Law Enforcement Case Summary

Since their has been policing entities, it is understood by most that law enforcement officers have been performing a public service that is not easy to carry out. To assist law enforcement officers in diffusing situations, apprehending alleged criminals, and protecting themselves and others, officers are legally entitled to use appropriate means, including force. In discussing police misconduct, this report acknowledges not only the legal grant of such authority,

On 02/27/2017, I, Dillon Dickerson, badge #155, was working as a Patrol Officer for the Wichita State University Police Department (WSU PD), in Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. At approximately 2300 hours during our shift briefing second shift advised we may have to do some follow up to a case they had earlier in the shift. Officer Ben Gabel #152 was the one who took the case. Officer Gabel advised there was a Battery case which happened earlier in the day. This case involved two students. Officer Gabel said there may be a male student by the name of Mekeal Simmons making contact with WSU PD. Officer Gable stated the female half of the Battery (Jessica Johnson) would be leaving campus around 0130 hours to return to Texas. Officer Gabel advised he told the female half to call WSU PD and we would come out there to make sure she was safe while she packed up her items. Officer Gable also said he was in contact with Chief Sara Morris #113 and she was aware of the case. Officer Gable said if we do have contact with the male to get a statement from him and to contact the Captains or Chief.

The report explained that since the Consent Decree began, the Monitor has consistently reviewed all serious uses of force by officers and regularly conducted broader Use of Force audits to ensure that uses of force are being accurately reported and appropriately supervised and when necessary, evaluated. The Monitor has conducted several Use of Force analyses to date, including a comparative analysis of uses of force from 2012 through November 2016, multiple analyses aimed at assessing the integrity of the Department’s use of force data, a discussion of specific 2016 uses of force, and a comprehensive historic analysis of 2015 uses of force. To conduct the audits, the Monitor reviewed supervisors’ use of force reports and officer Force Statements for the relevant time period. To ensure the integrity of the NOPD’s use of force data, the Monitor conducted several targeted “control audits” that reviewed resisting arrest cases, Injury to Arrestee reports, and all citizen and rank complaints of excessive use of force. In addition, the Monitor assessed the Department’s Use of Force Review Board and reviewed random body worn camera videos. The Monitor found no incident where use of force to overcome resistance was unreported or use of force resulted in unreported injuries and no unreported uses of force when reviewing excessive force lawsuits or cross-comparing against citizen and rank allegations of

Use of force has been scrutinized even more recently due to the media. Recordings of officers using force (weather excessive or not) become uploaded to the web and many individuals quickly jump to conclusions. Police use of force is up to the discretion of each individual police officer, and with each action a multitude of consequences can occur. The public often gets enraged after a court justifies the use of force, but often individuals do not have the full facts or understand how the justice system works. Because of the outcomes of some use of force cases, many individuals are asking for transparency of agencies. Policy makers are often quick to react to satisfy the public by changing police policy.

In the beginning of chapter one, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Florida v. J.L, a police officer may not search individuals based merely on an anonymous tip. The anonymous tip received was that a black man standing at a bus stop was carrying a concealed firearm. Out of the three black men at the bus stop, they searched the man wearing the plaid shirt, as described in the tip. Although public safety issues were recognized, the conviction was overturned. This unlawful search violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which states, in simpler terms, that the police cannot search an individual or take their property without probable cause.

CALEA or the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies is an accrediting body which law enforcement agencies may voluntarily submit an application to for membership and accreditation. The “accreditation program provides public safety agencies an opportunity to voluntarily demonstrate that they meet an established set of professional standards” (Law Enforcement Accreditation, n.d.). Membership in CALEA requires that the applying agency successfully completes the application process meeting all required standards and “80 percent of the non-prescribed regulations“ (Doerner, 2012) or electives. Once an agency’s completed application has been submitted and fees paid, a CALEA assessment team is dispatched to the agency for a site visit and a final report is submitted to the commission for recommendation (Doerner, 2012). If approved, the agency is accredited and receives “professional recognition for an initial 5-year term after which it must re-file to maintain

The family has been determined indigent for services. Samkisha has received public defender services for her criminal matters and Mrs. Beale has received Medicaid since she was 16 years of age. Mrs. Beale disclosed she is court ordered to receive child support in the amount of $202 per month from Mr. Robinson for Samkisha, but stated he seldom make payments of such. She also reported she receives unemployment in the amount of $204 per week and Social Security Income (SSI) for Samkisha in the amount of $670 per month.

Brandl, S. G., Stroshine, M. S., & Frank, J. (2001). Who are the complaint-prone officers?: An examination of the relationship between police officers ' attributes, arrest activity, assignment, and citizens ' complaints about excessive force. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(6), 521-529.

Police officers are authorized to use force under certain circumstances, for instance; controlling a disruptive, aggressive and disturbing demonstration, undergoing arrest of an accused person or controlling a combative individual. These officers are trained properly regarding use of force while fulfilling their duties. However, the use of force by police is a subject of hot discussion amongst public, as many times law enforcement agencies, televisions, newspapers, and civil as well as criminal courts have taken serious actions against excessive use of force by police-officers under a given situation (U.S department of Justice, 1999). The aim of this paper is to study national as well as international

In addition to the feeling of being above the law, there are no practical and effective internal accountability mechanisms to regulate the excessive use of force by the police officers. Many police officers take advantage of

A growing concern in America is the unnecessary use of force police officers use on the innocent or those in their custody. The role of the police officer carries both power and authority and the abuse of that power and authority raises issues society must face. This paper discusses the problem of officers who use unnecessary force, what managers and executives are doing to deal with this problem and the ethical dilemmas associated with the use of excessive or unjustified force on the police department.

The media coverage of excessive force has caused outrage among citizens across the nation. The cases in Ferguson and New York have stirred up major debates about excessive police force and the meaning of justice for all within our judicial system. Protests and riots have ensued in cities across the nation and the cases are affecting us all, whether it is protesters blocking major highways during rush hour, or citizens burning down local businesses out of anger and frustration. The issue of excessive force needs to be addressed and the main question people want answered is, what causes police to use excessive force? Research has been conducted on variables such as the race of police

The use of excessive force by police officers is a topic that continues to make headlines and a study that needs to be done. Although much research has gone into this topic there still is no consensus on why the use of excessive force occurs. Some studies suggest lack of training and/or problems with organization policy/procedures. Law enforcement officers are authorized to use force when necessary, but when the level of force is excessive, however, the actions of the police come under scrutiny. The resulting effects can include; public outrage, scandal, negative reputation for not only the officer but the law enforcement community, and criminal considerations. Although there’s is no concrete definition of excessive force, police

When a law enforcement officer uses force on a subject it will be classified into one of three main categories which are, justifiable, excessive, and deadly force. The authority for law enforcement officers to use force comes from the United States Constitution (case law), state statutes, and department policy. Law enforcement use of force is very important because it involves the patrolman on the street, the corrections officer in jails and prisons, and the courts where excessive use of force cases are held.

The public impression of police use of force, as brutality, in modern day policing continues to be a sensitive issue for law enforcement agencies across the nation. Police agencies across the United States deal with accusations of misuse of force on