Criminal Justice
Box 3.3 on page 85 of the text provides an insightful comment on the United Supreme Court decision in Graham v. Connor. The NCJA Graham vs. Connor video (Links to an external site.) provides a short overview of the case as well. This case established the “objectively reasonable” standard for officer use of force.
The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) (Links to an external site.) is a national research organization with a prominent membership base of over 300 Police Chiefs from major American cities. In 2016, PERF strongly objected to the “objectively reasonable” standard and argued that police departments should go beyond the Graham decision in their training and policies related to the use of force.
“By adopting policies that go beyond the minimum requirements of Graham, agencies can help prevent officers from being placed in situations that endanger themselves or others, where the officers have no choice but to make split-second decisions to use deadly force” (PERF, 2016, p. 17).
PERF’s public comment and disagreement was an unprecedented action by a law enforcement chiefs membership organization and created considerable debate in the field.
Put yourself in the seat of a Chief of Police faced with the Supreme Court’s faced with the Graham decision and PERF’s recommendation. Why would PERF make a decision to make the Supreme Court’s decision more restrictive in practice? What does this tell us about the role of the Supreme Court and the responsibility of Police Chiefs in applying the law to practice? You are encouraged to conduct outside research to support your analysis.
Your essay should be free of grammatical and spelling errors, and resources must be cited properly using APA-style in-text citations. Additional formatting requirements are as follows:
Times New Roman 12 pt font
Double spaced with no extra spacing (between paragraphs, lines, pages, etc.)
1-inch margins on all sides
Title Page
Reference Page, using APA Style, 6th edition
ANSWER
Objective Reasonableness
The police executive research forum came up with guidelines on officers’ training in the use of force above the rule of Graham vs. Connor, as stated by the Supreme Court. The intention of PERF was not for police departments to change their policies, but they realized that from the statistics given, there are cases where lethal force was used, but it was not necessary. Officers should not be faulted for the past incidents where they used force and the incidents turned out to be controversial because they were applying what they were taught in training (Rosa, 2002). PERF, however, calls for change in the training when it comes to the use of force. In some situations, there are less deadly weapons that can be used to de-escalate the situation. For example, in a case where a family calls an officer to help them take a mentally challenged patient to the hospital, but the patient is holding a knife or another weapon, the officers can first try to calm the patient, and if that does not work, they can use a less-lethal weapon such as a Taser (Wexler, 2016).
Police officers are meant to protect the community. However, the growing cases of police-related shootings have led to mistrust between the community and the police departments. The police are also scared of proactive policing as they could be the subject of the next viral video. Members of the community are hesitant to partner with the police to enforce community policing (Wexler, 2016). PERF is an organization that receives information from police chiefs and other law enforcement executives daily, and from the information given, there is a need for a change. This means, as suggested by PERF, the way of thinking needs to change, and the tactics, weapons, and approach need to change, especially when dealing with mentally unstable citizens and those who are unarmed. It is not the wish of any police department to appear to the press to deal with police-involved shootings cases. Apart from following the Graham v. Connor guidelines on objective reasonableness, officers should consider PERF’s recommendation to de-escalate the situation before using lethal force.
According to the Graham v. Connor ruling, the Supreme Court determined that when deciding whether an officer used excessive force or not, the fourth amendment is the only amendment that matters. The subjective perceptions of an officer also do not matter when evaluating whether an officer applied excessive force (Garrett & Stoughton, 2017). This, therefore, means that the 14th and eighth amendments are irrelevant because they are subjective. When it comes to applying objective reasonableness, the Supreme Court stated that an officer must be able to express and articulate the circumstances that led to the use of force. It is also an indication that an officer’s emotions do not matter in an investigation in the use of force (Brown 1990). As long as an officer can account for his use of force, other matters such as racism and sadism do not account in the investigation on the use of force. However, this ruling has led to the use of lethal force in cases where other forms of de-escalation could have been applied.
The police chiefs have a responsibility to the citizens and their officers to ensure they are both safe. It is, therefore, in the police chiefs’ best interest that they should adopt the guidelines by PERF to first de-escalate a situation before resulting in the use of force. The police chiefs have a responsibility to ensure that their officers follow the objective reasonableness rule and the PERF’s recommendations. The Supreme Court and police chiefs are responsible for ensuring the officers are following the law, and the officers are applying the recommendations provided (Wexler, 2016). It is also in the police chiefs’ best interest to adapt to the PERF’s guiding principles on the use of less-lethal weapons, especially with citizens who are not armed with guns and those who are mentally unstable. For example, when dealing with an erratic drunkard, the officer can use pepper spray or a Taser to contain the situation. This will prevent casualties and lawsuits against the police department.
It is the police chief’s work to ensure the emotional and physical wellness of the police officers. PERF puts this consideration at the heart of their research and recommendations and, therefore, suggests using other methods to de-escalate situations (Ranalli, 2016). The organization is not asking the police departments to change the rule, but it would be advisable they adopt less-lethal methods of dealing with situations. The training sessions on the less lethal methods and how to react to aggression cases without resulting in the harm of the officer and killing of the citizen are an essential addition to the police training. The recommendation also does not suggest that officers should back down from dangerous situations; objective reasonableness will still be applied in cases where the officers feel their life is threatened and need to disarm the threat by using lethal force.
References
Brown, J. I. (1990). Defining Reasonable Police Conduct: Graham v. Connor and Excessive Force during Arrest. UCLA L. Rev., 38, 1257.
Garrett, B., & Stoughton, S. (2017). A Tactical Fourth Amendment. Va. L. Rev., 103, 211.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Ranalli, M. (2016). Above and Beyond Graham V. Connor? Examining PERF’s Second Guiding principle. https://www.lexipol.com/resources/blog/beyond-graham-v-connor-examining-perfs-second-guiding-principle-2/
Ross, D. L. (2002). An assessment of Graham v. Connor, ten years later. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management.
Wexler, C. (2016). Why we Need to Challenge Conventional Thinking on Police Use of Force. https://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf
