Fourth Amendment & Vehicle Searches

• Policies can be created using departmental "rulemaking" to frame police discretion, restricting police infringement on citizens' rights. This process involves establishing specific guidelines and procedures that govern how law enforcement agencies operate, with the goal of ensuring that their actions remain consistent with constitutional protections.

Fourth Amendment & Vehicle Searches

• Collins v. Virginia (2018) ruled 8-1 that a warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. The case specifically addressed the issue of privacy rights in the context of vehicle searches, reinforcing the necessity for law enforcement to obtain a warrant before conducting such searches unless a recognized exception applies.
• The motorcycle was parked in a private driveway, an area that is considered protected under the Fourth Amendment since it is part of the home’s curtilage. This designation signifies that the police must respect the privacy of individuals in their homes and their immediate surroundings, reflecting the value placed on personal privacy in the judicial system.
• The police lacked a warrant, and the vehicle exception did not apply, meaning that the circumstances did not justify a warrantless search of the vehicle in question. This case underscores the legal principle that exceptions to the warrant requirement are to be narrowly construed to prevent overreach by law enforcement officials.

The Exclusionary Rule

• The gun can be used in court based on the exclusionary rule if the stop was unconstitutional. The exclusionary rule serves as a safeguard against the improper collection of evidence by law enforcement, ensuring that any evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's rights cannot be presented in court, thereby preserving the integrity of the judicial process.
• Three justifications for the exclusionary rule include:
  • Constitutional right against unreasonable seizure and coerced confessions, which protects individuals from violations of their rights during encounters with law enforcement.
  • Judicial integrity to preserve the honor of the courts; upholding the exclusionary rule is crucial for maintaining public trust in the legal system's commitment to justice.
  • Deterrence of police misconduct, intended to discourage law enforcement from engaging in illegal search and seizure activities because they risk losing any evidence gathered in such a manner.
• Collateral use involves using evidence in hearings other than the main case. This principle allows for certain types of evidence to be admitted in a different legal context, even if it was obtained in a manner that would otherwise be considered unconstitutional.
• Independent source, as seen in Murray v. United States (1988), allows evidence to be admissible if it was found independently of any illegal actions taken by law enforcement. This exception ensures that lawful evidence can still be considered, thereby preventing the complete dismissal of valid findings due to procedural missteps.
• Inevitable discovery, as outlined in Nix v. Williams, allows evidence to be introduced if law enforcement can prove it would have been discovered lawfully regardless of the illegal search or seizure that occurred. This exception reinforces the idea that not all evidence should be dismissed simply for being tainted by an unlawful act.
• The biggest exception to the exclusionary rule is good faith; if officers act in good faith, believing that their actions comply with the law, there is no violation of rights; this principle seeks to balance the rights of individuals against the operational realities faced by law enforcement officers in the field.

Use of Force & Graham v. Connor

• Force is a Fourth Amendment issue, according to Tennessee v. Garner, which recognized that the use of deadly force must be reasonable in relation to the threat presented by an individual. This case established crucial benchmarks for evaluating police use of force within the confines of constitutional rights.
• "Objective Reasonableness" is the standard applied in assessing whether the use of force was appropriate, judged without 20/20 hindsight. This means that the evaluation is based on the situation as perceived by the officer at the time of the incident, which emphasizes the need to understand the immediate context of law enforcement actions.
• Factors include:
  • The severity of the crime, determining how serious the situation is and what response might be justified.
  • Immediate threat to the safety of police or others, emphasizing the need for officers to act quickly when they perceive danger.
  • Resisting arrest or attempting to flee, which may provoke heightened responses from law enforcement based on an assessment of compliance and threat levels.
• Police have significant power to stop, search, arrest, and use coercive force for public safety within a democratic republic. This power comes with a responsibility to exercise it judiciously and consistently with legal standards designed to protect individual rights.
• Force or the threat of force is used to compel obedience to a legal command, reflecting the authority vested in law enforcement to maintain order and ensure compliance with the law.
• Lethal force, which can cause serious injury or death, may be used when the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others, according to Tennessee v. Garner. The court emphasized that officers must consider the totality of circumstances before resorting to such extreme measures.

