DOCSLIB.ORG

Citizen Review of Police : Approaches and Implementation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Citizen Review of Police : Approaches and Implementation U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice Issues and Practices U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, DC 20531 Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij Citizen Review of Police: Approaches and Implementation by Peter Finn March 2001 NCJ 184430 National Institute of Justice Vincent Talucci Program Monitor Advisory Panel* K. Felicia Davis, J.D. Douglas Perez, Ph.D. Samuel Walker, Ph.D. Legal Consultant and Director Assistant Professor Kiewit Professor at Large Department of Sociology Department of Criminal Justice National Association for Civilian Plattsburgh State University University of Nebraska Oversight of Law Enforcement 45 Olcott Lane at Omaha Rensselaer, NY 12144 60th and Dodge Streets Administrator Omaha, NE 68182 Citizen Review Board Jerry Sanders 234 Delray Avenue President and Chief Lt. Steve Young Syracuse, NY 13224 Executive Officer Vice President United Way of San Diego Grand Lodge Mark Gissiner County Fraternal Order of Police Senior Human Resources Analyst P.O. Box 23543 222 East Town Street City of Cincinnati San Diego, CA 92193 Columbus, OH 43215 Immediate Past President, 1995–99 Former Chief International Association for San Diego Police Department Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement 2665 Wayward Winds Drive Cincinnati, OH 45230 *Among other criteria, advisory panel members were selected for their diverse views regarding citizen oversight of police. As a result, readers should not infer that panel members necessarily support citizen review in general or any particular type of citizen review. Prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, by Abt Associates Inc., under contract #OJP–94–C–007. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. C ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION Foreword In many communities in the United States, residents participate to some degree in overseeing their local law enforce- ment agencies. The degree varies. The most active citizen oversight boards investigate allegations of police misconduct and recommend actions to the chief or sheriff. Other citizen boards review the findings of internal police investigations and recommend that the chief or sheriff approve or reject the findings. In still others, an auditor investigates the process by which the police or sheriff’s department accept or investigate complaints and reports to the department and the pub- lic on the thoroughness and fairness of the process. Citizen oversight systems, originally designed to temper police discretion in the 1950s, have steadily grown in number through the 1990s. But determining the proper role has a troubled history. This publication is intended to help citizens, law enforcement officers and executives, union leaders, and public interest groups understand the advantages and disadvantages of various oversight systems and components. In describing the operation of nine very different approaches to citizen oversight, the authors do not extol or disparage citizen oversight but rather try to help jurisdictions interested in creating a new or enhancing an existing oversight system by: • Describing the types of citizen oversight. • Presenting programmatic information from various jurisdictions with existing citizen oversight systems. • Examining the social and monetary benefits and costs of different systems. The report also addresses staffing; examines ways to resolve potential conflicts between oversight bodies and police; and explores monitoring, evaluation, and funding concerns. No one system works best for everyone. Communities must take responsibility for fashioning a system that fits their local situation and unique needs. Ultimately, the author notes, the talent, fairness, dedication, and flexibility of the key participants are more important to the procedure’s success than is the system’s structure. iii C ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION Acknowledgments I thank the many individuals who patiently answered my questions and sent me materials about their citizen oversight procedures. In particular, I thank the following oversight directors and coordinators: Barbara Attard, Lisa Botsko, Mary Dunlap, Suzanne Elefante, Patricia Hughes, Liana Perez, Melvin Sears, Todd Samolis, Ruth Siedschlag, and Joseph Valu. The following advisory panel members (whose titles are listed on the back of the title page) provided a large number of helpful comments during a 1-day meeting in Washington, D.C., and reviewed the draft report: K. Felicia Davis, Mark Gissiner, Douglas Perez, Jerry Sanders, Samuel Walker, and Steve Young. Among other criteria, advisory panel members were selected for their diverse views regarding citizen oversight of police. As a result, readers should not infer that the panel members necessarily support citizen review in general or any particular type of citizen review. Benjamin Tucker, former Deputy Director of Operations of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, and Phyllis McDonald, Social Science Analyst with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), also participated in the board meeting and made important contributions. Pierce Murphy, Community Ombudsman in Boise, Idaho, provided valuable suggestions for improving the report. Vincent Talucci, Program Manager for the project at NIJ, provided wise guidance and constant support. Terence Dunworth, Managing