Introduction
Administrative law involves all the legal principles and rules that govern a government agency’s administration and regulation. The US Congress delegates power to federal and state government agencies to be responsible for undertaking certain prerogatives. In the US, Congress creates agencies through its organic statutes that lead to the creation of new laws. This enables the respective agencies to interpret, administer, and enforce the newly created laws.
According to Cornell Law School, “Generally, administrative agencies are created to protect a public interest rather than to vindicate private rights” (Cornell Law School, n.d., p. 1). As a result, each agency has a unique legal environment, rules, and constitutional provisions. The same happened for law enforcement agencies like the Atlanta Police Department. The Atlanta Police Department has exciting cases in its history. This research paper explores the unique legal environment of the Atlanta Police Department.
The Legal Environment of the Atlanta Police Department
The Atlanta Police Department was formed in 1873 after a railroad surveyor marked Atlanta City’s future site. According to the Department’s official website, the Atlanta City Charter was the enabling act that established the Atlanta Police Department (“Atlanta Police Department,” n.d.). More reports indicate that the Georgia General Assembly enacted the Charter in 1873 (“City of Atlanta, GA,” n.d.). The Atlanta City Charter has significantly changed to reflect societal changes. For instance, the most recent amendment that the Charter underwent was in 1996. During this amendment, the Atlanta City Charter established an organizational structure that ADP utilizes.
The Atlanta City Charter defines how the Atlanta Police Department is supposed to operate within the city. For instance, it outlines that the Atlanta Police Department should ensure law and order in Atlanta, reduce crime, and protect properties and people’s lives (“Atlanta Police Department,” n.d.). The Charter also defines the powers and duties of APD’s officers within its organizational structure. For instance, ADP’s Chief of Police manages the organization’s operations and guides the officers through its policies and procedures.
The Charter also grants them broad powers to direct the Department’s activities and appoint subordinate officers and personnel. Generally, the Atlanta City Charter provides the foundation of the Department’s jurisdiction and legal authority. It also outlines its mission and responsibilities within the city and the basis for appointing individuals to key leadership positions within the agency.
Regulations or Orders Issued by APD
Over the years, the Atlanta Police Department has issued many noteworthy regulations. One particular regulation worth noting is the “use of force” regulation. The Atlanta Police Department has always presented itself as an agency that respects the value of human life. For this reason, the primary responsibility of its officers is to protect people’s lives and property.
However, while in the line of duty, there are some instances when the organization’s sworn employees are compelled to use force. Some cases that may require the reasonable use of force may include overcoming resistance, effecting an arrest or detention, protecting themselves or others from death or injury, or controlling a subject (Hutchinson, 2020). The Department clarifies that an officer can only use the regulation if it is reasonable and necessary in accomplishing their responsibilities and serving the public’s interest.
The Atlantic Police Department also implemented a regulation that required its employees to wear cameras on their uniforms. The Department notes on its websites that it is committed to protecting the public through accountability, and this is one way to show that. From its performance audit, the City Council approved the proposal to wear body cameras in 2016 after it proved its worth in the agency (“Performance Audit: Atlanta Police Department Body-Worn Cameras,” 2018).
By the time the Department started deploying the body cameras, all patrol officers had been offered one. In 2018, it offered a public report in its audit that “approximately 800 (45%) of the Atlanta Police Department’s 1,761 sworn officers are assigned body-worn cameras while on duty, based on information from the program’s compliance administrator” (p. 2). According to the policy offered by the Department regarding body cameras, all officers from the sergeant level downwards must have them on their uniforms during all their shifts.
Legal Challenges to Agency Rules or Actions
Even though the Atlanta Police Department has always been committed to protecting the public’s interests and lives, it has faced legal challenges in recent years. For instance, in 2020, the Department faced a lawsuit after it used its “use of force” regulation. As mentioned earlier, the Department notes in its policies and procedures that even though it is the officers’ role to protect human lives and property, sometimes using force seems more reasonable.
The Department’s operating procedure notes that officers will use the policy “to affect an arrest, prevent an escape, necessarily restrict the movement of a prisoner, defend the officer or another from physical assault, or to accomplish other lawful objectives” (“11Alive Staff,” 2020). However, according to Hutchinson (2020), the “use of force” policy in APD has been violated multiple times. A perfect example is the fatal shooting of Rayshard Brooks.
About two weeks after George Floyd died in Police Custody, which fueled countrywide protests against police brutality, another shocking report of Rayshard Brooks’ shooting was recorded on 12 June. According to the New York Times report, an Atlanta Officer shot Mr. Brooks in the Wendy’s restaurant’s parking lot (Ortiz, 2022). According to the news, officers were called to Wendy’s restaurant around 10:30 pm about a man sleeping in the parking lot. However, when Mr. Brooks failed the sobriety test and the officer tried to take him into custody, he tried to run. The police shooting followed this, and Mr. Brooks died in the hospital while being cared for (Hutchinson, 2020).
This shooting, which involved another black man, brought more people to the police brutality demonstrations. One day after the shooting, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms noted that it was to her disbelief that “the use of deadly force was justified in the incident and called for the officers involved to be terminated“ (“11Alive Staff,“ 2020). Like the police officers involved in George Floyd’s death, the officer who shot Mr. Brooks was forced to resign, and the court gave him a murder charge.