Criticisms of Graham v. Connor

• Graham makes it difficult for plaintiffs to overcome qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects government officials from being sued for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity unless they violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.
• Graham hinders the development of excessive-force law by setting a high bar for proving that an officer's use of force was unreasonable under the circumstances. This has implications for how cases of excessive force are litigated and adjudicated.
• Graham does not provide reasonableness factors specific enough to give clear guidance to law enforcement on when their use of force is deemed appropriate. This vagueness can contribute to inconsistencies in how officers’ actions are judged.
• Graham makes dubious factual commitments about the nature of policing, leading to potential misunderstandings of the realities faced by police officers in the field and the decisions they make in high-pressure situations.

Police Shootings

• The most common subjects of police shootings are men, people with a history of mental illness, and Whites, indicating a demographic trend in the types of individuals involved in these tragic incidents. Understanding the profiles helps inform discussions surrounding accountability and the need for appropriate training.
• Blacks and Hispanics are over-represented in statistics related to police shootings, raising critical concerns about systemic issues related to race and policing practices that merit further investigation and reform.
• Between 33% and 57% of officer-involved shootings might be categorized as "suicide by cop", a situation in which an individual seeks to provoke a lethal response from law enforcement. This phenomenon highlights the complexity of interactions between police and individuals experiencing significant mental health crises.
• Officer-involved deaths occur at a rate of 1.3-1.6 per million, illustrating the relative frequency of such incidents compared to the general population. These statistics often fuel debates about the appropriateness of police engagement strategies and the need for reform in these areas.
• Pinizzotto et al. (2012) reported that in their national sample of police, 96% reported drawing their firearm at least once a year, 20% reported being involved in a shooting, and 70% reported being involved in at least one incident in which they were legally justified to fire their weapon but chose not to. This data reflects the high-stress environment in which police officers operate and the decisions they make under duress.

Qualified Immunity

• Law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity when their actions do not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, which provides a layer of protection for law enforcement but also raises concerns about accountability in cases of misconduct.
• The objective reasonableness test determines the entitlement, where actions are assessed based on what a reasonable officer would have perceived in similar circumstances at the moment of the incident.
• The officer is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 hindsight, which emphasizes the situational challenges faced by law enforcement during critical moments.
• It protects the officer in an individual capacity and not the governmental entity employing the officer, raising questions about the nature of institutional accountability versus individual responsibility in cases involving excessive force or misconduct.
• Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine that shields state actors from liability for their misconduct unless they violated clearly established law, generally requiring a prior case with functionally identical facts to provide a precedent. This standard often results in difficulties for victims seeking justice when faced with abuses of power.
• Theoretically, qualified immunity is an interpretation of the federal civil rights statute, which gives context to its application and helps delineate the extent of protections offered to police officers.
• Addressing police excessive force requires responding to the reality that the current police organizational model requires officers to address "social welfare" problems but fails to provide them with the necessary training and equipment. This disconnect often leads to adverse outcomes in community policing and public safety interactions.

Organizational Reform Options

• Four general options for "organizational reform" per Quattlebaum and Tyler are:
  • Exit the social welfare field to clarify the main role of law enforcement as focused on crime prevention and public safety rather than social services.
  • Collaborate with non-policing agencies, recognizing that many issues involving public safety and community health can be addressed more effectively through interdisciplinary approaches involving social services, mental health professionals, and community organizations.
  • Specialize within law enforcement agencies to ensure that officers develop expertise in various aspects of community engagement and crime prevention while being trained to manage complex situations with appropriate sensitivity and professionalism.
  • Civilianize roles within agencies, allowing for the integration of civilian specialists into policing functions, particularly in areas such as crisis intervention, mental health support, and community outreach, which can lessen the burden on officers while increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement responses.

