police policies, procedures, memoranda, records, reports, tape
recordings, etc. should not be withheld from public view unless their
release would threaten on-going investigations, endanger officers or
others, or invade someone's personal privacy.
Demanding information
about police practices is an important part of the struggle to
establish police accountability. Indeed, a campaign focused solely on
getting information from the police can serve as a vehicle for
organizing a community to tackle police abuse. Regarding all of the
following categories, one of the tactics your community could employ is
to interest a local investigative journalist in seeking information from
the police for a series of articles. Once in hand, the information is a
tool for holding the police accountable for their actions.
Police
Shootings. Virtually every big city police department has this
information on hand, since officers are required to file a report after
every firearms discharge. Departments are supposed to publish a summary
of weapons discharges every year, but they don't usually release the
information voluntarily. Strong civilian review boards in a few cities
now publish the information. As for repeat shooters, this information
exists in police reports but police departments vigorously resist
identifying repeat shooters. There are several ways to proceed:
(1)
As an organizing strategy, demand that the police department publish
this data, identify the repeaters and take appropriate remedial action
(counseling, retraining, formal discipline, transfer, etc.)
(2)
Alternatively, since it isn't essential that officers be identified by
name, demand that they be identified simply by a code number, which can
focus public attention on the problem of excessive shooters.
(3)
Visit your local civilian review agency, if one exists. These agencies
often have the authority to collect and release a range of information
about local police conduct.
SIDEBAR: ON DRUGS, GANGS AND POLICE OFFICER SAFETY
Police work remains dangerous, and many police officers contend that
they need greater freedom to use deadly force today because of the
increase in heavily armed drug gangs.
But in fact, police work is
much less dangerous than it used to be. The number of officers killed in
the line of duty is half of what it was nearly 20 years ago. According
to the FBI, the number of officers killed dropped from 134 in 1973 to 67
in 1990. That reduced death rate is even more dramatic considering the
increase in the number of police officers on duty in the field.
Police officers have not been the victims of "drive-by" gang shootings.
Innocent by-standers and rival gang members have been the victims.
The police do not need more firepower.
B. Physical Force. There are three potential sources of data on police use of physical force.
(1) Data developed by community residents. Community residents can make
a significant contribution to documenting physical force abuses and, in
the process, organize. They can bear witness to, and record, abuse
incidents, take information from others who have witnessed incidents,
refute police department arguments that there is no problem and help
document the inadequacies of the police department's official complaint
review process.
The San Diego chapter of the ACLU's Southern
California affiliate set up "police hotline," which is listed in the
Yellow Pages, to receive complaints about the police. The chapter's
first report on the hotline, issued in August 1990, offers some useful
information about complaint patterns. The Police Watch in Los Angeles
compiles similar data. To receive a copy of the San Diego ACLU report,
write to the ACLU/San Diego, 1202 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 6200, San
Diego, CA 92101, or call (619) 232-2121. Police Watch can be contacted
at 611 South Catalina, Suite 409, Los Angeles, CA 90005; (213)387-3325.
(2) Formal complaints filed by citizens. Most police departments do not
make this information public. Some publish summary data in their annual
report, so consult that document. In a number of cities, civilian
review agencies publish it, so check with that agency in your city. The
annual reports of the New York City Citizen Complaint Review Board
(CCRB) and San Francisco's Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) provide
fairly detailed summaries.
(3) Internal police reports. An
increasing number of police departments require officers to fill out
reports after any use of physical force. This is a larger set of data
than the citizen complaints would provide, since many citizens don't
file complaints even when they have cause to do so. Ask to see these
reports.
C. Official Policies. Your police department has a Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) manual (it may have another title) that
contains the official policies of the department. The SOP manual is a
public document and should be readily available. Some departments place
current copies in local libraries. Others treat it as an internal
document not available to the public -- which is unacceptable. Demand to
see the manual, if your department withholds it. As a last resort, you
can file suit under your state's open records law to obtain the SOP
manual.
D. Lawsuits. Lawsuits brought against police departments are
matters of public record. Records of suits brought in state courts
reside at your local state courthouse; of suits brought in federal
district court, at your local federal courthouse. The Lexis computer
database is a source of published opinions in civilian suits brought
against the police. However, collecting information from any of these
sources is a very laborious task. Better to contact your local ACLU
affiliate and/or other relevant public interest groups, which may have
done most of the work for you. In the back of this manual, find the name
and address of your local ACLU and other organizations.
