Legal Rights and Accountability of Law Enforcement Officers
This literature review examines the legal rights, disciplinary procedures, due process protections, and political dynamics that define the employment conditions of law enforcement officers as public employees. Drawing on five peer-reviewed sources, the review covers the role of police unions in securing officer protections through collective bargaining, the legal standards governing use of force, the arbitration process and its implications for public trust, the political influence of the law enforcement lobby, and the relationship between personnel management practices and police misconduct. The review synthesizes these sources to show how unions, legal frameworks, and internal management practices collectively set law enforcement officers apart from other public servants in terms of how accountability is structured and enforced.
- Introduction: Scope and purpose of the literature review
- Police Unions and Officer Protections: Union roles in disciplinary procedures and arbitration
- Legal Barriers to Accountability in Use of Force: Qualified immunity and objective reasonableness standards
- Public Interest and Police Arbitration: Arbitration outcomes and erosion of public trust
- Political Power of Law Enforcement Unions: Lobbying influence on legislation and officer protections
- Personnel Management and Police Misconduct: Management failures enabling cultures of impunity
- Key Findings and Synthesis: Source-by-source findings and cross-source synthesis
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper integrates multiple peer-reviewed sources into a coherent argument, showing how each source both stands alone and reinforces the others thematically.
- The review consistently presents both sides of each issue — for example, acknowledging that union protections serve a legitimate function for officers while also creating barriers to public accountability.
- The structured "Key Findings" section provides a concise, source-by-source breakdown that helps readers quickly locate the evidentiary basis for each claim made in the narrative sections.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective thematic synthesis: rather than summarizing each source in isolation, the author weaves multiple sources together within each thematic section, using one source to corroborate or extend another (e.g., Aitchison supporting Fegley, Plass supporting Aitchison). This technique shows the reader where scholarly consensus exists and where tensions remain, which is the hallmark of a strong literature review.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief framing introduction, then moves through four thematic body sections — unions and protections, use-of-force law, arbitration, and political lobbying — followed by a personnel management section. A bulleted "Key Findings" section catalogues source-level evidence before a synthesis conclusion ties all threads together. This dual structure (thematic narrative + source-level findings) is a useful model for graduate-level literature reviews in criminal justice and public administration.
Introduction
This literature review focuses on the legal aspects of criminal justice management, with particular attention to the legal rights and freedoms, rules, discipline, due process, and the politics of being a public employee — specifically a law enforcement officer. 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. These topics are essential for understanding the laws, rules, and political environment that officers, in their roles as public employees, must navigate.
Police Unions and Officer Protections
Fegley (2020) examines the role played by police unions in protecting law enforcement officers, with a primary focus on disciplinary procedures. Unions have been powerful actors in shaping collective bargaining agreements with respect to procedural safeguards for officers facing disciplinary action. These agreements often include arbitration processes that allow officers to challenge disciplinary decisions, even in cases of misconduct. Aitchison's (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 instrumental in establishing protections that insulate officers from immediate disciplinary actions. These protections raise a complicated issue: they may benefit officers, but they can also frustrate efforts to hold officers accountable by complicating the process of swift disciplinary action in cases of misconduct.
Fegley's (2020) analysis also explores 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, particularly when the public views the original termination as justified. The protective structure can be interpreted in two ways: as a cushion for officers who believe their punishment is unjust, or as a barrier for those who believe the punishment is warranted. In either case, it can act as an obstacle for police departments attempting to discipline officers. Aitchison (2020) provides similar insights regarding how the arbitration process can shield officers from the full consequences of their actions. The influence of unions thus translates into political power affecting officer discipline and due process rights.
Legal Barriers to Accountability in Use of Force
Garrett and Slobogin (2020) examine the legal standards governing the use of force by law enforcement officers. They argue that existing legal frameworks — such as the qualified immunity doctrine and the objective reasonableness standard established by Graham v. Connor — tend to act as barriers to 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 during internal investigations following use-of-force incidents.
In many cases, internal reviews conducted by police departments produce 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) points specifically to the Garrity and Brady rules as examples of cases that complicate disciplinary proceedings when officers are involved in misconduct related to use of force. Garrett and Slobogin's (2020) analysis, taken together with Aitchison (2020), reveals a system in which legal and procedural barriers can become significant obstacles to officer accountability.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.