Police accountability

Police accountability involves holding both individual police officers, as well as law enforcement agencies responsible for effectively delivering basic services of crime control and maintaining order, while treating individuals fairly and within the bounds of law. Police are expected to uphold laws, regarding due process, search and seizure, arrests, discrimination, as well as other laws relating to equal employment, sexual harassment, etc. Holding police accountable is important for maintaining the public's 'faith in the system'. Research has shown that the public prefers independent review of complaints against law enforcement, rather than relying on police departments to conduct internal investigations. There is suggestion that such oversight would improve the public's view on the way in which police officers are held accountable. Police accountability involves holding both individual police officers, as well as law enforcement agencies responsible for effectively delivering basic services of crime control and maintaining order, while treating individuals fairly and within the bounds of law. Police are expected to uphold laws, regarding due process, search and seizure, arrests, discrimination, as well as other laws relating to equal employment, sexual harassment, etc. Holding police accountable is important for maintaining the public's 'faith in the system'. Research has shown that the public prefers independent review of complaints against law enforcement, rather than relying on police departments to conduct internal investigations. There is suggestion that such oversight would improve the public's view on the way in which police officers are held accountable. Early efforts at police reform often involved external commissions, such as the Wickersham Commission, that spelled out reforms but left to the police to implement them, often with limited success. A series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions under the Warren Court led to important changes in policing, with respect to civil rights and constitutional law. Mapp v. Ohio in 1961 and Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 were two highly influential court decisions. Mapp v. Ohio found that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against 'unreasonable searches and seizures' may not be used in criminal prosecutions. Miranda v. Arizona required that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police. These decisions began to set national standards for policing. Special commissions, such as the Knapp Commission in New York City during the 1970s, have been used to bring about changes in law enforcement agencies. Civilian review boards (permanent external oversight agencies) have also been used as a means for improving police accountability. Civilian review boards tend to focus on individual complaints, rather than broader organizational issues that may result in long-term improvements. In response to instances of police brutality, the United States Commission on Civil Rights suggested in 1981 that police departments enforce early intervention programs. The goal of these programs is to spot potentially risky behaviors within police departments, and to take preventative action to reduce instances of police misconduct. Although not required, many police departments have opted to adopt early prevention programs. However, the methods used to identify problematic police officers were found to be inefficient. The identifiers used often flag officers that in reality pose a minimal threat, while those that would benefit from additional oversight fly under the radar. To offset this, police departments have been using an increased number of indicators to determine risk factors. The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act authorized the United States Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division to bring civil ('pattern or practice') suits against local law enforcement agencies, to reign in abuses and hold them accountable. As a result, numerous departments have entered into consent decrees or memoranda of understanding, requiring them to make organizational reforms. This approach shifts focus from individual officers to placing focus on police organizations. The United Kingdom addressed concerns of police accountability by enacting the Police Act in 1996. This act gave police authorities the responsibility to provide transparency regarding policing plans. In addition, they were given the task to monitor, collect and publish data regarding police performance, complaints and budgeting matters. Despite having these goals, research has shown that citizens do not feel confident that their interests are represented by police authorities. Moreover, a large number of officers did not feel confident that they were doing their part to represent local people and were not sure of the actions to take to improve this area. The police professionalism approach introduced by August Vollmer and advocated by O.W. Wilson largely ignored issues of police accountability and how officers should handle situations involving discretion. In order to prevent the misuse of discretion, it is necessary to establish a Code of Ethics to serve as a guideline. It is impossible to foresee a provision for every possible scenario; instead codes of ethics are used to provide officers a tool that is flexible, open for interpretation and can be applied in various manners depending on the situation at hand. Use of force by police against civilians may involve firearms, as well as other means. Prior to the 1970s, there were generally no written policies or review procedures regarding use of force by law enforcement in the United States. In 1972, New York City Police Department Commissioner Patrick V. Murphy instituted a new policy that confined discretion in use of force to situations only where the officer's own life, or that of other people are in danger. This defense of life rule replaced the fleeing felon rule. The 1985 Supreme Court decision, Tennessee v. Garner ruled that police may only use deadly force to prevent escape when the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.