E. Minority
Employment. Official data on this issue are generally reliable and
available from your local police department. If the police stonewall,
you can get the information from the city's personnel division. The
point is to evaluate the police department's minority employment record
relative to local conditions.
Using current data, compare the
percentage of a particular group of people in the local population with
that group's representation on the police force. If, for example,
Hispanic Americans are 30 percent of the population but only 15 percent
of the sworn officers, the your police department is only half way
toward achieving an ideal level of diversity.
IV. CONTROLLING THE POLICE: COMMUNITY GOALS
GOAL #1: A CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD
Civilian review of police activity was first proposed in the 1950s
because of widespread dissatisfaction with the internal disciplinary
procedures of police departments. Many citizens didn't believe that
police officials took their complaints seriously. They suspected
officials of investigating allegations of abuse superficially at best,
and of covering up misconduct. The theory underlying the concept of
civilian review is that civilian investigations of citizen complaints
are more independent because they are conducted by people who are not
sworn officers.
At first, civilian review was a dream few thought
would ever be fulfilled. But slow, steady progress has been made,
indicating that it's an idea whose time has come. By the end of 1991,
more than 60 percent of the nation's 50 largest cities had civilian
review systems, half of which were established between 1986 and 1991.
Civilian review advocates in every city have had to overcome
substantial resistance from local police departments. One veteran of the
struggle for civilian review has chronicled the stages of police
opposition as follows:
> the "over our dead bodies" stage, during
which police will not accept any type of civilian oversight under any
circumstances;
> the "magical conversion" stage, when it becomes
politically inevitable that civilian review will be adopted. At this
point, former police opponents suddenly become civilian review experts
and propose the weakest possible models; Strong community advocacy is
necessary to overcome resistance at every stage, even after civilian
review is established.
WHAT IS CIVILIAN REVIEW?
Confusion reigns about civilian review systems because they vary tremendously.
Some are more "civilian" than others. Some are not boards but
municipal agencies headed by an executive director (who has been
appointed by, and is accountable to, the mayor).
The three basic types of civilian review systems are:
(1) Type I. Persons who are not sworn officers conduct the initial
fact-finding. They submit an investigative report to a non-officer or
board of non-officers, requesting a recommendation of discipline or
leniency. This process is the most independent and most "civilian."
(2) Type II. Sworn officers conduct the initial fact-finding. They
submit an investigative report to a non-officer or board of non-officers
for a recommendation.
(3) Type III. Sworn officers conduct the
initial fact-finding and make a recommendation to the police chief. If
the aggrieved citizen is not satisfied with the chief's action on the
complaint, he or she may appeal to aboard that includes non-officers.
Obviously, this process is the least independent.
Although the above are the most common, other types of civilian review systems also exist.
SIDEBAR: TEN PRINCIPLES FOR AN EFFECTIVE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD
1 Independence. The power to conduct hearings, subpoena witnesses and report findings and recommendations to the public.
2 Investigatory Power. The authority to independently investigate incidents and issue findings on complaints.
3 Mandatory Police Cooperation. Complete access to police witnesses and documents through legal mandate or subpoena power.
4 Adequate Funding. Should not be a lower budget priority than police internal affairs systems.
5 Hearings. Essential for solving credibility questions and enhancing public confidence in process.
6 Reflect Community Diversity. Board and staff should be broadly representative of the community it serves.
7 Policy Recommendations. Civilian oversight can spot problem policies and provide a forum for developing reforms.
8 Statistical Analysis. Public statistical reports can detail trends in
allegations, and early warning systems can identify officers who are
subjects of unusually numerous complaints.
9 Separate Offices. Should be housed away from police headquarters to maintain independence and credibility with public.
10 Disciplinary Role. Board findings should be considered in determining appropriate disciplinary action.
WHY IS CIVILIAN REVIEW IMPORTANT?
Civilian review establishes the principle of police accountability.
Strong evidence exists to show that a complaint review system encourages
citizens to act on their grievances. Even a weak civilian review
process is far better than none at all.
