DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW (U.P.)

Session- 2015-16

psychology

SYNOPSIS

ON

“reasonable v. exccess force use by police”

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. ISHA YADAV GAURAV KRISHNA

Assistant Professor Section – A , Roll No. – 61 Department of psychology Semester-3rd

1 | P a g e

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, we would like to thank to our teacher of this project,

for the valuable guidance and advice. She inspired us greatly to work in

this project. Her willingness to motivate us contributed tremendously to

our project. We also would like to thank her for showing us some

example that related to the topic of our project. Besides, we would like

to thank the authority of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law

University for providing us with a good environment and facilities to

complete this project. Also, we would like to take this opportunity to

thank to our university for offering this subject ,Psychology.). Finally,

an honorable mention goes to our families and friends for their

understandings and supports on us in completing this project. Without

helps of the particular that mentioned above, I would face many

difficulties while doing this.

2 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction2. Study of national institute of justice3. Scrivner study

(a)lack of empathy

(b)conduct of individual

(c) conduct and intraction with peer

(d) experience in police servie

(e)personal life

Officers with personality disorders that place them at chronic risk

Officers who develop inappropriate patrol styles

Officers with personal problems4.early warning system(EWS)

(a)selection

(b) inteervention

(c) post intervention monitoring

5.nature of the crime

6. Pointing weapons in the absence of a threat can be unreasonable 7. References

3 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

Use of excessive force is an unacceptable When the level of force exceeds the level

considered justifiable under the circumstances, it is called excessive force.As long as some

members of society do not comply with law and resist the police, force will remain an inevitable

part of policing. Cops, especially, understand that. Indeed, anybody who fails to understand the

centrality of force to police work has no business in a police uniform. While most police

administrators and social scientists would agree with that statement, they would undoubtedly

differ on exactly what constitutes force. Skolnick and Fyfe start with the mere presence of

uniformed officers and marked patrol cars as expressions of force because they affect citizens’

conduct. Force escalates from there to polite verbalization (for instance, persuasively asking

someone to do something), strong verbal commands (direct orders in a commanding voice), firm

grips on parts of the body (for example, moving someone along by gripping the elbow or

shoulder), pain compliance techniques (hammerlocks or finger grips, for instance), impact

techniques (for example, with kicks or batons), use of less-than lethal weapons (chemical sprays

or electronic stun guns, for example), and use of deadly weapons

In determining whether an officer’s use of force was objectively reasonable, a court looks at

factors including the seriousness of the crime allegedly being committed, whether the officer

reasonably believes the suspect poses an immediate threat to anyone (including the officers

present), and whether a person is attempting to escape or actively resisting arrest.

Study of National institute of justice

National institute of justice a series of studies done by adams . NIJ (national institute of justice )

pointed out some features of adams study :-

(1) Use of excessive force use by police was rarity

(2) It is usually on lower spectrum of intensity:- they may gradually told citizen to do certain

things .

4 | P a g e

(3) Most often they occur in case where the individual was told to comply by police and he

denies .

Scrivner study

he studied psychology of police and classified them into 5 profile and the individual who fits in

these categories use excessive force –

(a)lack of empathy – officer who were more self observe and narcistc are more likely to use more

force .

(b) conduct of individual – patrolling style of individual hard headed and impulsive patrolling style

shows that the officer is more likely to use excessive force .

(c) conduct and intraction with peer – individual who demanded supervison later on use excessive

force .

(d)experience in police service – early on carrier if individual is exposed to general encounter then

he is most likely to use excessive force . (exposed to general agression).

(e) personal life – separtio , divorce , family problem is more likely to cause the use of excessive

force

Officers with personality disorders that place them at chronic risk :-

These officers have pervasive and enduring personality traits (in contrast to characteristics

acquired on the job) that are manifested in antisocial, narcissistic, paranoid, or abusive

tendencies.

These conditions interfere with judgment and interactions with others, particularly when officers

perceive challenges or threats to their authority. Such officers generally

lack empathy for others. The number who fit this profile is the smallest of all the high-risk

groups. These characteristics, which tend to persist through life but may be intensified by police

work, may not be apparent at pre employment screening. Individuals who exhibit these

personality patterns generally do not learn from experience or accept responsibility for their

5 | P a g e

behavior, so they are at greater risk for repeated citizen complaints. As a consequence, they may

appear to be the sole source of problems in police departments.

Officers who develop inappropriate patrol styles:-

Individuals who fit this profile combine a dominant command presence with a heavy-

handed policing style; they are particularly sensitive to challenge and provocation.

