Police department operations and structure

Law Enforcement Policies and Procedures

Use of Force Policy

This use of force policy establishes the criteria and circumstances under which force shall be authorized during encounters with any member of the general public.

The use of force policy that is used for this law enforcement department will follow the guidance of national and state authorities as well as best practices identified through a review of national surveys of police departments across the country. A use of force policy is necessary because this area represents one of the more commonly cited issues concerning the manner in which law enforcement authorities exercise their authority while upholding the peace (Kenney & McNamara, 1999).

Instances of use of force will be monitored closely. Because an inordinate percentage of use of force complaints are typically caused by a relatively small percentage of law enforcement officers (Simmons, 2008), the use of force policy in this district will monitor all reports of use of force to identify potential problem areas that may require additional training or refresher training to ensure all officers are aware of departmental policies and possess the tools and information they need to respond to a wide range of circumstances appropriately or other interventions that are deemed necessary including maintaining a use of force policy that complies with applicable law and current professional standards (Simmons, 2008).

3. The use of force policy in place at this department will be one of graduated response. In other words, to the maximum extent possible under the circumstances presented, each law enforcement officer will seek to defuse a confrontational situation through the least injurious means available. This decision will obviously be a judgment call that will relate to the type of infraction encountered. For example, it may be possible to talk a suicidal individual down from a perch or to resolve a domestic disturbance through a calm discussion of the problem areas under dispute. By contrast, suspects who are confronted while committing armed robbery will likely be indisposed to resolving the confrontation verbally.

4. When verbal interventions are shown to be ineffective in resolving a given situation, officers may then pursue a range of non-lethal alternatives in an effort to resolve the confrontation. Therefore, the use of batons, riot gas, pepper spray and non-lethal bullets (i.e., wooden and rubber) should be considered if other methods are shown to be ineffective.

5. The choice of alternative non-lethal law enforcement tool will be at the discretion of the individual law enforcement officer within the parameters established by this use of force policy.

6. If the non-lethal alternatives described above fail to resolve a confrontation that involves the potential for harm to officers, the general public or to the suspect(s) involved, the use of lethal force is authorized (Simmons, 2008).

7. It is recognized that law enforcement officials may not have sufficient time to secure supervisory permission to proceed with increasing levels of force to resolve a situation, particularly one where there have already been shots fired or other lethal weapons used by the perpetrators. In some cases, where law enforcement authorities are at risk from the outset (e.g., shots have already been fired), the use of deadly force is therefore immediately and automatically authorized (Simmons, 2008).

8. As part of the use of force policy in this department, though, it is standard procedure to inform dispatch upon arrival at a crime scene using the mobile radios mounted in patrol cars and worn by all law enforcement officers in this jurisdiction and to briefly advise what course of action is envisioned and whether back-up is required.

Hot Pursuit Policy

The hot pursuit policy to be used by this department will follow the definition established by the Model Policy published by the International Association of Chiefs of Police for vehicular pursuits which defines hot pursuit as: "An active attempt by an officer in an authorized emergency vehicle to apprehend fleeing suspects who are attempting to avoid apprehension through evasive tactics" (quoted in Kenney & McNamara, 1999 at p. 158). The steps to be followed pursuant to this definition and policy are as follows.

1. The use of hot pursuit in this jurisdiction will be authorized when the apprehending officer has reason to believe that the suspect(s) involved represent a danger to the public irrespective of the seriousness of the originating offense involved. This approach is congruent with the findings of a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of large law enforcement agencies (e.g., those with more than 100 officers) in the United States that found that almost half (48%) allowed hot pursuits for any offense.

2. It is the policy of this jurisdiction that only officially marked law enforcement vehicles properly equipped with sirens and light bars will be permitted to engage in hot pursuits.

3. Although there are no speed limitations placed on law enforcement officers engaged in hot pursuits, all officers are expected to exercise discretion in the decision to engage in such hot pursuits in the first place and in sustaining them depending on traffic conditions. Therefore, officers engaged in hot pursuits are also empowered to make the decision to call off the pursuit at any time if circumstances require the discontinuance of the chase for whatever reason.

4. Law enforcement supervisory personnel have the authority to call off a hot pursuit at any point as well, but in most cases, this authority will remain within the sole discretion of the pursuing officers.