A civilian review agency
can be an important source of information about police misconduct. A
civilian agency is more likely to compile and publish data on patterns
of misconduct, especially on officers with chronic problems, than is a
police internal affairs agency.
Civilian review can alert police
administrators to the steps they must take to curb abuse in their
departments. Many well-intentioned police officials have failed to act
decisively against police brutality because internal investigations
didn't provide them with the facts.
The existence of a civilian
review agency, a reform in itself, can help ensure that other needed
reforms are implemented. A police department can formulate model
policies aimed at deterring and punishing misconduct, but those policies
will be meaningless unless a system is in place to guarantee that the
policies are aggressively enforced.
Civilian review works, if only
because it's at least a vast improvement over the police policing
themselves. Nearly all existing civilian review systems reduce public
reluctance to file complaints; reduce procedural barriers to filing
complaints; enhance the likelihood that statistical reporting on
complaints will be more complete; enhance the likelihood of an
independent review of abuse allegations; foster confidence in
complainants that they will get their "day in court" through the hearing
process; increase scrutiny of police policies that lead to citizen
complaints, and increase opportunities for other reform efforts.
Your community's campaign should seek the strongest possible civilian
review system, one that is fully independent and designed for easy
access. But if all you can get adopted is a weak system, take it with
the understanding that once it's created you can press for changes to
make it more independent and effective.
GOAL #2: CONTROL OF POLICE SHOOTINGS
Police misconduct in the use of deadly force is an area in which
considerable progress has been made. Although the rate of deadly force
abuse is still intolerably high, national data reveal reductions, by as
much as 35-to-40 percent in our 50 largest cities, in the number of
persons shot and killed by the police since the mid-1970s. This has been
accompanied by a significant reduction in the racial disparities among
persons shot and killed: since the 1970s, from about six minority
persons to one white person, down to three minority persons to one
white.
This progress serves as a model for controlling other forms of police behavior.
How was it achieved? In the mid-1970s, police departments began to
develop restrictive internal policies on the use of deadly force. These
embodied the "defense of life" standard, which allows the use of deadly
force only when the life of an officer or some other person is in
danger. In 1985, the Supreme Court finally upheld this standard in the
case of Tennessee v. Garner (see sidebar, "Racial Discrimination in
Police Shootings"). However, the majority of policies adopted by police
departments go beyond the courts Garner decision, prohibiting warning
shots, shots to wound, and other reckless actions. Most important, these
policies require officers to file written reports after each firearms
discharge, and require that those reports be automatically reviewed by
higher-ranking officers.
To meet goal #2, your community must:
(1) Ensure that the police department has a highly restrictive deadly
force policy. Most big city departments do. But the national trend data
on shootings suggest that medium-sized and small departments have not
caught up with the big cities, so much remains to be done there. Much
remains to be done as well in county sheriff and state police agencies,
which have not been subject to the same scrutiny as big city police
departments.
(2) Ensure enforcement of the deadly force policy through community monitoring.
To be accountable, the police department and/or the local civilian
review agency should publish summary data on shooting incidents.
Citizens should also be able to find out whether the department
disciplines officers who violate its policy, and whether certain
officers are repeatedly involved in questionable incidents.
SIDEBAR: THE HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT'S DEADLY FORCE POLICY (1987)
POLICY: The Houston Police Department places its highest value on the
life and safety of its officers and the public. The department's
policies, rules and procedures are designed to ensure that this value
guides police officers' use of firearms.
RULES: The policy stated
above is the basis of the following set of rules that have been designed
to guide officers in all cases involving the use of firearms:
*The
citizens of Houston have vested in their police officers the power to
carry and use firearms in the exercise of their service to society. This
power is based on trust and, therefore, must be balanced by a system of
accountability.
The serious consequences of the use of firearms
by police officers necessitate the specification of limits for officers'
discretion; there is often no appeal from an officer's decision to use
a firearm. Therefore, it is imperative that every effort be made to
ensure that such use is not only legally warranted but also rational and
humane.
*The basic responsibility of police officers to protect
life also requires that they exhaust all other reasonable means for
apprehension and control before resorting to the use of firearms. Police
officers are equipped with firearms as a means of last resort to
protect themselves and others from the immediate threat of death or
serious bodily injury.