Vice President at Abt Associates Inc., offered numerous suggestions for improving the report, most important, a complete reconfiguration of the executive summary and discussion of program costs. Mary-Ellen Perry and Joan Gilbert carefully produced the numerous report drafts. Peter Finn Associate Abt Associates Inc. v C ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION Executive Summary Introduction • Type 3: Complainants may appeal findings established by the police or sheriff’s department to citizens, who There has been a considerable increase in the number of review them and then recommend their own findings to procedures involving citizen oversight of police imple- the chief or sheriff. mented by cities and counties in the 1990s. However, many of these procedures have had a troubled history • Type 4: An auditor investigates the process by which involving serious—even bitter—conflict among the the police or sheriff’s department accepts and investi- involved parties. Citizen Review of Police: Approaches gates complaints and reports on the thoroughness and and Implementation is designed to help jurisdictions that fairness of the process to the department and the public. may decide to establish—or wish to improve—an over- All four types of oversight are represented among the sight system to avoid or eliminate these battles. At the nine citizen review systems described in this report (see same time, the publication can help oversight planners exhibit 1). understand and choose among the many options available for structuring a citizen review procedure. Finally, current Each type of system has advantages and drawbacks. For oversight staff and volunteers may find it useful to review example, oversight systems that involve investigating citi- the publication as a way of learning more about the field. zen complaints (type 1) can help reassure the public that investigations of citizen complaints are thorough and fair. To provide this assistance, Citizen Review of Police However, hiring professional investigators can be expen- describes the operations of nine very different systems of sive, and the investigations model typically has no mecha- citizen oversight. However, the publication does not pro- nism for soliciting the public’s general concerns about mote any particular type of citizen review—or citizen police conduct. review in general. Rather, the report is intended to help local government executives and legislators, as well as Whatever their specific advantages, any type of citizen police and sheriff’s department administrators, union oversight needs to be part of a larger structure of internal leaders, and local citizen groups and public interest organi- and external police accountability; citizen oversight alone zations, learn about the advantages, drawbacks, and limita- cannot ensure that police will act responsibly. tions of a variety of oversight systems and components. Oversight Costs Types of Citizen Oversight Exhibit 2 presents the nine oversight systems arranged in There is no single model of citizen oversight. However, ascending order of budget levels along with their activity most procedures have features that fall into one of four levels for 1997. As shown, there is a theoretical relation- types of oversight systems: ship between the four types of oversight systems and cost. • Type 1: Citizens investigate allegations of police mis- • Type 1 oversight systems, in which citizens investigate conduct and recommend findings to the chief or sheriff. allegations and recommend findings (Berkeley, Flint, Minneapolis, San Francisco), are the most expensive •
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rethinking Documentary Photography
    RETHINKING DOCUMENTARY PHOTOGRAPHY: DOCUMENTARY AND POLITICS IN TIMES OF RIOTS AND UPRISINGS —————————————————— A Thesis Presented to The Honors Tutorial College Ohio University —————————————————— In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Graduation from the Honors Tutorial College with the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Art History —————————————————— by Jack Opal May 2013 Introduction I would like to think about documentary photography. In particular, I would like to rethink the limits of documentary photography for the contemporary. Documentary, traditionally, concerns itself with the (re)presentation of factual information, constitutes a record.1 For decades, documentary – and especially social documentary – has been under siege; its ability to capture and convey and adequately represent “truth” thrown into question, victim to the aestheticization of the objects, fading trust in their authors, and technological development. So much so that the past three decades have prompted photographer, documentarian, and art historian Martha Rosler to question first its utility, then its role, and finally its future in society. All of this has opened up the possibility and perhaps the need to reconsider the conditions and purpose of documentary practice, and to consider the ways in which it has been impacted by recent technological and historical developments. The invention of the internet and the refinement of the (video) camera into ever more portable devices and finally into the smartphone, and the rise to ubiquity within society of these inventions, signifies a major shift in documentary. So, too, have certain events of the past two decades – namely, the beating of Rodney King (and the circulation of the video of that event) and the development and adoption of the occupation as a major tactic within the political left.
