Page 67 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 67 of 223 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
55
conduct by law enforcement officers . . . that deprives persons of rights, privileges,
or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States”
(42 U.S.C. § 14141a; USDOJ Civil Rights Division 2008). The Attorney General of
the United States “may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory
relief to eliminate the pattern or practice” (42 U.S.C. § 14141b). The statute forbids
law enforcement agencies from engaging in conduct that violates the U.S.
Constitution or federal law. Such misconduct includes excessive force, false arrests,
unreasonable searches or seizures, and intentional racial or ethnic discrimination. It
also prohibits agencies from regularly violating existing protections against police
misconduct under federal statutes. Pursuant to Section 14141, a governmental entity
is liable for the actions of its law enforcement officers if such actions constitute a
pattern or practice of unlawful conduct. Thus, a court can order the entity to take
steps to eradicate the unlawful pattern or practice (USDOJ Civil Rights Division
2008).
Section 14141 gave the United States Department of Justice, through its Civil
Rights Division Special Litigation Section, significant authority to intervene in the
operations of local law enforcement. Section 14141 is comparable to similar laws
empowering the Department to step into areas such as schools, prisons, or mental
health facilities (Livingston 1999, 818). The history of institutional reform litigation,
also referred to as remedial law, originated with the seminal Supreme Court
decisions, Brown v Board of Education I (1954) and II (1955). In Brown II, the
Court directed lower courts to mandate plans to desegregate public schools. In the
Object Description
| Title | Policing accountability: an empirical investigation of state-sponsored police reform in Riverside, California |
| Author | Gomez, Jose Adolfo |
| Author email | jagclash@yahoo.com; jgomez@treasurer.ca.gov |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Political Science |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-01 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Restricted until 13 Oct. 2010. |
| Date published | 2010-10-13 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Renteln, Alison Dundes |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Newland, Chester A. Wong, Janelle S. |
| Abstract | The police have the ability to detain, arrest, and use force when necessary. Police accountability is thus of paramount concern to the public. Numerous examples of police misconduct, including cases of excessive force, brutality, and corruption, appear regularly via the news media. These incidents often evidence systemic organizational problems in law enforcement agencies. Scholars have observed that attempts at police reform have placed too much emphasis on individuals behaving badly, rather than on the systemic problems of the police department.; Beginning in the second half of the 1990s, federal and state Attorneys General began employing institutional reform litigation, in the form of consent decrees, to reform law enforcement agencies and enhance police accountability. The consent decrees were crafted to address systemic organizational dysfunction in local police departments. The United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) conducted most of these reform interventions. However, a notable exception was the settlement agreement between the Attorney General of the State of California and the City of Riverside, California.; There has been little research on the efficacy of these efforts to rehabilitate law enforcement agencies. This analysis is a case study of the effectiveness of the institutional reform intervention by the California Attorney General into the Riverside Police Department (RPD). The detailed examination revealed that the intervention produced constructive changes in the way the RPD conducts its business. The RPD became more professional, effective, transparent and accountable as it implemented the provisions of the consent decree, demonstrating that institutional reform litigation can result in meaningful police reform. The shadow of the law was ever present, encouraging an ethos of cooperation and exerting pressure for meaningful organizational change. The Riverside experience suggests that a facilitative oversight style produces constructive collaboration between the parties, improving the likelihood of durable police reform. Moreover, consent decrees to correct systemic police misconduct should not be the exclusive purview of the USDOJ. State Attorneys General can effectively initiate police reform and in some cases state intervention is a more appropriate alternative. |
| Keyword | institutional reform; police reform; police accountability; state attorney's general; police misconduct; organizational change; consent decrees |
| Geographic subject (city or populated place) | Riverside |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Coverage date | 1993/2008 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1664 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Gomez, Jose Adolfo |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Gomez-2358 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume29/etd-Gomez-2358.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 67 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 55 conduct by law enforcement officers . . . that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States” (42 U.S.C. § 14141a; USDOJ Civil Rights Division 2008). The Attorney General of the United States “may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice” (42 U.S.C. § 14141b). The statute forbids law enforcement agencies from engaging in conduct that violates the U.S. Constitution or federal law. Such misconduct includes excessive force, false arrests, unreasonable searches or seizures, and intentional racial or ethnic discrimination. It also prohibits agencies from regularly violating existing protections against police misconduct under federal statutes. Pursuant to Section 14141, a governmental entity is liable for the actions of its law enforcement officers if such actions constitute a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct. Thus, a court can order the entity to take steps to eradicate the unlawful pattern or practice (USDOJ Civil Rights Division 2008). Section 14141 gave the United States Department of Justice, through its Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section, significant authority to intervene in the operations of local law enforcement. Section 14141 is comparable to similar laws empowering the Department to step into areas such as schools, prisons, or mental health facilities (Livingston 1999, 818). The history of institutional reform litigation, also referred to as remedial law, originated with the seminal Supreme Court decisions, Brown v Board of Education I (1954) and II (1955). In Brown II, the Court directed lower courts to mandate plans to desegregate public schools. In the |
