Introduction
Although police officers have the legal authority to use force to induce compliance with the law and order of the land, they are expected to use this force in an acceptable manner. Police officers are trained to ensure that they use their mental judgment to decide the level of force that would be warranted in various scenarios. Despite this training, there have been numerous cases in which police officers have been accused of excessive force and brutality. In this paper, the case of Racin’ Ray, a sheriff deputy, whose actions are seen to be beyond the allowed context that police force is justified is examined. In examining this case, the question of whether the deputy was in compliance with the use of force policy will be examined. The paper will also answer whether the lieutenant who gets knowledge of the pursuit should end it and whether the deputy was justified under the identified circumstances to fire warning shots. The paper will also examine what would have been the deputy’s defense should the car’s occupants lodge a complaint. Last, the paper will examine whether additional policies to guide the police force are needed.
Central issues in Racin’ Ray
There are several central issues that are involved in the case of Racin’ Ray. The first issue that appears, in this case, is the unauthorized use of excessive force that may endanger innocent members of the public. When Raymond gets out of his patrol unit, fires a warning shot before ascertaining, or acquiring a convincing truth that the occupants of the suspected car were criminals, he uses unwarranted force that may have endangered the public, causing massive panic and further tarnishing the name of the police department. The second issue that emerges in the case is the use of unauthorized weapons such as Raymond’s home pet, and worse still he possesses and uses less-lethal weapons that he secretly carries such as the Taser stun device, which he carries in his patrol car. The last issue that emerges, in this case, is the issue of unofficial bylaws that are not legally binding. Such bylaws can include Raymond’s belief that after eight in the evening, no person should be within the vicinity of his patrol section.
Policies That Guide the Concept of Use of the Police Force
There are several policies and precedence cases that guide the concept of the use of force in the police force. The US Supreme Court demands that officers use their monopoly to apply force in a manner that is legally acceptable (Kania, 2008). Modley, Halley, and Zandi, (2008), further note that the Supreme Court demands that where an officer thinks it is justifiable to use force; the applied force must be reasonable and objective. In determining what level of force is objective, an officer should be able to determine the severity of the crime in question and whether the officer is in immediate danger. Force is therefore justified in the case which an officer uses it for the purposes of self-defense. While at a state of sound mind, an officer’s discretion should be used to judge what reasonable force means (Gardner, 2008).
Raymond’s use of force, in this case, is not justified as his actions fail to satisfy any of the issues that have further been cited by Castle, (2008) with regard to the use of force for officers. First of all, there was no evidence that the occupants of the car were harmful apart from the fact that they initially drove straight towards him. However, after they swerved in about fifteen yards from where he was, it is evident that there was no immediate danger to the officer. His actions exceeded the legally allowed limit especially when he fires at the vehicle which was passing past him as there was no evidence that the vehicles had criminals or whether they were armed. Besides this, an objective force should be used to make an arrest successful. However, Raymond’s actions were not meant to make an arrest successful as they could have harmed the occupants of the speeding car. Any injury that would have been sustained therefore would be bored by the police department due to Raymond’s negligence.
Due to this danger, the lieutenant should end the pursuit. The main reason why the pursuit should be ended is that there was no tangible evidence that the occupants of the car were criminals or they were committing any crime. From the precedence set by the death of a 14-year old juvenile who crashed in such a pursuit while joyriding in his parent’s car, the pursuit should be ended as there is a possibility that this case is similar to the mentioned one. Such a pursuit may result in misfortunes that may further cost the police department its reputation as well as drag it through legal battles. Raymond lacks any reinforcement and has several weapons that he is not authorized to carry including his pet dog. This may be detrimental to the police department as it may fail miserably in the prosecution process as the police officer in question is in total disregard of his allowed legal mandate. In the best interest of the police department, the pursuit should be ended. This fact can be reinforced by the raised demands of police pursuits as put forth by the Supreme Court in deciding the County of Sacramento versus Lewis’ case.