*Even though all officers must be prepared to
use their firearms when necessary, the utmost restraint must be
exercised in their use. Consequently, no officer will be disciplined for
discharging a firearm in self-defense or in defense of another when
faced with a situation that immediately threatens life or serious bodily
injury. Just as important, no officer will be disciplined for not
discharging a firearm if that discharge might threaten the life or
safety of an innocent person, or if the discharge is not clearly
warranted by the policy and rules of the department.
Preventing Police Abuse
Page 2
*Above all, this department values the safety of its employees and the public.
Likewise it believes that police officers should use firearms with a
high degree of restraint. Officers' use of firearms, therefore, shall
never be considered routine and is permissible only in defense of life
and then only after all alternative means have been exhausted.
RULE
1: Police officers shall not discharge their firearms except to protect
themselves or another person from imminent death or serious bodily
injury.
RULE 2: Police officers shall discharge their firearms only when doing so will not endanger innocent persons.
RULE 3: Police officers shall not discharge their firearms to threaten
or subdue persons whose actions are destructive to property or injurious
to themselves but which do not represent an imminent threat of death or
serious bodily injury to the officer or others.
RULE 4: Police
officers shall not discharge their firearms to subdue an escaping
suspect who presents no imminent threat of death or serious bodily
injury.
RULE 5: Police officers shall not discharge their weapons at
a moving vehicle unless it is absolutely necessary to do so to protect
against an imminent threat to the life of the officer or others.
RULE 6: Police officers when confronting an oncoming vehicle shall
attempt to move out of the path, if possible, rather than discharge
their firearms at the oncoming vehicle.
RULE 7: Police officers
shall not intentionally place themselves in the path of an oncoming
vehicle and attempt to disable the vehicle by discharging their
firearms.
RULE 8: Police officers shall not discharge their firearms at a fleeing vehicle or its driver.
RULE 9: Police officers shall not fire warning shots.
RULE 10: Police officers shall not draw or display their firearms
unless there is a threat or probably cause to believe there is a threat
to life, or for inspection.
GOAL #3: REDUCE POLICE BRUTALITY
Your community's principal aim here should be to get the police
department to adopt and enforce a written policy governing the use of
physical force. This policy should have two parts:
(1) It should
explicitly restrict physical force to the narrowest possible range of
specific situations. For example, a policy on the use of batons should
forbid police officers from striking citizens in "non-target" areas,
such as the head and spine, where permanent injuries can result. Mace
should be used defensively, not offensively. Since electronic stun guns
(Novas and Taser) have great potential for abuse because they don't
leave scars or bruises, their use should be strictly controlled,
supervised and reviewed.
(2) It should require that a police officer
file a written report after any use of physical force, and that report
should be automatically reviewed by high ranking officers.
Your
community's second objective should be to get the police department to
establish an early warning system to identify officers who are involved
in an inordinate number of incidents that include the inappropriate use
of physical force. The incidents should then be investigated and, if
verified, the officers involved should be charged, disciplined,
transferred, re-trained or offered counseling -- depending on the
severity of their misconduct. The Christopher Commission's report on the
Rodney King beating ascertained that the Los Angeles police leadership
typically looked the other way when officers were involved in
questionable incidents. This tolerance of brutality by the top brass
helped create an atmosphere conducive to police abuses.
GOAL #4: END POLICE SPYING
Police spying, or intelligence gathering, on constitutionally
protected political, religious and private sexual behavior is an
historic problem. And it's particularly difficult to deal with because
spying, by definition, is a covert activity. The victim doesn't know
it's happening, and it's not witnessed by others.
During the
1970s, the ACLU and other public interest organizations brought lawsuits
against unconstitutional police surveillance in several cities around
the country, including New York City, Chicago, Memphis and Los Angeles.
These suits resulted in the imposition of stricter limits on
intelligence gathering by the police.
In Seattle in 1976, it came
to light that local police were spying on organizations of black
construction workers, Native Americans, advocates for low-income housing
and other community activists whose conduct was perfectly lawful. In
response to the revelations, the ACLU, along with the American Friends
Service Committee and the National Lawyers Guild, formed the Coalition
on Government Spying. After several years of hard work and lobbying, the
coalition succeeded in bringing about passage of a comprehensive
municipal law -- the first of its kind in the country -- that governs
all police investigations and restricts the collection of political,
religious and sexual information.
