1 / 25

Legal Block CIT

Legal Block CIT. Chief Sam Faulkner Mechanicsburg Police Department. Who or What Gives You The Authority to Use Force?. www.responsetoresistance.com. 4 TH AMENDMENT. The Constitution of the United States of America.

aimon
Télécharger la présentation

Legal Block CIT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Legal Block CIT Chief Sam Faulkner Mechanicsburg Police Department

  2. Who or What Gives You The Authority to Use Force? www.responsetoresistance.com

  3. 4TH AMENDMENT The Constitution of the United States of America The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. December 15, 1791 www.responsetoresistance.com

  4. THREE MAIN AMENDMENTS8TH – Right prohibiting “Cruel and Unusual” punishment14th – “Due Process” – Right to be tried on the charges on which you are arrested4th – “ Search and Seizure” The right to be ………….. www.responsetoresistance.com

  5. Use of ForceConstitutional Standard Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386 (1989) United States Supreme Court Occurred: November 12, 1984 Submitted: February 21, 1989 Decided: May 15, 1989 www.responsetoresistance.com

  6. www.responsetoresistance.com

  7. Use of ForceConstitutional Standard Today we make explicit what was implicit in Garner's analysis, and hold that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force -- deadly or not -- in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its "reasonableness" standard, rather than under a "substantive due process" approach. Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989) www.responsetoresistance.com

  8. Use of ForceConstitutional Standard [T]he question is whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989) www.responsetoresistance.com

  9. “Objectively Reasonable” “Reasonable Officer” Use of ForceConstitutional Standard vs. www.responsetoresistance.com

  10. The Legal Basis for CITCanton v. Harris (1989) In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the inadequacy of police training may serve as a basis for municipal liability where the absence of training amounts to deliberate indifference for the rights of persons whom the police come into contact with www.responsetoresistance.com

  11. Legal Basis for CITOlsen v. Layton Hills (1980) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held That a municipality could be sued for failing to train Its officers to recognize signs of the psychological Disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder. www.responsetoresistance.com

  12. The two most common civil suits brought* Failure to properly supervise, and * Failure to provide adequate training These suits charge that a department’s failure to properly supervise and train led to a violation of a person’s civil rights under Title 42, Section 1983, U.S. Code ( Under Color of Law) www.responsetoresistance.com

  13. Walker v. City of New York (1992) If you know to a moral certainty that officers will confront a certain situation: and that the encounter will force officers to make a choice between different alternatives; and making a wrong choice will expose persons to potential Constitutional violations; then the agency must provide these officers with reasonable training. www.responsetoresistance.com

  14. Hayek v. City of St. Paul, No. 06-3802,488 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2007) Police officers were found to have acted properly in shooting and killing an allegedly emotionally disturbed 19-year old, 300 pound man, 6’7’’ tall, who was attacking an officer with a sword. The decedent had allegedly continued to stab the officer despite being struck by initial shots, saying “ow” but otherwise continuing his assault. www.responsetoresistance.com

  15. Buchanan v. State of Maine, (2006) Officers did not use excessive force in shooting and killing a mentally ill man when they only did so after he had repeatedly stabbed one of the two offices present. www.responsetoresistance.com

  16. Ali v. City of Louisville, No. 3:03CV-427,395 F. Supp. 2d 527 (W.D. Ky. 2005) The court ruled that police officers’ shooting and killing of a homeless mentally ill man sitting in a car was not excessive force when they acted after he raised a gun and did not know, until after the fact, that the weapon was a BB gun. Under the circumstances it was reasonable for them to believe that their lives were at risk. www.responsetoresistance.com

  17. Fisher v. Harden, 398 F.3d 837, 841(6th Circuit 2005) 77 year old man took his rifle, a tripod and a folding chair to go and shoot groundhogs on a railroad grade about 250 yards from a country road. A passer-by saw the man and thought it might be a suicide attempt. Called sheriff’s office and reported a possible suicide – said that the man had his feet tied to the tracks. www.responsetoresistance.com

  18. Fisher v. Harden Cont. “It is clearly established that an officer may not affect a mental health seizure without probable cause.” If you are responding to an unconfirmed report that a person is mentally ill and/or suicidal, you need to confirm the information in some manner. www.responsetoresistance.com

  19. Griffith v. Coburn, 473 F.3d 650Sixth Circuit (2007) Mother approaches township police dept. in Michigan Wanted son hospitalized because he was “acting strangely” Police said son was not a danger to self or others Son had outstanding traffic warrant Officers offered to arrest son to get help www.responsetoresistance.com

  20. Griffith v. Coburn Cont. “It cannot be forgotten that the police were confronting an individual whom they knew to be mentally ill or retarded, even though the officers may not have known the full extent of [his] autism and his unresponsiveness. The diminished capacity of an unarmed detainee must be taken into account when assessing the amount of force exerted.” www.responsetoresistance.com

  21. Griffith v. Coburn Cont. Judges not saying that you have to take unreasonable risks with a person who had a mental illness. Judges do say that if you go into a situation with an unarmed arrestee who is mentally ill or had a diminished capacity and you know you have to use force, you have to consider the person’s capacity in assessing the type and amount of force to be used. www.responsetoresistance.com

  22. Donald Webb III v. Adam Henderson, et al.Franklin Circuit Court, Indiana (March 16, 2001) Brookville Officers used Officer Presence, Verbal Direction and Escort Position Franklin Deputy used a Taser drive stuns Plaintiff retained a social psychologist as their expert He opined on Donny’s lack of ability to comprehend what the officers were saying www.responsetoresistance.com

  23. Cole v. Bone, 993 F.2d 1328 (8th Cir. 1993) This Court of Appeals stated, “The Constitution…requires only that the seizure be objectively reasonable, not that the officer pursue the most prudent course of action as judged by 20/20 hindsight.” www.responsetoresistance.com

  24. In re Miller63 Ohio St. 3d 99 (1992) • Officers “pink slipped” individual into hospital for mental health evaluation • No written statement of patient’s condition was given to ensure at least a minimal level of PC • Other procedural issues were not followed Not informed of rights Affidavit not prepared by property person Psychiatrist affidavit was conclusory only THIS WAS FOUND TO VIOLATE HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS

  25. CONTACT • Chief Sam Faulkner sam@rtrus.com

More Related