The rotten apple theory and police deviance are directly connected. In An Introduction to Policing, the rotten apple theory is stated to be a type of police corruption in which individual officers are corrupt rather than the entire department. This theory describes the idea that one or two corrupt officers in a department, the “rotten apples”, will cause the other officers to begin acting in a corrupt manner. It is one of the main explanations for police corruption, and some departments may experience more deviance and corruption than others. Police deviance, as stated by Texas Police Accountability, is more broad than the concept of corruption. Corruption is an individual using their power as an officer for personal gain, while police deviance …show more content…
For a long time, deadly force was considered reasonable when dealing with a fleeing felon. This, of course, created a lot of issues, and it became clear that something needed to change. The U.S. Supreme Court finally addressed the concept of deadly and unreasonable force in 1985 with the case of Tennessee v. Garner. Eugene Garner was shot and killed by an officer in Tennessee, and his father filed a civil case against the Memphis Police Department. The court ruled in favor of Garner and recognized laws that allowed deadly force against nonthreatening felons were unconstitutional. Today, deadly force is only allowed in instances of self-defense or defending others from any threat that the felon may be displaying. Alternatively, less lethal weapons can be employed in cases where someone may be threatened, but deadly force would be unreasonable. Some of these weapons include batons, pepper spray, and tasers. These allow officers to avoid resorting to any use of deadly or unreasonable force, however, they can still be used improperly. This is why proper training is vital, along with the employment of less lethal …show more content…
Officer, M.S. & M.S. Connor, was suspicious that he walked in and left quickly, so he followed the two men and pulled them over. Graham was still having a reaction and passed out on the sidewalk. He awoke face down on the sidewalk and was handcuffed. He was put into the cop’s vehicle, but was resisting. Connor concluded that Graham had done nothing wrong, but Graham still sustained many injuries, including broken bones. This case was fundamental in establishing a baseline degree of reasonableness for the use of force by law enforcement officers. It created a standard for what kind and how much force is legally allowed. This ruling emphasized the importance of officers considering their own actions and working without employing unreasonable force. This case is still a keystone in determining the legality of police conduct when interacting with civilians. The force continuum, also called the use-of-force continuum, is a guiding concept for officer interactions that may call for the employment of force. There is a standard on when and how force should be used, as well as what circumstances call for the use of deadly or lethal
The case of Tennessee vs Reeves talks about two youngsters named Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman who were students at the West Carrol Middle School who were planning to kill their teacher, Janice Geiger (Hall 2014; Schmalleger, 2014). They had planned to poison the teacher with rat poison by putting it in the teacher’s drink (Hall 2014; Schmalleger, 2014). There were other students who had found out, and the plot had been reported to the teacher and principal of the school (Hall 2014; Schmalleger, 2014). The students were convicted of attempt to commit secondary degree murder based on the fact that the poison was brought to the school and if it wasn’t because the plot to killed Miss. Geiger was interrupted the crime would have taken place.
Facts: On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out “police, halt.” The police officer figured that if Garner made it over the fence he would get away and also “figured” that Garner was unarmed. Officer Hymon then shot him, hitting him in the back of the head. In using deadly force to prevent the escape of Garner, Hymon used the argument that actions were made under the authority of the Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. Although the department’s policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute it still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. Garner’s fathers’ argument was made that his son was shot unconstitutionally because he was captured and shot possessing ten dollars that he had stolen and being unarmed showing no threat of danger to the officer. The incident was then reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearm’s Revie...
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “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 s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).
Like other law enforcement agencies throughout the United States, New Jersey has a policy that addresses police use of force. The New Jersey Attorney General’s Use of Force Policy was first put into operation in April 1985. The purpose of the policy is to serve as a guide for police officers who are confronted with use of force situations during their duty to preserve the law and protect others. This essay will provide a summary of the policies and practices of New Jersey’s Use of Force Policy. An evaluation of these components will be presented with emphasis on the legal sufficiency of the policies and procedures. Policy strengths and weaknesses will be identified in addition to suggestions for improvement. This essay will conclude with examples and the associated issues of less-than-lethal technologies (“Use of Force,” 2000).
A '''use of force continuum''' is a standard that affords law enforcement officials & security officers (police, probation, or corrections) with guidelines as to how much use of force may be used against a repelling subject in a given situation. In certain ways it is similar to the military’s escalation of force. The reason of these models is to clarify, both for officers and citizens, the complex subject of use of force by law officers. They are often vital parts of law enforcement agencies' use of force policies. Although various agencies have developed different models of the continuum, there is no universal standard model (Stetser, 2001, p. 36)
Over the years, our nation has witnessed countless cases of police brutality. It has developed into a controversial topic between communities. For instance, deindustrialization is the removal or reduction of manufacturing capability or activity can lead to more crimes when people are laid off. Police officers are faced with many threatening situations day-to-day gripping them to make split second decisions; either to expect the worst or hope for the best. The police are given the authority to take any citizen away for their action that can ruin their lives. With that kind of power comes great responsibility, which is one main concern with the amount of discretion officers have is when to use lethal force. The use of excessive force might or
Law enforcement officers are in constant dangerous situations while out doing their responsibilities. When in these threatening situations, police officers typically have little to no time to determine the right precaution. These precautions may lead to the death of a suspect or even the officer themselves. The media has recently shed light on police brutality with use of force. Use of force could be defined as the amount of effort an officer must use in order to make an unwilling subject compel. Police officers are usually trained to enable the proper responsible to a dangerous situation they may be put in. In this paper I will go through the guidelines that a police officer must obey when considering a certain degree of use of force. Within each guideline there will be the pro and cons with that situation and also a recent case that happened. This paper will also talk about how this topic can be addressed more properly. These guidelines that officer are taught during their training are called Use of Force Continuum.