They use force to show they are

charge as their beliefs about how police work is conducted become more rigid, this

behaviour becomes the norm. In contrast to the chronic risk group, the behaviour of

officers in this group is acquired on the job and can be changed. The longer the patterns

continue, how- ever, the more difficult they are to change. As the officers become invested in

police power and control, they see little reason to change. Officers in this group are often labeled

"dinosaurs" in a changing police world marked by greater accountability to citizens and by

adoption of the community policing model.

Officers with personal problems

The final risk profile was made up of officers who have experienced serious personal problems,

such as separation, divorce, or even perceived loss of status, that destabilized their job

functioning. In general, officers with personal problems do not use excessive force, but those

who do may have elected police work for all the wrong reasons. In contrast to their p'.;ers, they

seem to have a more tenuous sense of self-worth and higher levels of anxiety that are well

masked. Some may have functioned reasonably well until changes occurred in their personal

situation. These changes undermine confidence and make it more difficult to deal with fear,

animosity, and emotionally charged patrol situations.

Early warning system

It has become a truism among police chiefs that 10 percent of their officers cause 90 percent of

the problems. Investigative journalists have documented departments in which as few as 2

6 | P a g e

percent of all officers are responsible for 50 percent of all citizen complaints. The phenomenon

of the “problem officer” was identified in the 1970s: Herman Goldstein noted that problem

officers “are well known to their supervisors, to the top administrators, to their peers, and to the

residents of the areas in which they work,” but that “little is done to alter their conduct.” In 1981,

the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recommended that all police departments create an early

warning system to identify problem officers, those “who are frequently the subject of complaints

or who demonstrate identifiable patterns of inappropriate behaviour.”

An early warning system is a data-based police management tool designed to identify officers

whose behaviour is problematic and provide a form of intervention to correct that performance.

As an early response, a department intervenes before such an officer is in a situation that

warrants formal disciplinary action. The system alerts the department to these individuals and

warns the officers while providing counselling or training to help them change their problematic

behaviour.

These are internet based date management . where conduct of every conduct of officer is feed the

feedback where the everybody with whom individual interact with enters his feedback (360

degree feedback ) and based on this information we can screen out officers and practice

intervention . it works in three stages:-

(1) Selection

(2) Intervention

(3) Post intervention monitoring

(a)Selection

EW systems use a variety of criteria for identifying potential problem officers and selecting them

for intervention . Some systems rely solely on use-of-force reports and/or citizen complaints as

selection criteria, while others rely on a broad range of performance indicators, including use-of-

force reports, involvement in civil litigation, and violations of administrative rules (e.g., neglect

of duty), among others. The use of multiple indicators provides a broader base of information

than the sole reliance on citizen complaints, which are highly underreported (Walker &

Graham,1998). Similarly, relying on one type of event may mask behavioural issues that need to

7 | P a g e

be addressed. Multiple indicators are more likely to identify officers whose performance is

genuinely problematic and who may be in need of some official intervention. These indicators

should be determined by an analysis of agency history, culture, and potential problems. For

example, the same criteria used in the process of officer selection could be used to monitor

officer performance. Indicators including financial problems or driving records could be used in

an EW system if those are issues of concern to the department ( Kappler , Sluder , & Alpert,

1998). If an agency is considering the creation or modification of an EW system, groups of

officers and members of the community could be brought together to discuss alternative criteria.

Each potential criterion should be considered for its utility and for related data collection and

record keeping issues .Some EW systems involve mandatory referral to intervention if an

officer’s

performance meets certain criteria (e.g., three citizen complaints within 12 months). Other

systems are discretionary in the sense that the selection process involves a command review to

determine whether the indicators of unsatisfactory performance are justified by assignment,

special duties, or other peculiar situations. In these systems, some officers who are identified by

the system will not be referred for intervention.

(b)Intervention

EW systems use a variety of different interventions for officers who have been selected by the

system. Most EW systems include interventions that consist initially of an informal counselling

session between the officer and his or her immediate supervisor. Because the session is informal

and part of a data gathering technique, there may not be documentation of what occurred in the

session .While it may be appropriate to keep the process informal and undocumented, it is

possible that a supervisor would not critically evaluate an officer’s behaviour and could tell him

or her not to worry about being included on the EW system. Therefore, an agency will have to

determine whether to institute an informal or a formalized system of communication. Each

choice has implications. The informal system would keep the information at the first-line

supervisor’s level, whereas the formalized system would cause the information to go through the

chain of command, where it could be reviewed at several levels. The informal system would give

more flexibility to the supervisor who could handle the officer with a great deal of discretion.

