ABCalifornia Politics How much force are law enforcement officers allowed to use during their daily encounters with the community? This is a question that the mainstream media as a whole has brought to the center of attention in the United States. Officer involved shootings have become more prominent on the news over the last few years than ever before and the public demands an explanation. Innocent citizens are either dying or getting seriously injured through the excessive use of force that officers are displaying. Some believe the problem would be resolved if every officer wore a body camera, while others think that indictments and lawsuits against cops would be a means of obtaining justice and serve as a deterrent for the rest of the law enforcement agencies. Police brutality taking place in local communities is an extremely serious issue and must be addressed in order to repair the bond between police and the community they are sworn to serve.
The Sacramento Police Department policies regarding the use of deadly force are consistent with the California Penal Code Section 835a, which states, “Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance. A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.” Officers may use deadly force if, under the circumstances, the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury, either to the officer or to others. Criminal justice reform was on the ballot in six states (CO, FL, LA, OH, OR, WA) during the 2018 Midterm Elections. Washington’s Initiative 940 was the only reform bill that involved use of force. As with police agencies in other states, Washington police departments have come under fire for excessive use of force, particularly against racial minorities. Initiative 940 would change the standards allowing use of force, imposing a “good faith test” that would create extra checks to ensure use of force was truly justified. It would also mandate independent investigations into police officer’s use of force that results in serious injury or death. And it would require all police officers in the state to get de-escalation and mental health training and create a duty for them to provide first aid. This initiative reform was passed into law in the state of Washington and has set a precedent for other states to make changes as well. I would not be surprised if California followed suit in the upcoming elections. De-Escalate Washington sponsored the bill by raising more than $1.7 million and gathering 360,000 signatures. The ACLU and the Black Law Enforcement Association of Washington also endorsed the initiative. Legal issues concerning excessive use of force in law enforcement have been previously addressed on the federal level. In Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the United States Supreme Court ruled under the Fourth Amendment that when an officer is chasing a fleeing suspect, he or she is not allowed to use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" (Kaplan, Weisberg, Binder 563). The Supreme Court found that the use of deadly force to stop someone from getting away was an example of an unreasonable seizure, without probable cause that the suspect created imminent danger to the community. Another court case appeared four years later in 1989. The Supreme Court determined in Graham v. Connor that an "objective reasonableness" of a seizure "requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual...against the attempt at countervailing and under the guise of governmental interests being at stake" (Brown 1991). After the ruling, the Supreme Court composed a list of aspects for balancing both the individual's and officer’s rights such as "the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight." Many law enforcement agencies refer back to this court case and make sure officers are aware of the factors outlined by the courts so that they are able to recall what they are allowed to do within the confines of the law. Attempts have been made here in Sacramento to change use of force laws. Legislation came about following the death of Stephon Clark. AB-931 would have changed the police use of force protocol so that officers would have to exhaust all “reasonable alternatives”, such as de-escalation and less-lethal force, before resorting to deadly force, essentially only being allowed to use deadly force when it’s absolutely “necessary”. However, the bill was put on hold and California legislators assured the public there will be further discussions later in the year.
0 Comments
|
AuthorUndergraduate student generated content. Blog posting and updating done by Kristina Flores Victor, Assistant Professor of Political Science at CSUS Archives
March 2020
Categories
All
|