Over the years, this country has witnessed many cases of police brutality. It has become a controversial topic among communities that have seen police brutality take place in front of their homes. Officers are faced with many threatening situations everyday forcing them to make split second decisions and to expect the worst and hope for the best. Police officers are given the power to take any citizens rights away and even their lives. With that kind of power comes responsibility, that’s one major concern with the amount of discretion officers have is when to use force or when to use lethal force. The use of excessive force may or not be a large predicament but should be viewed by both the police and the community.
There are many ethical violations that can occur when excessive force occurs some of them are unnecessary injuries or death, abuse of authority or entitlement, lack of integrity, and corruption. There are many cases in which the police must use excessive or some kind of force to control a situation and protect citizens but only a small fraction of all police encounters each year involves force (Alpert, 2010). Depending on what kind of equipment was used by the police to control the situation the injury can vary, some of the equipment that the police uses to control a situation in addition to their handgun are pepper spray, batons, or conducted energy devices (Alpert, 2010). An abuse of authority ethical violation from a police officer can be a serious nightmare for a police department because these incidents usually receive a lot of media coverage and can damage the reputation
Over the years, this country has witnessed many cases of police brutality. It has become a controversial topic among communities that have seen police brutality take place in front of their homes. Officers are faced with many threatening situations everyday forcing them to make split second decisions and to expect the worst and hope for the best. Police officers are given the power to take any citizens rights away and even their lives. With that kind of power comes responsibility, that’s one major concern with the amount of discretion officers have is when to use force or when to use lethal force. The use of excessive force may or not be a large predicament but should be viewed by both the police and the community.
Was the intrusion based on a lawful objective, such as a valid arrest, detention, search, frisk, community warden guardian of mentally ill, defense of an officer or a citizen, or to prevent escape? If these answer yes then an officer may have legal ability to use the levels of force listed below to apprehend the suspect. Another list of things to consider when determining if it was a lawful use of force is; was the use of force relative to the person’s confrontation? Was there a crucial need to terminate the condition? Even though there is no duty to retreat, could the officer have used lesser force and still safely accomplish the lawful objective? These are the questions that the jury need to answer to determine if they should side with or against the officer in any court case brought to them that deals with such a controversial topic as this.
Police have the duty and responsibility to enforce the laws and ordinances within their jurisdiction, maintain order, and assist those within the community. Police officers protect property and lives (Duties & Responsibilities of Police Officers, 1975). In the course of duty, a police officer may use force when necessary. The International Association of Chiefs of Police has defined force as “that amount of effort required by police to compel compliance from an unwilling subject” (Police Use of Force in America 2001, 2001). The use of force is accepted as part of police work and is allowed until the force becomes excessive. Excessive force is defined as “the application of an amount and/or frequency of force greater than that required to compel compliance from a willing or unwilling subject” (Police Use of Force in America 2001, 2001). The use of excessive force may become a criminal act committed by a police officer. Police use of force is divided between non-lethal and lethal force. Non-lethal force is most commonly used by police officers, but lethal force may be necessary and acceptable to the situation. Non-lethal force includes physical force such as an officer placing a hand on an individual to show a position of authority and control, stun guns, batons, and bean-bag shots. Lethal force is most commonly the use of a firearm. The amount of force necessary is unique to each situation, may change as a situation evolves, and often depends on the experience level of the officer.
Many do not know what Deadly Force is and when is the appropriate time for the Police Officer to use it. According to CFR 1047.7 “Deadly Force means that force which is reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious body harm”. This means that deadly force is supposed to be used as a last resort when Police Officer cannot get the situation under. To be able to use Deadly Force it has to be justified only if when all of the lesser means have failed to work or they cannot be employed reasonably. A Police Officer that is protective is authorized to use deadly force only when one of the five circumstances exist. The first circumstance is “Self-Defense, Serious Offenses against persons, Nuclear Weapon...
They may have experienced some bad influences during their childhood. The police officer who corresponds to this theory may be involved in any kind of criminal activities, such as robbery, selling drugs, murder and others (policecrimes.com). It is said that this theory on corruption is when hired officials are not qualified enough for doing their job. One example of the rotten apple hypothesis is when officers are involved in police shakedowns. A shakedown is when the police extort a business owner for protection money. Shakedowns are common with strip bars, prostitution rings, drug dealing, illegal gambling, and even construction projects. Most shake downs involves gay bars because they are easy targets. Officers then threaten bar owners with violations if they do not make payoffs to them, and they promise to fix any violation reports that may have been processed through department channels against the
While some agencies may have only a few individual officers involved in corruption, other departments experience corruption that is organized and saturates the entire organization. As stated by Punch and Gilmore (2010), police corruption is not usually individual but collective, involving criminal plans causing significant harm with multiple victims. Punch identifies two kinds to corrupt officers: the grass-eaters who are passive towards corruption. He states that he doesn’t consider their acts as corrupt as they passively accept free meals and discounted goods on offer, and do not necessarily provide any harm to the society. However, he considers the other kind of corrupt officers who he called the meat-eaters as the true corrupt officers. He argued that these officers are the ones who break the rules by ripping off dealers, stealing their drugs, and exploiting criminals. He finally argued that “Cops never do it alone,” saying that behind every bent cop are others including supervisors who either took part or knew about it. According to Gottschalk (2012; 2011), corrupt officers are made and not born, and that police corruption is organizationally based. He argued that corrupt officers are not “natural-born criminals” or constitutionally different from their colleagues, they are just a system’s