This law, called the Seattle
Police Intelligence Ordinance, is an important breakthrough and a model
for other efforts. It contains three elements that represent basic
changes in police intelligence operations:
(1) "Restricted"
information (that is, religious, political or sexual information) can be
collected only if a person is reasonably suspected of having committed a
crime, and the information must be relevant to that crime; (2) An
independent civilian "auditor", appointed by the mayor and confirmed by
the city council, must review all police authorizations to collect
restricted information and have access to all other police files. If the
auditor finds that the police have violated the law, he or she must so
notify the individuals who are the subjects of the unlawful
investigations;
(3) Any individual subjected to unlawful
surveillance can bring a civil action in court to stop the surveillance,
and to collect damages from the city.
GOAL #5: GENERAL OVERSIGHT OF POLICE POLICY
Police policies should be subject to public review and debate instead
of being viewed as the sole province of police insiders. Open
policy-making not only allows police officials to benefit from community
input, but it also provides an opportunity for police officials to
explain to the public why certain tactics or procedures may be
necessary. This kind of communication between the police and the
community can help anticipate problems and avert crises before they
occur.
The Police Review Commission (a civilian review body) of
Berkeley, California holds regular, bi-monthly meetings that are open to
the public. At these meetings, representatives of community
organizations can voice criticisms, make proposals and introduce
resolutions to review or reform specific police policies.
The
Police Practices Project of the ACLU of Northern California successfully
pressured the San Francisco Police Department to adopt enlightened
policies in regard to the treatment of homeless people; the use of pain
holds and batons; the deployment of plainclothes officers at protests
and demonstrations; intelligence gathering; the selection of field
training officers, and AIDS/HIV education for police officers. The
Project has also prevented the adoption of bad policies, including an
anti-loitering rule and a policy that would have made demonstrators
financially liable for police costs.
In Tucson, Arizona, a
Citizens' Police Advisory Committee was made part of the city's
municipal code in July 1990. The Committee, which is composed of both
civilian and police representatives, has the authority to initiate
investigations of controversial incidents or questionable policies,
along with other oversight functions.
SIDEBAR: CITIZEN-POLICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TUCSON, ARIZONA (Created by the Tucson Code, Sec. 10A-86)
FUNCTIONS:
(a) Consult with the governing body from time to time as may be required by the Mayor and [City] Council.
(b) Assist the police in achieving a greater understanding of the
nature and causes of complex community problems in the area of human
relations, with special emphasis on the advancement and improvement of
relations between police and community minority groups.
(c) Study,
examine and recommend methods, approaches and techniques to encourage
and develop an active citizen-police partnership in the prevention of
crime.
(d) Promote cooperative citizen-police programs and
approaches to the solutions of community crime problems, emphasizing the
principal that the administration of justice is a responsibility which
requires total community involvement.
(e) Recommend procedures, programs and/or legislation to enhance cooperation among citizens of the community and police.
(f) Strive to strengthen and ensure throughout the community the
application of the principle of equal protection under the law for all
persons.
(g) Consult and cooperate with federal, state, city and
other public agencies, commissions and committees on matters within the
committee's charge.
(h) The committee may ask for and shall receive
from the Police Department, a review of action taken by the Department
in incidents which create community concern or controversy.
(i) The
committee shall have the authority, should it so desire, to use a
specific incident as a vehicle for the examination of police policies,
procedures and priorities.
(j) At the discretion and express
direction of the Mayor and Council, assume and undertake such other
tasks or duties as will facilitate the accomplishment of these goals and
objectives.........
GOAL #6: IMPROVED TRAINING
Over the
years, citizens' groups in some communities demanded more education and
training for police officers as part of their efforts to solve the
problem of police abuse. But at this juncture, the education issue is
somewhat moot because the educational levels of American police officers
have risen dramatically in recent years. By 1986, 22.6 percent of all
officers had four or more years of college. About 65 percent had at
least some college experience. The levels of education are highest among
new recruits, who, in many departments have about two years of college.
