Rights of Officers

This literature review focuses on the Legal Aspects of Criminal Justice Management with a focus on legal rights/freedoms, rules, discipline, due process, and the politics of being a public employee, specifically law enforcement officers. The peer-reviewed articles used for this review explore issues such as police unions, use of force, arbitration, and the political influence of law enforcement, which are important in understanding laws, rules and politics of law enforcement, which officers in their roles as public employees, must know.

Police Unions and Officer Protections

Fegley (2020) looks at the part played by police unions in protecting law enforcement officers. The main focus has to do with disciplinary procedures. Unions have been power players in shaping collective bargaining agreements with respect to procedural safeguards for officers facing disciplinary actions. These agreements often include arbitration processes that allow officers to challenge disciplinary decisions, even in cases of misconduct. Aitchisons (2020) work corroborates Fegley's (2020) findings by detailing the history and structure of collective bargaining for law enforcement officers?. Specifically, Aitchison (2020) shows that unions have been leaders in establishing protections that insulate officers from immediate disciplinary actions. These protections raise a complicated issue, though: for one thing, they may be beneficial for officers, but on the other hand they can often frustrate efforts to hold officers accountable, as they complicate the process of swift disciplinary actions in cases of misconduct.

Fegleys (2020) analysis also looks into how arbitration frequently leads to the reinstatement of officers who were terminated. This has the potential to cause a loss of public confidence in the police force, if the public views the termination is justified. The protective structure can be taken in two ways: it can be taken as a cushion for officers who feel their punishment may be unjust; it can also be taken as a barrier by those who feel punishment is just. In any case, it can act as a hurdle for police departments that try to discipline officers. Aitchison (2020) provides similar insights in terms of how the arbitration process can shield officers from the full consequences of their actions?. The influence of unions thus translates to political power affecting officer discipline and due process rights.

Legal Barriers to Accountability in Use of Force

Garrett and Slobogin (2020) also go into the legal standards that govern the use of force by law enforcement officers. They, too, argue that existing legal frameworks like the qualified immunity...

Connor tend to act as barriers from holding officers accountable for excessive use of force. Aitchison (2020) complements this discussion by explaining how legal standards can be interpreted in ways that favor officers, especially if there are internal investigations after the use of force?.

In many cases, internal reviews conducted by police departments lead to findings that align with the legal protections granted to officers (Garrett & Slobogin, 2020). This makes it difficult for victims of excessive force to seek redress. Aitchison (2020) refers to the Garrity and Brady rules, in particular, as examples of cases that complicate disciplinary proceedings when officers are involved in cases of misconduct related to use of force?. Garrett and Slobogins (2020) analysis, combined with Aitchison (2020), reveals a system where legal and procedural barriers can become obstacles to officer accountability.

Public Interest and Police Arbitration

Plass (2021) also critiques the arbitration process as it relates to police discipline, by showing that it often prioritizes the interests of officers over the public good. Arbitration can lead to the reinstatement of officers even after severe misconduct, due to arbitral failures, procedural discretion, and the Supreme Court doctrine that...

…of misconduct. The lack of transparency in the arbitration process, combined with the frequent reinstatement of officers, exacerbates the problem by undermining public confidence in law enforcement agencies. Plass (2021) suggests that the arbitration system, as it stands, serves more to protect officers than to uphold the public interest

Similarly, Garrett and Slobogin (2020) provide an in-depth examination of the legal frameworks governing the use of force by law enforcement officers in the United States. The authors argue that Supreme Court precedentsparticularly the standard of objective reasonableness set by Graham v. Connorcan be viewed as hurdles to holding officers accountable for excessive use of force. Thus, Garrett and Slobogin call for legal reforms to address these barriers, suggesting that the current legal standards disproportionately shield officers from accountability and contribute to the broader issue of police misconduct.

Robinson and Rushin (2022) show that the political power of police unions and other law enforcement organizations has led to laws that limit the release of body camera footage and delay interviews with officers involved in use-of-force incidents. These legal protections safeguard officers bu can also obstruct transparency and erode public trust. Robinson and Rushin (2022) argue that the political power of the law enforcement lobby is a major obstacle to implementing reforms that would increase accountability and transparency within police departments.

Finally, Schanzenbach (2022) shows how personnel management practices within police departments can contribute to issues of misconduct by allowing for the growth of a culture where bad behavior is tolerated or overlooked. Schanzenbach (2022) suggests that improving personnel management practices could help reduce incidents of misconduct and forge a better culture. All together, these sources show that law enforcement officers legal rights and privileges, particularly concerning discipline, accountability, and due process, are vastly influenced by unions, political lobbies, and internal management practices, thus making law…