    [Show full text]
  • Institutionalizing Police Accountability Reforms: the Problem of Making Police Reforms Endure
    Saint Louis University Public Law Review Volume 32 Number 1 Control of Police Misconduct in a Post-Exclusionary Rule World: Can It Be Done? Article 7 (Volume XXXII, No. 1) 2012 Institutionalizing Police Accountability Reforms: The Problem of Making Police Reforms Endure Samuel Walker University of Nebraska at Omaha, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/plr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Walker, Samuel (2012) "Institutionalizing Police Accountability Reforms: The Problem of Making Police Reforms Endure," Saint Louis University Public Law Review: Vol. 32 : No. 1 , Article 7. Available at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/plr/vol32/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Saint Louis University Public Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Commons. For more information, please contact Susie Lee. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW INSTITUTIONALIZING POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY REFORMS: THE PROBLEM OF MAKING POLICE REFORMS ENDURE SAMUEL WALKER* INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM OF SUSTAINING POLICE REFORMS The history of police reform in America, in the sense of modern day notions of police professionalization, is more than a century old.1 Over that time period there have been successive waves of reform movements, with a changing set of objectives and programs.2 Much has been accomplished to improve policing over this long period.3 Whether the benchmark is one- hundred years, fifty years or only twenty years ago, it is possible to see significant reforms in police management, crime fighting tactics, police personnel standards and training, the diversity of the work force, constitutional standards for policing, and the accountability of officers for their actions in critical situations.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights Zone: Building an Antiracist City in Tucson, Arizona
    Human Rights Zone: Building an antiracist city in Tucson, Arizona Jenna M. Loyd 1 [email protected] Abstract: Tucson, Arizona is on the front lines of border militarization and the criminalization of migration. Residents there are crafting creative responses to the state and federal government’s increasingly punitive treatment of migration. This critical intervention piece focuses on the We Reject Racism campaign as an effort to build an antiracist city in conditions of steady police and military presence. It situates this campaign in a historical lineage of building open and sanctuary cities, and suggests that demilitarization and decriminalization should be recognized as central aspects of antiracist Right to the City organizing. I arrived in Tucson, Arizona on the afternoon of July 28, 2010. Immediately, I spotted signs that read “We Reject Racism: Human Rights Respected Here” dotting modest front yards and lining storefronts of businesses near downtown. Soon these same signs, and many others, would fill the city’s streets. The immediate issue was Senate Bill 1070, a state law that would require police officers engaged in a legal stop to question people about their migration status and to arrest them if they could not produce paperwork verifying the legality of their presence. The bill received national and international criticism for enshrining a ‘Papers, please’ policy, and promising a future of racial profiling and civil rights abuses. The stated goal of SB 1070 is “attrition through enforcement,” and includes provisions for policing daily mobility and work that would make everyday life for undocumented migrants so difficult, legally and economically, that they would 1 Creative Commons licence: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works Building an antiracist city in Tucson, Arizona 134 have no choice but to leave the state (or ‘self-deport’).
    [Show full text]
  • Copwatching Jocelyn Simonson Brooklyn Law School, [email protected]
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 4-2016 Copwatching Jocelyn Simonson Brooklyn Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation 104 Cal. L. Rev. 391 (2016) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. Copwatching Jocelyn Simonson* This Article explores the phenomenon of organized copwatching-groups of local residents who wear uniforms, carry visible recording devices, patrol neighborhoods, and film police- citizen interactions in an effort to hold police departments accountable to the populations they police. The Article argues that the practice of copwatching illustrates both the promise of adversarialism as a form of civic engagement and the potential of traditionally powerless