Moreover, no evidence exists to show that college educated police
officers perform better, or are more respectful of citizen's rights,
than less educated officers. In an abuse-prone department, all officers
are likely to engage in misconduct, regardless of education levels.
The training of police personnel has also improved significantly in
recent years. The average length of police academy programs has more
than doubled, from about 300 to over 600 hours; in some cities, 900 or
even 1200 hours are the rule. As the time devoted to training has
increased, the academies have added a number of important subjects to
their curricula: race relations, domestic violence, handling the
mentally ill, and so on.
Unquestionably, a rigorously trained,
professional police force is a desirable goal that should be pursued
depending on local conditions. If citizens in your community feel that
this is an important issue, here's what you should aim for:
A first
rate police academy curriculum. The curriculum should be near the high
end of the current scale -- 800 hours or more. It should include a mix
of classroom and supervised field training.
It should include
training in the techniques of de-escalating violence. In addition to
being given weapons and taught how to use them, police recruits should
also learn special skills -- especially communications skills -- to help
them defuse and avert situations that might lead to the necessary use
of force.
It should include community sensitivity training.
Training recruits to handle issues of special significance in particular
communities can lead to a reduction in community-police tensions.
The ACLU of Georgia, after a series of incidents occurred in Atlanta
involving police harassment of gays, helped provide regular training at
the local police academy to sensitize new recruits on gay and lesbian
concerns.
The Police Practices Project of the ACLU of Northern
California organized a group of homeless people to create a video for
use in sensitivity training at the San Francisco police academy.
The ACLU of New Jersey, in response to complaints that state police were
harassing minority motorists and entrapping gay men during an
undercover operation in the men's room of a highway service area, joined
the NAACP and the Lesbian and Gay Coalition in initiating a series of
meetings with the new superintendent of the Division of State Police.
The meetings resulted in the introduction a two-week seminar on
"Cultural Diversity and Professionalism" that all 1,700 employees of the
Division were required to take within a year's time. Although it's too
soon to evaluate the seminar's impact on police conduct, the
participating organizations believe that at the very least it opened up
lines of communication between the community and the police.
Unfortunately, even the most enlightened training programs can be
undermined by veteran officers, who traditionally tell recruits out in
the field to "forget all that crap they taught you in the academy."
In San Francisco some years ago, men selected as field training
officers (FTOs) were found to have some of the worst complaint and
litigation records in the department. The evaluation scores they gave
recruits revealed their systematic attempts to weed out minority and
women officers. They labeled women recruits "bad drivers," gave Asians
low scores in radio communication and unfairly criticized African
Americans for their report-writing. The Northern California ACLU's
Police Practices Project joined other community groups in successfully
pressuring the police department to adopt stricter selection criteria
for FTOs to ensure greater racial and gender integration, fairer
evaluations of recruits and higher quality training.
GOAL #7: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Historically, police departments, like other government agencies, have
engaged in employment discrimination. People of color have been grossly
under represented, and women were not even accepted as full-fledged
officers until the 1970s.
Some progress has been made in the last
15 to 20 years. Police departments in several cities now have
significant numbers of officers who are people of color.
A few
departments even approach the theoretically ideal level of maintaining
forces that reflect the racial composition of the communities they
serve. Most departments now recruit and assign women on an equal basis
with men.
Nonetheless, the overall employment levels of women and
minorities still lag far behind the ideal. In 1986, only 8.8 percent of
all sworn officers were women.
The San Francisco police force, even
though it has been operating under a court-approved consent decree for
12 years, is still only 12 percent female and about 25 percent minority
-- just a little more than half the integration level the court
required. These disparities are most blatant at the highest ranks of
virtually all police departments in the country. Although a number of
cities now have African American police chiefs, only two big city
departments have ever had female chiefs.
Improvements in police
employment practices have come about largely as the result of litigation
under existing civil rights laws. However, the courts may not be
hospitable to employment discrimination claims in the future. Therefore,
community groups and civil rights organizations should prepare to fight
in the political arena for the integration of police departments.