The formal system would likely heighten the visibility of the counselling session and ensure that

8 | P a g e

the supervisor’s attention to the officer is serious and appropriate. There are certain variations in

an agency’s way of conducting a counselling session. For example, an officer and his or her

supervisor could meet individually, or the two could meet with a member of the Command staff

or Internal Affairs. Another model would include a group session or class, directed by an

official whose primary identification is with the program and who has no personal ties to

individual officers. Here, the “counsellor” may be more detached from the officer but may not

know him or her as well. There is always the danger that a group approach could serve

inadvertently to strengthen a sense of group solidarity among the officers in the class and

reinforce undesirable performance or a sense of resentment against management.Once the

officers have participated in the counselling session, they can be classified into a group that

needs no further monitoring or a group that needs follow-up. The agency can determine whether

monitoring is mandatory or at a supervisor’s discretion. If it is decided that an officer’s

behaviour was reasonable and there were justifications for the actions, it may be decided that the

officer needs no further attention or only limited attention. For example, it could be that an

officer qualified for the EW list because of a number of use-of-force reports. Upon examination,

it becomes clear that the officer was involved in several narcotics arrests where the suspects were

resisting, but there were no complaints of excessive force. In this type of situation, the officer

could be informed that the force used was justified by the assignment but that his or her numbers

were being scrutinized. However, it also could be that an officer qualified for the list by having

several complaints over a specified period, and a review of his or her record indicates more than

40 complaints over a period of 25 years. Here a supervisor could go through the complaints and

look at the similarities or trends and discuss them with the officer.

(c)Post-Intervention monitoring

The final system element involves the follow-up monitoring of officers after the intervention.

The national survey data indicate that many programs claim to engage in follow-up monitoring.

Unfortunately, the data from the national survey do not indicate the level of monitoring, which

may involve only the expectation that a supervisor will keep an eye on the officer’s performance.

This is an element of EW systems about which very little is known and more research is needed.

Post-intervention follow-up ranges from a mere hope for supervision to lengthy and formal

monitoring, complete with specific reports and performance evaluations. An agency involved in

9 | P a g e

an EW system will have to determine how much of the supervisor’s behaviour it wants to

monitor. That is, a system that requires weekly or biweekly reports from supervisors will be

putting them on notice that the officer’s behaviour should have been noticed before he or she was

added to the EW list. As noted above, this approach requires a considerable depart- mental

investment in administrative attention, paperwork, and data collection. Different approaches to

monitoring place the burden of responsibility on the officer, the supervisor, or the agency. Each

department must select its own method of monitoring that fits the agency’s culture and style.

Certainly, different officers or officers who are on the list for different reasons could have a

monitoring scheme designed to achieve a specific level of supervision or a specific purpose. In

other words, an officer could help design his or her specific monitoring system, including

benchmarks and objective goals. One excellent example of an EW system comes from the City

of Miami.

Nature of the crime

If the crime in both the Supreme Court cases discussed were serious enough to be a factor

tending to justify the officers’ display and pointing of weapons, Robinson v. Solano County (9th

Cir. 2002), illustrates the principle that less serious crimes have just the opposite impact, as well

as the principle that the kind of threat that justifies the officer’s display and pointing of a weapon

must be an immediate threat.

This case involved the police seizure at gunpoint of an apparently unarmed 64-year-old man, a

retired police officer, who was suspected of having earlier used a shotgun to shoot two dogs.

The former officer lived in a farmhouse on five acres of land, and owned various livestock. The

dogs he shot belonged to his neighbour, and he allegedly observed them attacking and killing his

livestock on his property, which he had fenced in. He killed one dog and wounded the other, and

then went off his land with his shotgun, looking for the wounded dog. When police came to his

home later, he went out to talk with them, and was unarmed. He claimed he was calm but the

officers claimed he was agitated.

He complied with orders to put his hands up as an officer pointed his gun at him. Then an officer

thrust his pointed gun within three or four feet of his head. The ex-officer was then handcuffed,

and placed in a police vehicle for a few minutes while officers talked to neighbors. He was

released when they determined that he had broken no law.

10 | P a g e

The federal appeals court found that none of the factors justifying the use of force were present.

The crime being investigated was ―at most a misdemeanour , and the suspect was apparently

unarmed and approaching the officers peacefully. Additionally, the officers outnumbered the

plaintiff.

While it was true that he had earlier been armed with a shotgun, the court believed that, under the

circumstances, his earlier use of a weapon, which he no longer carried, was insufficient to justify

the ―intrusion into his ―personal security.

The court did find, however, that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, as the law on

the subject at the time was not clearly established .The least serious crime, of course, is no crime

at all. An officer may arguably have some justification for the display of force at one point, only

to lose it when it becomes clear to all that the suspect is exonerated or simply the wrong person.