populations to contribute to constitutional norms governing police conduct. Organized copwatching serves a unique function in the world of police accountability by giving these populations a vehicle through which to have direct, real-time input into policing decisions that affect their neighborhoods. Many scholars recognize that a lack ofpublic participationis a barrier to true police accountability. When searchingfor solutions these same scholars often focus on studying and perfecting consensus-based methods of participation such as community policing, and neglect the study of more adversarial, confrontational forms of localparticipation in policing. By analyzing copwatching as a form of public participation,this Article challenges the scholarly focus on consensus-based strategies of police accountability. The Article urges scholars and reformers to take adversarial,bottom-up mechanisms of police accountability seriously-not just as protest, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15779/Z38SK27 Copyright © 2016 California Law Review, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Lives Matter: Eliminating Racial Inequity in the Criminal Justice
    BLACK LIVES MATTER: ELIMINATING RACIAL INEQUITY IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM For more information, contact: This report was written by Nazgol Ghandnoosh, Ph.D., Research Analyst at The Sentencing Project. The report draws on a 2014 publication The Sentencing Project of The Sentencing Project, Incorporating Racial Equity into Criminal 1705 DeSales Street NW Justice Reform. 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Cover photo by Brendan Smialowski of Getty Images showing Congressional staff during a walkout at the Capitol in December 2014. (202) 628-0871 The Sentencing Project is a national non-profit organization engaged sentencingproject.org in research and advocacy on criminal justice issues. Our work is twitter.com/sentencingproj supported by many individual donors and contributions from the facebook.com/thesentencingproject following: Atlantic Philanthropies Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation craigslist Charitable Fund Ford Foundation Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Foundation General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church JK Irwin Foundation Open Society Foundations Overbrook Foundation Public Welfare Foundation Rail Down Charitable Trust David Rockefeller Fund Elizabeth B. and Arthur E. Roswell Foundation Tikva Grassroots Empowerment Fund of Tides Foundation Wallace Global Fund Working Assets/CREDO Copyright © 2015 by The Sentencing Project. Reproduction of this document in full or in part, and in print or electronic format, only by permission of The Sentencing Project. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 I. Uneven Policing in Ferguson and New York City 6 II. A Cascade of Racial Disparities Throughout the Criminal Justice System 10 III. Causes of Disparities 13 A. Differential crime rates 13 B. Four key sources of unwarranted racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes 15 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Ppr47i Final?
    issue #47 may www. portlandcopwatch. org 2009 Auditor Blackmer to resign May 18 —see p. 2 Chief Sizer Finally Releases (Good Secret List Allowed to Continue, Beginning of) Racial Profiling Plan With Reservations, In Judge’s Ruling ...on the Same Day the Police Review Board he controversial plan which Portland Mercury, January 15 Publishes Its “Bias Based Policing” Report forces repeat arrestees to enter SUCCESSOR TO RACIAL PROFILING COMMITTEE IGNORES Ttreatment or face felony charges for EXPLICIT POLICE BIGOTRY IN GANG CRACKDOWN misdemeanor crimes—Project 57/ oughly two years after the deadline given her by aka the Neighborhood Livability community groups, Portland Police Chief Rosie Sizer Enforcement Program (NLECP)— Rreleased her plan to reduce racial profiling on Feb. 18. went on trial in early 2009. The That morning, the Citizen Review Committee (CRC) program depends on a secret list of published its own interim report on “Disparate Treatment some 400 people who are targeted Complaints” examined as chronic offenders (PPR #46). On by its Bias Based Policing April 8, Multnomah Circuit Court Work Group. At the Judge Dale Koch ruled that the City March 18 meeting of the could not use the list to stiffen people’s charges. However, he “Community/Police also said they could present suspects’ repeat convictions (not just Relations Committee” of arrests) to the District Attorney on a case by case basis for review. the new Human Rights As a result, two of five defendants in the case will be charged This image found on the KALB-TV Commission (HRC), with felonies based on their previous records.
