Download
1 / 14
140 likes | 255 Vues
Municipalities may be held liable for deliberate indifference to training needs, risking constitutional harm. In this comprehensive overview, Attorney Elliot B. Spector explores pertinent legal precedents such as Canton v. Harris and Brown v. Bryan County, providing essential guidelines for law enforcement training. Topics include reasonable suspicion for encounters, custody issues, avoiding excessive force claims, and the significance of effective communication. By implementing robust training programs, municipalities can reduce trauma, litigation costs, and ultimately safeguard the community.
E N D
C.i.t. legal issues Attorney Elliot B. Spector Spector Criminal Justice Training Network www.spectortraining.org ebspector87@gmail.com Direct Line: 860-676-1115
TRAINING LIABILITY Municipalities may be held liable for DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE to a training need Is it likely that a constitutional harm will occur if training is not provided? CANTON v. HARRIS BROWN v. BRYAN COUNTY
MUNICIPALITY LIABILTY TESTS • Do you know to a moral certainty that officials perform the TASK in question? • Does the task present a DIFFICULT CHOICE (not mere common sense) OR is there a HISTORY of mishandling the task? • Will the wrong choice likely lead to a CONSTITUTIONAL HARM?
REAL REASONS FOR PROVIDING TRAINING AND RESOURCES • TO REDUCE: • Trauma to families; • Trauma to officers; • Cost to taxpayers; • Officers’ time; • Investigations; and • Litigation.
INITIAL ENCOUNTER CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTER STOP: Reasonable suspicion or Probable cause
COMMUNICATIONS Communication personnel should at a minimum determine: • The nature of the incident & involved parties; • Weapons; • Injuries; • Location of the parties; • ID of caller and call back information (in critical incidents stay on line until officers arrive if possible)
CUSTODY ISSUES • Probable Cause • Emotionally disturbed AND a danger to him/herself or others; OR gravely disabled AND in need of immediate care and treatment.
CUSTODY ISSUES • What type of danger will justify taking a person into custody? • Choosing between Fourth Amendment violation AND Failure to Protect claim • Sick and dying but coherent • Providing medications
FORCED ENTRIES • 1. Court order to take person into custody • a. In their home • b. In third party’s home • 2. POTENTIAL HARM
USE OF FORCE • GRAHAM v. CONNOR: Reasonableness Test • 1. Severity of Offense • 2. Immediate Harm • 3. Resistance • Saucier v. Katz: Qualified Immunity • Hope v. Pelzar: Notice Issue
AVOIDING EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS • Ask how can situation be handled without use of force; • Any force used without a legitimate governmental purpose is unreasonable; • Stop others from using excessive force; • Control emotions and avoid using offensive language; • Write detailed-truthful-complete reports; and • Maintain professional demeanor and show you care.
USE LESS LETHALS • TASERS and O/C SPRAYS • Reduce injuries to suspects and officers; • Reduce excessive force claims; • Use before physically engaging OR using more harmful weapons when feasible • Deaths are rarely attributable to less lethals
DEADLY FORCE • Suicide by Cop • Gun Threats • Knives and Impact Weapons • No Weapons • Bottom-line: Risk of Serious Injury
SUPERVISORY ISSUES • Direct Participation • Ordering Others • Duty to Control • KNOWLEDGE OF WRONGDOING AND FAILURE TO ACT