In Binay v. Bettendorf, an officer received an anonymous call indicating that drug sales were

taking place at an apartment. On two occasions, the officer then went to the building, and a drug

sniffing dog alerted to the presence of narcotics on the outside of the apartment door. Based on

this, he obtained a search warrant. No drugs were found during the ensuing search.

During the search the officers drew their weapons and forced the married couple who lived there

to get on the floor. The couple's son was also present and was detained.

A federal appeals court found that the plaintiffs adequately stated claims for excessive use of

force in the execution of the search warrant, as well as continuing the residents’ interrogation and

the use of force against them after it had become plain that no drugs were present. The officers

allegedly kept the plaintiffs at gunpoint and handcuffed for over an hour, even though they

prepared a confidential operation plan for the raid stating that no firearms were anticipated to be

found in the apartment.

Also of interest is Brown v. Miami-Dade County , holding that a county and officer could be

sued under Florida law for injuries that a bystander suffered when he slipped and fell when

officer startled him by pointed a gun at him and yelling at him to freeze while conducting a

prostitution ―sting operation.

The officer’s actions created a ―foreseeable zone of risk to the bystander and the county was not

immune from suit because his injuries were allegedly caused by the manner in which the police

11 | P a g e

implemented their operation, utilizing a display of deadly force in the context of an investigation

of a relatively minor crime.

A very serious crime was involved in Curiel v. County of Contra Costa, In this case, a murder

suspect lived in a house with other individuals. Police received information from a friend of his

that the suspect had tried to destroy evidence in a related crime, and feared that he might destroy

evidence of the murder or flee. They therefore carried out an unannounced warrantless entry into

the house.

During the ensuing search, officers allegedly pointed guns at residents, including children, and

detained them for 13 hours. Detention of the residents was justified by the dangerousness of the

suspect, the need to carry out an orderly search, and the fear that evidence could be destroyed.

Despite the investigation of a serious crime, summary judgment was overturned on excessive

force claims, since a reasonable jury could find that the officers used excessive force by entering

with guns drawn, pointing guns at the residents, and putting handcuffs on one of them in a

manner that caused pain.

Pointing weapons in the absence of a threat can be unreasonable

In an important case directly on this point, a federal appeals court ruled that a reasonable jury

could possibly find that an officer’s action in pointing a submachine gun at people present during

the execution of a search warrant, including both the suspect and others present, was

unreasonable and violative of the Fourth Amendment in the absence of any indication of a threat

to the officers or others. Baird v. Renbarger.

In this case, the defendant officer was one of a number of officers involved in the execution of a

search warrant at an auto body shop and resale business located at an industrial park. The search

sought evidence for the crime of altering a vehicle identification number (VIN).The court noted

that the crime itself did not involve violence, and there was no indication of even a suspicion that

anyone at the location of the search was dangerous or armed. Further, no one offered any

resistance whatsoever. Despite this, the officer came to the search with a 9-millimeter

submachine gun slung around his neck. He pointed the submachine gun at all those present in the

auto body shop, who were then peacefully complying with police instructions to gather in the

centre of the building and sit down on the concrete floor.

12 | P a g e

He then made the rounds of the surrounding shops and warehouse to round up everyone present

at gunpoint and take them to the auto body shop. Those gathered in this manner included a group

of Amish men working in the area, a group well known for their non-violent beliefs and

practices. Everyone was detained for approximately two hours while the search was completed.

When the car sought was found, it turned out that its VIN had not be modified or removed.

A number of those present filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the officer, contending,

among other things, that his actions in pointing the submachine gun at them had been

unreasonable.

Upholding the denial of qualified immunity to the defendant officer, a federal appeals court

noted that courts attempt to give ―considerable leeway‖ to officers’ assessments about the

appropriate use of force in dangerous situations. This is an acknowledgment of the fact that law

enforcement is a difficult job, and that officers ―are often forced to make split-second

judgments-in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.

Moving from general principles to specifics, the court stated: -This latitude ends, however, when

police officers employ force that is clearly excessive or unreasonable under the circumstances.

That is the case here .There clearly was a Fourth Amendment seizure of the plaintiffs. The court

found that the three major factors spelled out in Graham all tended in this case to show that the

force used was objectively unreasonable. The crime was not a violent one. There was no

indication that those being detained posed an immediate threat to anyone. And none of them

attempted to resist or flee, instead they were all compliant.

13 | P a g e

REFERENCES

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/150063NCJRS.pdf

http://www.aele.org/law/2010all10/2010-10MLJ101.pdf

http://www.zeepedia.com/read.php?

police_psychology_use_of_excessive_force_corruption_personnel_selecti

on_forensic_psychology&b=87&c=4

http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/

pages/welcome.aspx

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/150063NCJRS.pdf

14 | P a g e