    [Show full text]
  • Struggle for Power: the Ongoing Persecution of Black Movement the by U.S
    STRUGGLE FOR POWER T H E ONGOING PERSECUTION O F B L A C K M O V E M E N T BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT In the fight for Black self-determination, power, and freedom in the United States, one institution’s relentless determination to destroy Black movement is unrivaled— the United States federal government. Black resistance and power-building threaten the economic interests and white supremacist agenda that uphold the existing social order. Throughout history, when Black social movements attract the nation’s or world’s attention, or we fight our way onto the nation’s political agenda as we have today, we experience violent repression. We’re disparaged and persecuted; cast as villains in the story of American prosperity; and forced to defend ourselves and our communities against police, anti-Black policymakers, and U.S. armed forces. Last summer, on the heels of the murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, millions of people mobilized to form the largest mass movement against police violence and racial injustice in U.S. history. Collective outrage spurred decentral- ized uprisings in defense of Black lives in all 50 states, with a demand to defund police and invest in Black communities. This brought global attention to aboli- tionist arguments that the only way to prevent deaths such as Mr. Floyd’s and Ms. Taylor’s is to take power and funding away from police. At the same time, the U.S federal government, in a flagrant abuse of power and at the express direction of disgraced former President Donald Trump and disgraced former Attorney General William Barr, deliberately targeted supporters of the movement to defend Black lives in order to disrupt and discourage the movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Use-Of-Force, De-Escalation Tactics and Discipline
    The City of New York Department of Investigation MARK G. PETERS COMMISSIONER Inspector General Philip K. Eure Office of Inspector General for the NYPD 80 MAIDEN LANE Release #05-2015 NEW YORK, NY 10038 nyc.gov/oignypd 212-806-5200 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: DIANE STRUZZI THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2015 (212) 825-5931 DOI’S OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE NYPD ISSUES REPORT ON POLICE USE OF FORCE FINDING FAILURE TO PROPERLY INSTRUCT ON DE-ESCALATION TACTICS AND IMPOSE DISCIPLINE Today, the Department of Investigation’s (DOI) Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD (OIG- NYPD) issued its first comprehensive Report on Use of Force by members of the New York City Police Department (NYPD). OIG-NYPD’s investigation revealed: a lack of discipline imposed on officers involved in substantiated force allegations — even when the Department was provided with evidence that excessive force was used; an inability to track use-of-force encounters by officers; and a failure to properly instruct and employ de-escalation tactics, among other findings. The Report examines five important aspects of NYPD use of force: (1) trends; (2) reporting; (3) de-escalation; (4) training; and (5) discipline. As part of its investigation, OIG-NYPD conducted a detailed analysis of all 179 cases where the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) determined that from 2010 through 2014 officers used excessive force, as well as the accompanying NYPD disciplinary records for over 100 cases where a final disciplinary disposition was reached. Investigators also assessed NYPD’s Patrol Guide procedures on use of force and observed and evaluated NYPD training at the Police Academy and in-service training modules.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Western District of Kentucky
    Case 3:20-mc-99999 Document 692 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 46 PageID #: 26620 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY ATTICA SCOTT, CORBIN SMITH, KAYLA MEISNER, TYLER WEAKLEY, STEVIE SCHAUER, WILLA TINSLEY, and the KENTUCKY ALLIANCE AGAINST RACIAL AND POLITICAL REPRESSION, on behalf of themselves and Civil Action No. _________ all others similarly situated, COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs, DEMAND v. LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT, GREG FISCHER, individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of Louisville, ROBERT SCHROEDER, individually and in his official capacity as Interim Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department, LaVITA CHAVOUS, individually and in her official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department, and LOUISVILLE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER “J.” JOHNSON, LOUISVILLE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS JOHN DOES #1-#15 and JANE DOE #1, in their individual capacities, Defendants. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT “[O]ur constitutional command of free speech and assembly is basic and fundamental and encompasses peaceful social protest, so important to the preservation of the freedoms treasured in a democratic society.” Cox v. State of La., 379 U.S. 559, 574 (1965). Rarely before has this principle been as readily apparent as it is today; following the senseless killings of George Floyd, Case 3:20-mc-99999 Document 692 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 46 PageID #: 26621 Breonna Taylor, and countless other Black individuals at the hands of police, protesters in all fifty states are demanding police accountability and reform. Rather than treating its peaceful protesters as important parts of the democratic process protected by the Constitution, the City of Louisville has chosen to forcibly silence them—often using military-type weapons and tactics that resemble those used by authoritarian regimes to stifle dissent.
    [Show full text]
  • Keeping Citizenship Rights White: Arizona's Racial Profiling Practices in Immigration Law Enforcement
    K E EPIN G C I T I Z E NSH IP RI G H TS W H I T E : A RI Z O N A’S R A C I A L PR O F I L IN G PR A C T I C ES IN I M M I G R A T I O N L A W E N F O R C E M E N T Mary Romero1 IN T R O DU C T I O N This article analyzes policing practices that result in the mistreatment of citizens and immigrants of color in Arizona and argues that discriminatory and discretionary policing, by both formal and informal means, connects citizenship rights to race. The article begins with an overview of racial profiling and by reviewing the conceptual frameworks primarily applied to the Black experience in the U.S. and demonstrate the usefulness of those frameworks in analyzing the experience of Latinos in the U.S. Next, the article identifies law enforcement racial profiling practices and examines the relationship between those practices and other discretionary powers used by law enforcement to deny Latinos the same treatment as white citizens or white immigrants. Then, drawing on newspaper accounts, law enforcement reports, human and civil rights reports, and lawsuits filed against Maricopa County, the article discusses the risk that citizens and immigrants of color face as a result of racial profiling in immigration law enforcement. This section focuses on narratives from Melendres v. Arpaio and a similar care involving Velia Meraz and her brother Manuel Nieto.
