Page 212 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 212 of 223 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
200
Appendix: Riverside Police Department Use of Force Policy
4.30 USE OF FORCE POLICY:
A. PURPOSE:
The Police Department's primary function is to protect the rights of all persons within its
jurisdiction to be free from criminal attack, secure in their possessions, and to live in a
peaceful atmosphere. In order for the Department to carry out this function, police
officers may be required to use physical force. It is in the public interest that this
Department's officers be guided by a Use of Force Policy which is fair, appropriate,
and creates public confidence in the law enforcement profession. The application of
physical force, and the type of force employed, depends on the situation as perceived by
the officer. The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance as to when physical force
may be employed, and the type of physical force that the law will permit. However,
policy cannot cover every possible situation presented to officers. Therefore, officers
must be reasonable in their actions.
B. PHILOSOPHY:
The use of force by law enforcement personnel is a matter of critical concern both to the
public and the law enforcement community. Officers are involved on a daily basis in
numerous and varied human encounters, and when warranted to do so, may use force in
carrying out their duties.
Officers must have an understanding of, and true appreciation for, the limitations on
their authority, particularly with respect to overcoming resistance from those with whom
they come in official contact.
This Department recognizes and respects the sanctity of human life and dignity. Vesting
officers with authority to use force to protect the public welfare requires a very careful
balancing of the rights of all human beings and the interests involved in a particular
situation.
Effective Date: 8/93
Revision 1 Date: 7/26/96
Revision 2 Date: 5/21/97
Revision 3 Date: 6/1/99
Revision 4 Date: 1/5/00
Revision 5 Date: 5/9/2002
Revision 6 Date: 2/2/04
Revision 7 Date: 11/1/04
Approval:
________________________
Russ Leach
Chief of Police
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 212 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 200 Appendix: Riverside Police Department Use of Force Policy 4.30 USE OF FORCE POLICY: A. PURPOSE: The Police Department's primary function is to protect the rights of all persons within its jurisdiction to be free from criminal attack, secure in their possessions, and to live in a peaceful atmosphere. In order for the Department to carry out this function, police officers may be required to use physical force. It is in the public interest that this Department's officers be guided by a Use of Force Policy which is fair, appropriate, and creates public confidence in the law enforcement profession. The application of physical force, and the type of force employed, depends on the situation as perceived by the officer. The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance as to when physical force may be employed, and the type of physical force that the law will permit. However, policy cannot cover every possible situation presented to officers. Therefore, officers must be reasonable in their actions. B. PHILOSOPHY: The use of force by law enforcement personnel is a matter of critical concern both to the public and the law enforcement community. Officers are involved on a daily basis in numerous and varied human encounters, and when warranted to do so, may use force in carrying out their duties. Officers must have an understanding of, and true appreciation for, the limitations on their authority, particularly with respect to overcoming resistance from those with whom they come in official contact. This Department recognizes and respects the sanctity of human life and dignity. Vesting officers with authority to use force to protect the public welfare requires a very careful balancing of the rights of all human beings and the interests involved in a particular situation. Effective Date: 8/93 Revision 1 Date: 7/26/96 Revision 2 Date: 5/21/97 Revision 3 Date: 6/1/99 Revision 4 Date: 1/5/00 Revision 5 Date: 5/9/2002 Revision 6 Date: 2/2/04 Revision 7 Date: 11/1/04 Approval: ________________________ Russ Leach Chief of Police |