Transparency and Accountability

• Key questions include:
  • What information does the public expect police to share? Many community members desire transparency regarding policies, practices, and data associated with policing to ensure accountability and foster trust.
  • What can or should be kept "secret"? Understanding confidentiality needs critical for operational security but must be balanced with public interest and accountability for law enforcement practices.
  • Are pattern or practice investigations effective? Evaluating the impact and outcomes of these investigations is key to determining their role in promoting systematic improvements in policing.
  • What impact do consent decrees have on police departments and communities? It is essential to study both the short-term and long-term effects of these agreements on policing culture and community relationships.
  • What impact does police transparency have? Transparency serves as a foundation for accountability and may improve public perception of law enforcement if executed properly.
  • What impact does agency leadership have on accountability and transparency? Leadership styles and philosophies can greatly influence an organization’s culture regarding how openly it engages with the community.
• Pattern or practice programs, consent decrees, memoranda of agreement, and technical assistance letters are relevant legal tools designed to promote accountability in law enforcement. These instruments can drive systematic change while addressing ongoing issues within departments.
• 42 USC 1983 and 42 USC 14141 are important legal codes to consider when evaluating law enforcement practices and protocols relating to civil rights violations. Their implementation significantly shapes how policing is approached in America.
• Open records are essential for transparency, allowing the public access to information regarding police encounters, department policies, and the efficiency of administrative practices, thereby reinforcing community trust and accountability mechanisms.
• Most law enforcement members operate today in a culture of near-zero accountability, which poses significant challenges in developing effective police-community relationships and ensuring lawful policing standards.

Pattern or Practice Investigations

• Pattern or practice investigations/litigation began in 1994 pursuant to 42 USC 14141 and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, indicating a legislative push to address systemic issues within law enforcement agencies across the United States.
• The program was started because "piecemeal police reform was not adequate," emphasizing the need for comprehensive approaches to reform rather than superficial fixes that fail to address underlying issues.
• Between 1994-2017, 69 investigations were conducted, with 40 settlements and 20 consent decrees achieved, reflecting both engagement and progress in addressing malpractices within police departments.
• Consent decrees are generally seen to be effective, as they outline specific reforms and provide mechanisms for oversight and accountability, resulting in improved conduct and community relations in the agencies subjected to these agreements.

Pattern or Practice Investigation Criteria

• Whether a department exhibited issues common to many departments (historic problematic patterns), which can signal systemic issues needing intervention.
• Whether a department exhibited emerging or developing issues in policing (problems with new issues), reflecting the constantly evolving landscape of law enforcement and societal interactions.
• Whether a department exhibited suitable subjects for impact litigation, which would highlight a special problem in law enforcement, paving the way for wider systemic reforms based on specific cases and findings.
• The investigation creates a "findings letter" from the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (CR DOJ), which outlines the findings and recommendations for the involved department, serving as a foundation for future reforms.

Pattern or Practice Investigation Settlements

• Consent decree, which formalizes the terms of reform to be undertaken by the department involved.
• Memorandum of agreement, outlining the specific terms agreed upon between parties involved for compliance and reform strategies.
• Technical assistance letter, which may provide guidance and recommendations for departments aiming to improve their practices and protocols in the spirit of reconciliation and transparency.
• The US Department of Justice's pattern-or-practice program has been an unprecedented event in American policing, intervening in local and state law enforcement agencies as never before and advancing a comprehensive agenda of reforms unmatched in history. This involvement illustrates a significant shift toward federal accountability in policing.

Contributions of the Pattern-or-Practice Program

• It has made a notable contribution to American policing by establishing a comprehensive reform agenda, one that envisions transforming police organizations so that they can deliver police services that are lawful, professional, and respectful of the people they serve. This transformation aims to rebuild trust and ensure accountability between the police and the communities they protect.

Consent Decrees

• Consent decrees are formal settlement agreements between the US Department of Justice and local authorities overseen by a local US district court judge, serving as a legally binding framework for implementing reforms within a police department.
• 42 USC 14141 makes it illegal for the government to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives people of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured and protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. This statute empowers oversight and accountability measures in policing to enhance civil rights protections.
• 42 USC 1983 deals with the violation of rights under color of law, establishing a route for individuals to seek redress for violations of their constitutional rights by government actors, including police officers.

Potential Impacts of Transparency

• Signals a healthy democracy, wherein government actions and law enforcement practices are scrutinized and held accountable to the public.
• Promotes dialogue and increases participation, encouraging community involvement in discussions surrounding police effectiveness and accountability.
• Enhances accountability as transparent practices create a framework for oversight, ensuring that law enforcement is answerable to the communities they serve.
• Increases trust between the police and the public, which is essential for effective law enforcement and community cooperation. Trust is built when communities feel informed and involved in the policing process.
• Important question: should all police department information be open to the public? Addressing this question is vital for determining the balance between necessary operational secrecy and the public's right to know about police practices and accountability.