Terminating the officer and the court giving him a murder charge was a significant legal challenge to the APD’s “use of force“ regulation. According to Hutchinson (2020), the officer who shot Mr. Brooks violated about seven Atlanta Police Department policies revolving around the use of force. For instance, after shooting Mr. Brooks, it is evident in the comprehensive video that the officer also kicked him and failed to provide immediate care.
Paul Howard, the Fulton County District Attorney, announced the following day that the officer was to be arrested for 11 charges, including multiple counts of aggravated assault using a weapon, felony murder, and seven violations of his oath as an officer of the public office. Apart from the officer who shot Mr. Brooks, another officer with him during the incident was charged with two counts of oath violation. The attorney noted, “We’ve concluded that at the time Mr. Brooks was shot, he did not pose an imminent threat of serious injury to the officers“ (Hutchinson, 2020, p. 3). He noted that the officers ignored his police training and the Atlanta Police Department’s policies when Mr. Brooks tried to run.
Additionally, the attorney noted that the officer could be accused of violating many rules in the APD Policy Manual about the “use of force“ regulation. One such rule governs the actions an officer should take and should not take when apprehending a suspected criminal. According to this rule, an Atlanta Police Department employee can only use lethal force if they “reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument“ that they can use to harm themselves, the officer, or some else (Hutchinson, 2020, p. 4). However, the moment the officer saw Mr. Brooks trying to run, he fired his stun gun twice at him. This goes against APD’s policies, noting, “You cannot fire a Taser at someone who is running away“ (Hutchinson, 2020, p. 9). Therefore, firing a handgun at a running person is also against the policy.
The Brooks’ fatal shooting was not the first legal challenge that the Atlanta Police Department faced with this policy. According to Hutchinson (2020), Brooks’ fatal shooting occurred a week after six Atlanta police officers were issued arrest warrants. The six officers were criminally charged after they were caught on camera pulling out two young men from their car and using a stun gun to smash their windows because they were protesting against George Floyd’s death. Two later lost their jobs, and the other was on administrative leave. Due to these cases, a criminology professor at the University of Texas, Michael Smith, recommended that the Atlanta Police Department and others consider revisiting their “use of force“ policies.
Proposed Rules
One proposed rule for the Atlanta Police Department, the Notice and Comment stage, is strengthening the employees’ “duty of intervention“ policy. On 5 May 2021, the Atlanta City Council urged the APD to revise its policies and procedures requiring officers to intervene when their counterparts go against the department’s or the law’s rules (Capelouto, 2021). The Council unanimously passed this resolution focusing on the “duty to intervene.“ This new resolution included reporting other officers for any misconduct.
Even though the Atlanta Police Department already has a directive of a duty to intervene, the new resolution was meant to encourage the Department to revise it and include more specific examples and guidance about how and when their employees should intervene (Capelouto, 2021). The new resolution that has not yet been passed also suggests implementing procedures for protecting the intervening officers from the reported colleagues who would want to retaliate.
Todd Coyt, the APD Assistant Chief, noted that the agency was also planning training programs for all officers on duty to intervene as a step towards revising and strengthening the policy. When asked what training covers, the Assistant Chief noted that it would “cover the duty to intervene to stop an act of excessive force as well as a duty to intercede in any act which would be illegal, unethical…“ (Capelouto, 2021). These training programs would act as a guide to what they are supposed to do and how.
Another proposed rule by the Atlanta Police Department is to build a new training facility. Due to the many mistakes that police officers from Atlanta have been making, the Department proposed building a new police training center in late 2022. However, the plan has yet to succeed and is still underway. According to a report offered by NPR on 24 January 2023, the neighboring community to the proposed training center site in metro Atlanta has been protesting against this proposal (Pearson, 2023). However, despite the protests, the Department continues with the plan.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Atlanta Police Department (APD) plays a critical role in protecting citizens in Atlanta and their properties. The Department was formed by the Georgia General Assembly’s act known as the Atlanta City Charter in 1873. Over the years, the Charter has changed significantly to adapt to the societal changes experienced in Atlanta and the US.
However, recent reports have captured some officers from the APD acting against the rules and the US law governing them. Some have ended up killing suspects, which has left them unemployed and imprisoned in various parts of the country. As a result, the APD has recently made efforts to revise its policies and implement new ones, such as building a new training facility and strengthening its “duty to intervene“ policy.
References
11Alive Staff. (2020). What Atlanta Police’s Standard Operating Procedure says about the use of deadly force. Web.
Atlanta Police Department. (n.d.). Web.
Capelouto, J. (2021). City council says Atlanta police should strengthen its officer ‘duty to intervene’ policy. Retrieved 6 April 2023 from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Web.
City of Atlanta, GA. (n.d.). Web.
Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Web.
Hutchinson, B. (2020). Atlanta police use-of-force policy violated multiple times in fatal shooting of Rayshard Brooks: Prosecutor. Web.
Ortiz, A. (2022). What to know about the death of Rayshard Brooks. Web.
Pearson, E. W. (2023). Tensions rise in Atlanta over proposed police training facility. Web.
Performance Audit: Atlanta Police Department Body-Worn Cameras. (2018). Web.