In the short term, the recruitment of more women and minority officers
may not result in less police abuse. Several social science studies
suggest that minority and white officers do not differ greatly in their
use of physical or deadly force, or in their arrest practices. (Women
officers, on the other hand, are involved in citizen complaints at about
half the rate of male officers, according to the New York City CCRB.)
Still, in the long term, an integrated police force is a very important
goal for these reasons:
(1) Integration will break down the
isolation of police departments, as they reflect more and more the
composition of the communities they serve. A representative police force
will probably be less likely to behave like an alien, occupying army.
The visible presence of officers of color in high-ranking command
positions engenders public confidence in the ability of police
department personnel to identify, on human terms, with community
residents.
(2) Integration sends the important message that the
primary enforcement arm of "the law" is, itself, committed to the
principles of equal opportunity and equal protection of the law.
(3) Integration might, over time, reduce overtly racist/sexist enforcement tactics and actions, including brutality.
GOAL #8: CERTIFICATION AND LICENSING OF POLICE OFFICERS
Every state now has procedures for certifying or licensing police
officers that require all sworn officers to have some minimum level of
training. This was one of the advances of the late 1960s and early
1970s.
An important new development is the advent of procedures for
decertifying officers. Traditionally, a police officer could be fired
from one department but then hired by another. As a result, persons
guilty of gross misconduct could continue to work as police officers.
Decertification bars a dismissed officer from further police employment
in that state (though not necessarily in some other state). Between 1976
and 1983, the Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training
Commission decertified 132 police officers.
GOAL #9: ACCREDITATION OF POLICE DEPARTMENTS
One result of the increasing number of lawsuits brought against police
departments by victims of abuse over the past 20 years was a movement,
within the police profession, for an accreditation process similar to
that in education and other fields whereby the police would establish
and enforce their own professional standards.
In 1979, the
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (COALEA) was
established as a joint undertaking of several major professional
associations. COALEA published its first set of Standards for Law
Enforcement Agencies in 1985 and issues new standards periodically.
In deciding whether your community should press for accreditation of
its local police department, keep in mind these basic points.
(1)
Accreditation is a voluntary process. A police department suffers no
penalty for not being accredited. (In contrast, lack of accreditation in
higher education carries penalties that include an institution's
ineligibility for student financial aid programs and non-recognition of
its awarded credits or degrees.)
(2) Current accreditation standards
are minimum, rather than optimum. They are very good in some respects
but do not go far enough in covering the critical uses of law
enforcement powers.
(3) Accreditation might make a difference in the
case of a truly backward, unprofessional and poorly managed police
department in that it could help stimulate much needed and long overdue
changes. On the other hand, a police department can easily comply with
all of the current standards and still tolerate rampant brutality,
spying and other abuses.
(4) Citizens in your particular community
must decide whether, taking all of the above into account, accreditation
would serve as an effective mobilization tool.
V. ORGANIZING STRATEGIES
Once your community has identified its police problems and decided
what solutions to pursue, an organizing strategy for securing the
desired reform must be developed.
In the 1960s and '70s, the most
successful method of attacking police abuse was the lawsuit. During the
tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren, landmark Supreme
Court
decisions that imposed nationally uniform limits on police behavior were
handed down in the cases of Mapp v. Ohio, Escobedo v. Illinois and
Miranda v. Arizona. Respectively, those decisions extended Fourth
Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to the
states, established the Sixth
Amendment right to a lawyer during
police interrogations and required the police to inform persons taken
into custody of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Today, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is
repeatedly demonstrating its hostility to individual rights, as are many
lower federal courts, the majority of whose presiding judges were
appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. More and more,
therefore, the task of opposing police abuse falls not to lawyers, but
to the citizens in your community.
STRATEGY #1: BUILD COALITIONS
PROFILE: The Indianapolis Law Enforcement and Community Relations Coalition.
The year is 1984. Galvanized by a series of brutal and unjustified
police killings that have sparked tensions between the police department
and the African American community, 19 civil rights, religious,
professional and civic organizations form the Indianapolis Law
Enforcement/Community Relations Coalition. Coalition members include the
Urban League, Baptist Ministerial Alliance, Community Centers of
Indianapolis, Hispano-American Center, Indiana Council of Churches,
Jewish Community Relations Council, Mental Health Association, NAACP and
the United Methodist Church.