    [Show full text]
  • George Floyd Justice in Policing Act V. Senate Republican Bill V. Pres. Trump Executive Order
    George Floyd Justice in Policing Act v. Senate Republican Bill v. Pres. Trump Executive Order George Floyd Senate Pres. Trump Justice in Republican Executive Policing Bill Justice Bill Order* Police Accountability Modifies Mens Rea in Section 242 (Criminal Liability) ü û û Ends Qualified Immunity for Law Enforcement ü û û Funds Independent Counsels to Prosecute Police Misconduct ü û û Strengthens Pattern and Practice Investigations at the Federal and State Level ü û û Establishes National Standards for Law Enforcement ü û ü Invests in Public Safety Innovation Grants to Reimagine Policing ü û û Police Transparency and Data Establishes Public National Police Misconduct Registry ü û ü1 -Database sharing amongst law enforcement agencies ü ü ü Requires Data Collection on Use of Force ü ü2 û Police Training and Policies ChoKeholds -Federal officers—Bans choKeholds as a use of deadly force ü û3 û -All Officers—Subjects officers to federal criminal prosecution for civil rights violation ü û û -State and local officers—Conditions grants on banning chokeholds ü ü4 û Bans No KnocK Warrants in Drug Cases ü û5 û Bans Racial Profiling ü û û Requires Deadly Force to Only be Used as Last Resort ü û û Establishes Duty to Intervene Standards ü ü6 û Mandates Uniformed Officers to use Body ü7 ü8 û Prohibits a sexual act with an individual under arrest, in detention, or in custody ü ü û * Executive Orders do not have the force of law and may be withdrawn by any Administration 1 Registry while publicly available, does not include all complaints and other data in George Floyd Act 2 Does not require comprehensive data on use of force, limited to deadly use of force as defined in the bill 3 Directs AG to create policy banning chokeholds “except when deadly force is authorized”.
    [Show full text]
  • Policing and Protests
    Boston University Initiative on Cities 2020 MENINO SURVEY OF MAYORS POLICING AND PROTESTS SUPPORTED BY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2 2. Executive Summary 2 3. Methodology 3 4. Racial Disparities in Policing 5 5. Urban Protests 6 6. Police Reform 8 7. Conclusion 12 Authors Contributors Initiative on Cities Katherine Levine Einstein Stacy Fox Boston University Associate Professor, Political Science Associate Director, Initiative on Cities 75 Bay State Road Boston University Boston University Boston, MA 02215 [email protected] Katharine Lusk bu.edu/ioc David M. Glick Co-Director, Initiative on Cities @BUonCities Associate Professor, Political Science Boston University 617-358-8080 Boston University [email protected] [email protected] Nick Henninger Songhyun Park Maxwell Palmer Luisa Godinez Puig Assistant Professor, Political Science PhD Candidates, Political Science Boston University Boston University [email protected] Center cover photo: Raymond Richards / Shutterstock.com 1 Boston University Initiative on Cities 2020 MENINO SURVEY OF MAYORS: Policing and Protests 1. INTRODUCTION Racial harassment, violence, and injustice have long marred policing in the United States (US). In 2015, the Obama White House created the Task Force on 21st Century Policing to engage mayors, police chiefs, community leaders, and academics in identifying meaningful reforms. Five years later, on May 25, 2020, the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin shone a national spotlight on enduring racial violence perpetrated by police. Black people are three times more likely to be killed by the police than white people. There is still little accountability for police-related homicides. Since 2013, 98 percent of killings by police have not resulted in any criminal charges.1 In response to the death of George Floyd, protests erupted in cities and towns in every state, and a growing coalition of activists demanded substantial changes to police departments.
    [Show full text]