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. In a democratic society, the political process and elected officials serve to keep the police accountable and that they reflect the "will of the people".^[1] In turn, holding police accountable is important for maintaining the public's "faith in the system".^[2]

Police reform in the United States [edit]

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.^[3]

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.^[4] 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.^[5]

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.^[6] 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.^[7]

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.^[8] As a results, numerous departments have entered into consent decrees or memorandum of understandings, requiring them to make organizational reforms.^[9] This approach shifts focus from individual officers to placing focus on police organizations.

Discretion [edit]

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.^[10] Without some guidance or directives, there may be wider disparities in how citizens are treated by police, including greater potential for abuses.^[11]

Use of force [edit]

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.^[12] 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.^[13] 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.

Since the NYPD instituted new policies on use of force, many other law enforcement agencies have followed suit, establishing written policy that set guidelines as to when use of force is appropriate.^[14] Procedures may include requiring officers to file written reports following each incident. For incidents involving firearms or other use of deadly force, internal investigation and review is often required. A mechanism in place for administrative review of other use of force incidents may also be part of the policy.^[15]

Not all law enforcement agencies in the United States had instituted reforms in the 1980s and 1990s. The United States Department of Justice investigated patterns of abuse within the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, among other agencies, and brought legal action to force changes.^[16]

Less-than-lethal weapons, such as chemical sprays, are used as alternatives to deadly force. These weapons also require policies on their use, along with training on proper use.^[17] Police officers are also encouraged to consider a use of force continuum, and try to deescalate situations with verbal warnings and persuasion.^[18]

Vehicle pursuits [edit]

Vehicle pursuits are another use of police power that can involve much discretion on part of the officer. Though, if a pursuit is conducted negligently, resulting in death or injury, the law enforcement agency can be held liable under civil law in the United States. Vehicle pursuits have increasingly been covered under written law enforcement agency policy, to help regulate circumstances and manner that they are conducted.^[19]

Notes [edit]

References [edit]

• National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Law and Justice (2004). Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing. National Academies Press. 
• Walker, Samuel (2005). The New World of Police Accountability. Sage.