The coalition, co-chaired by the
directors of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union and the Urban League of
Greater Indianapolis, sets the establishment of a civilian review board
as its first priority. A board is established in 1989.
Currently,
the coalition is seeking to strengthen the board's authority and
functions. Coalition members are calling for removal of three police
representatives so that the board will be completely civilian and, thus,
truly independent. Coalition members collaborate with police academy
instructors on sensitivity training, meeting with every class of
recruits before the recruits graduate and take on their first field
assignments. The recruits receive orientation around various policies
and procedures that impact on the community, such as the use of deadly
force.
In Indianapolis today, the Law Enforcement/Community
Relations Coalition is regarded by the police, the public and the media
as the city's principal civilian watchdog organization. Key to the
coalition's success has been its broad based character and commitment to
participatory decision-making.
STRATEGY #2: MONITOR THE POLICE
PROFILE: COPWATCH, Berkeley, California COPWATCH is a community
organization whose stated purpose is "to reduce police harassment and
brutality," and "to uphold Berkeley's tradition of tolerance and
diversity." Its main activities are monitoring police conduct through
personal observation, recording and publicizing incidents of abuse and
harassment, and working with Berkeley's civilian review board -- the
Police Review Commission.
COPWATCH sends teams of volunteers into
the community on three-hour shifts. Each team is equipped with a
flashlight, tape recorder, camera, "incident" forms (see sidebar) and
COPWATCH Handbooks that describe the organization's non-violent tactics,
relevant laws, court decisions, police policies and what citizens
should do in an emergency. At the end of a shift, the volunteers return
their completed forms to the COPWATCH office. If they have witnessed an
harassment incident, they call one of the organization's cooperating
lawyers, who follows up on the incident.
STRATEGY # 3: USE OPEN RECORDS LAWS
PROFILE: The Seattle Coalition on Government Spying
The year is 1976. During confirmation hearings for a new Seattle
police chief, it comes to light that the city's police department
maintains political intelligence files on citizens who are not suspected
of any criminal activity.
Some time later, a local newspaper prints the names of 150 individuals that were found in police files.
A group of citizens, concerned about this clear violation of First
Amendment and privacy rights, form the Coalition on Government Spying.
One of the coalition's first acts is to file suit under the Washington
public disclosure law, seeking access to the police department's
intelligence files (see sample Open Records statute in sidebar). Under
the law, the police can refuse to disclose the files only if "non
disclosure is essential to effective law enforcement." Since the files
are purely political, the court orders full disclosure.
The
coalition's charges of abuse turn out to be well-founded. Not only do
the files show that the police have engaged in unconstitutional
surveillance of political activists, but they are full of inaccurate,
misleading and damaging information.
The lawsuit and its
revelations receive a lot of media attention, which helps build strong
public support for reform. The result: Seattle enacts the first and only
municipal ordinance in the country that restricts police surveillance.
SIDEBAR: OPEN RECORDS LAWS
Each of the 50 states has a freedom of information act or an open
records law. Virtually all such laws were enacted post-Watergate, in the
mid-1970's. Under these laws, community groups can request and obtain
access to police reports, investigations, policies and tape recordings
regarding a controversial incident, such as a beating, shooting, or
false arrest. If the police refuse to disclose information to
representatives of your community, that refusal in itself should become
the focus of organizing and public attention. Ultimately, your community
can sue to compel disclosure, unless the records you seek are
specifically exempted.
FLORIDA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
General state policy on public records.
It is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal
records shall at all times be open for a personal inspection by any
person.
Definitions.
(1) "Public records" means all documents,
papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound
recordings, or other material, regardless of physical form or other
characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in
connection with the transaction of official business by any agency.
(2) "Agency" shall mean any state, county, district, authority or
municipal officer, department, division, board, bureau, commission, or
other separate unit of government...
Inspection and examination of records; exemptions.
(1) Every person who has custody of public records shall permit the
records to be inspected and examined by any person desiring to do so, at
reasonable times, under reasonable conditions...The custodian shall
furnish copies or certified copies of the records upon payment of
fees...
(2) All public records which presently are provided by law
to be confidential or which are prohibited from being inspected by the
public, whether by general or special law, shall be exempt from the
provisions of subsection