legal block cit chief sam faulkner mechanicsburg police department
Post on 31-Mar-2015
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Legal Block CIT
Chief Sam Faulkner Mechanicsburg Police
Department
www.responsetoresistance.com
Who or What Gives You The
Authority to Use Force?
www.responsetoresistance.com
4TH AMENDMENTThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
December 15, 1791
The Constitution of the
United States of America
www.responsetoresistance.com
THREE MAIN AMENDMENTS
8TH – Right prohibiting “Cruel and Unusual” punishment
14th – “Due Process” – Right to be tried on the charges on which you are arrested
4th – “ Search and Seizure” The right to be …………..
www.responsetoresistance.com
Use of ForceConstitutional Standard
Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
United States Supreme Court
Occurred: November 12, 1984
Submitted: February 21, 1989
Decided: May 15, 1989
www.responsetoresistance.com
www.responsetoresistance.com
Use of ForceConstitutional Standard
Today we make explicit what was implicit in Garner's analysis, and hold that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force -- deadly or not -- in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its "reasonableness" standard, rather than under a "substantive due process" approach.
Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)
www.responsetoresistance.com
Use of ForceConstitutional Standard
[T]he question is whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.
Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989)
www.responsetoresistance.com
“Objectively Reasonable”
“Reasonable Officer”
Use of ForceConstitutional Standard
vs.
The Legal Basis for CITCanton v. Harris (1989)
In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the inadequacy of
police training may serve as a basis for municipal liability
where the absence of training amounts to deliberate
indifference for the rights of persons whom the police come into contact with www.responsetoresistance.com
Legal Basis for CITOlsen v. Layton Hills (1980)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held
That a municipality could be sued for failing to train
Its officers to recognize signs of the psychological
Disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder.
www.responsetoresistance.com
The two most common civil suits brought* Failure to properly supervise, and
* Failure to provide adequate training
These suits charge that a department’s failure to
properly supervise and train led to a violation of a
person’s civil rights under Title 42, Section 1983,
U.S. Code ( Under Color of Law)www.responsetoresistance.com
Walker v. City of New York (1992)
If you know to a moral certainty that officers will
confront a certain situation: and that the encounter will
force officers to make a choice between different
alternatives; and making a wrong choice will
expose persons to potential Constitutional
violations; then the agency must provide these
officers with reasonable training.
www.responsetoresistance.com
www.responsetoresistance.com
Hayek v. City of St. Paul, No. 06-3802,
488 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2007)Police officers were found to have acted properly in shooting and killing an allegedly emotionally disturbed 19-year old, 300 pound man, 6’7’’ tall, who was attacking an officer with a sword. The decedent had allegedly continued to stab the officer despite being struck by initial shots, saying “ow” but otherwise continuing his assault.
www.responsetoresistance.com
Buchanan v. State of Maine, (2006)
Officers did not use excessive force in shooting and killing a mentally ill man when they only did so after he had repeatedly stabbed one of the two offices present.
www.responsetoresistance.com
Ali v. City of Louisville, No. 3:03CV-427,
395 F. Supp. 2d 527 (W.D. Ky. 2005)
The court ruled that police officers’ shooting and killing of a homeless mentally ill man sitting in a car was not excessive force when they acted after he raised a gun and did not know, until after the fact, that the weapon was a BB gun.
Under the circumstances it was reasonable for them to believe that their lives were at risk.
Fisher v. Harden, 398 F.3d 837, 841(6th Circuit 2005)
77 year old man took his rifle, a tripod and a folding chair to go and shoot groundhogs on a railroad grade about 250 yards from a country road.
A passer-by saw the man and thought it might be a suicide attempt.
Called sheriff’s office and reported a possible suicide – said that the man had his feet tied to the tracks.
www.responsetoresistance.com
Fisher v. Harden Cont.
“It is clearly established that an officer may not affect a
mental health seizure without probable cause.”
If you are responding to an unconfirmed report that a person is mentally ill and/or suicidal, you need to confirm the information in some manner.
www.responsetoresistance.com
Griffith v. Coburn, 473 F.3d 650Sixth Circuit (2007)
Mother approaches township police dept. in Michigan
Wanted son hospitalized because he was “acting strangely”
Police said son was not a danger to self or others
Son had outstanding traffic warrant
Officers offered to arrest son to get helpwww.responsetoresistance.com
Griffith v. Coburn Cont.
“It cannot be forgotten that the police were confronting an
individual whom they knew to be mentally ill or retarded,
even though the officers may not have known the full
extent of [his] autism and his unresponsiveness. The
diminished capacity of an unarmed detainee must be taken
into account when assessing the amount of force
exerted.” www.responsetoresistance.com
Griffith v. Coburn Cont.
Judges not saying that you have to take unreasonable risks with a person who had a mental illness.
Judges do say that if you go into a situation with an unarmed arrestee who is mentally ill or had a diminished capacity and you know you have to use force, you have to consider the person’s capacity in assessing the type and amount of force to be used.
www.responsetoresistance.com
Donald Webb III v. Adam Henderson, et al.Franklin Circuit Court, Indiana (March 16,
2001)
Brookville Officers used Officer Presence, Verbal Direction and Escort Position
Franklin Deputy used a Taser drive stuns
Plaintiff retained a social psychologist as their expert
He opined on Donny’s lack of ability to comprehend what the officers were saying
www.responsetoresistance.com
www.responsetoresistance.com
Cole v. Bone, 993 F.2d 1328 (8th Cir. 1993)
This Court of Appeals stated, “The Constitution…requires only that the seizure be objectively reasonable, not that the officer pursue the most prudent course of action as judged by 20/20 hindsight.”
In re Miller63 Ohio St. 3d 99 (1992)
Officers “pink slipped” individual into hospital for mental health evaluation
No written statement of patient’s condition was given to ensure at least a minimal level of PC
Other procedural issues were not followed Not informed of rightsAffidavit not prepared by property personPsychiatrist affidavit was conclusory only
THIS WAS FOUND TO VIOLATE HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
top related