Page 213 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 213 of 223 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
201
C. POLICY:
The Department's Use of Force Policy is as follows:
In a complex urban society, officers are confronted daily with situations where control
must be exercised to effect arrests and to protect the public safety. Control may be
achieved through verbalization techniques such as advice, warnings, and persuasion, or
by the use of physical force. Officers are permitted to use whatever force that is
reasonable to protect others or themselves from bodily harm. The Department's Use of
Force Policy must comply with applicable California and federal law. California Penal
Code Section 835a states that an officer who has reasonable cause to believe that a
person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect
the arrest, prevent escape, or overcome resistance. A peace officer who makes or
attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his or her efforts by
reason of resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall
such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his or her right to self-defense by the
use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome
resistance.
Each situation explicitly requires the use of force to be reasonable and only that force
which reasonably appears to be necessary may be used to gain control or resist attack.
Mere verbal threats of violence, verbal abuse, or hesitancy by the suspect in following
commands do not, in and of themselves, justify the use of physical force without
additional facts or circumstances which, taken together, pose a threat of harm to the
officer or others. Officers must be prudent when applying any of the use of force
techniques. Unreasonable application of physical force is a violation of California and
federal law which may result in criminal prosecution and/or civil liability for the officer.
A violation of the Department's use of force policy may also subject the officer to
Departmental discipline. Officers should clearly understand that the standard for
determining whether or not the force applied was reasonable is that conduct which a
reasonable peace officer would exercise based upon the information the officer had
when the conduct occurred. Officers must pay careful attention to the facts and
circumstances of each particular case, including 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/she is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
Furthermore, the Department expects officer(s) to use the most appropriate force option
given the circumstances. The decision should take into account the situation facing the
officer as well as his/her training and experience.
D. ESCALATION/DE-ESCALATION OF FORCE:
The primary objective of the application of force is to ensure the control of a suspect
with such force as is objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Ideally, officers
should attempt to control a suspect through advice, warning, or persuasion, but be
prepared for the use of physical force. The types of force an officer may utilize will
vary, depending on the aggressive behavior or degree of resistance used by a suspect and
the tactical practicability of a particular use of force technique. In situations when
physical force is applied, an officer must escalate or de-escalate to the amount of force
which reasonably appears to be necessary to overcome the suspect's resistance and to
gain control.
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 213 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 201 C. POLICY: The Department's Use of Force Policy is as follows: In a complex urban society, officers are confronted daily with situations where control must be exercised to effect arrests and to protect the public safety. Control may be achieved through verbalization techniques such as advice, warnings, and persuasion, or by the use of physical force. Officers are permitted to use whatever force that is reasonable to protect others or themselves from bodily harm. The Department's Use of Force Policy must comply with applicable California and federal law. California Penal Code Section 835a states that an officer who has reasonable cause to believe that a person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect the arrest, prevent escape, or overcome resistance. A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his or her efforts by reason of resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his or her right to self-defense by the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance. Each situation explicitly requires the use of force to be reasonable and only that force which reasonably appears to be necessary may be used to gain control or resist attack. Mere verbal threats of violence, verbal abuse, or hesitancy by the suspect in following commands do not, in and of themselves, justify the use of physical force without additional facts or circumstances which, taken together, pose a threat of harm to the officer or others. Officers must be prudent when applying any of the use of force techniques. Unreasonable application of physical force is a violation of California and federal law which may result in criminal prosecution and/or civil liability for the officer. A violation of the Department's use of force policy may also subject the officer to Departmental discipline. Officers should clearly understand that the standard for determining whether or not the force applied was reasonable is that conduct which a reasonable peace officer would exercise based upon the information the officer had when the conduct occurred. Officers must pay careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including 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/she is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Furthermore, the Department expects officer(s) to use the most appropriate force option given the circumstances. The decision should take into account the situation facing the officer as well as his/her training and experience. D. ESCALATION/DE-ESCALATION OF FORCE: The primary objective of the application of force is to ensure the control of a suspect with such force as is objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Ideally, officers should attempt to control a suspect through advice, warning, or persuasion, but be prepared for the use of physical force. The types of force an officer may utilize will vary, depending on the aggressive behavior or degree of resistance used by a suspect and the tactical practicability of a particular use of force technique. In situations when physical force is applied, an officer must escalate or de-escalate to the amount of force which reasonably appears to be necessary to overcome the suspect's resistance and to gain control. |