There is a policy that prohibits the firing of warning shots unless an officer is in real danger. In this case, the firing of warning shots by the deputy is justifiable on several grounds. In the first place, his warning shots may be used as a form of identity so that the occupants of the racing car could identify him as a police officer on duty. This way, the car’s occupants would have observed the law and subjected to a search. The second reason the act of firing the warning shot is justifiable is that he was in a position of danger. From the evidence of the case, the car was speeding toward him hence endangering his life. Therefore, Raymond may defend his actions by arguing that he was doing this in self-defense as his life was in danger. As noted by Peak, (2010), self-defense can constitute enough justification for excessive use of force.
Policies that could cover Raymond include the right to use reasonable force in case he feels threatened. Raymond can argue that the actions of the car occupants were a real threat to him and thus his actions of firing the warning shot were justified. He can also use the policy of use of force to enable an arrest. He can argue that he fired the shot, carried the Taser stun and chose to be accompanied by his dog to enable him to make an arrest of offenders with ease. Raymond may also defend his actions by arguing that he reported the incident within a justifiable time frame.
Despite the possible defenses, the internal affairs unit would find Raymond at fault. Raymond has broken the law as opposed to enforcing it by carrying unauthorized weapons and has used excessive force in a situation that did not warrant excessive use of force. As the Sherriff, Raymond should be punished for violating the law that he seeks to enforce, especially due to his use of weapons that he is not authorized to carry. He should also be punished for violating the basic laws of organization management such as respect for hierarchy in management (Robbins & Judge, 2009). By violating the department laws, the deputy fails to honor the seniors in executing his duties. This violation of basic departmental rules was put forth by the police department. The carrying of his private dog on police duty should also be punished as it may cause unwarranted torture to the public. He should be punished for his ability to cause unnecessary and massive panic among the members of the public.
Additional policies may be needed to ensure that officers who misuse their constitutional mandates are eliminated from the police force. There is also a need for policies that will guide the members of the police force on the approaches that should be taken in identifying crimes that should warrant a pursuit. It is also important to come up with uniform policies that ensure that the concept of the time that should be considered “late hours” is addressed. This would ensure that scenarios such as those exhibited by Raymond where he comes up with his own timing are eliminated. There should be policies that should help in determining cases that warrant pursuit to eliminate the incidents of having officers who appear happy to conduct pursuits that are unwarranted (MacDonald and Alpert, 2008).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is evident that the deputy’s actions were beyond the acceptable limit of force that should have been used in such circumstances. Since the circumstances did not warrant such a pursuit, the lieutenant should end the pursuit in the best interest of the deputy’s security and the occupants. Although the deputy would most likely lose the case should the car’s occupants raise a complaint against his actions, there are a few policies that could cover him. The main policy that would be useful in his defense would be the right to use force as well as to fire warning shots when an officer is in danger. Despite this, the internal affairs department would still find Raymond guilty and punish him for his actions. To avoid such cases in the future, there should be new policies that guide the actions of police officers. Officers must be guided by uniform policies that govern patrols to avoid cases in which there are officers who impose their own patrol regulations.
References
Castle, A. (2008). Measuring the impact of Law Enforcement on organized crime. Trends in Organized Crime.11(2).135.
Gardner, R. (2008).Police Stress: Effects of criticism management training on health. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice. 4 (2). 243.
Kania, R. E. (2008). Managing criminal justice organizations: An introduction. Newark, NJ: Lexis Nexis Matthew Bender.
MacDonald, J., M. and Alpert, G., P. (2008). “Public Attitudes toward Police Pursuit Driving,” Journal of Criminal Justice 26. pp, 185-194.
Modley, P., Halley, D., & Zandi, F. (2008). Partnerships facilitate criminal justice problem-solving. Corrections Today. 70 (2).pp 148.
Peak, K. (2010). Justice Administration police, courts, and corrections management (6th edition) Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S. P.,& Judge, T.A. (2009). Organizational behavior (13th edition) Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson/Prentice Hall.