Transcript Legal Block CIT

Legal Block CIT
Chief Sam Faulkner
Mechanicsburg Police Department
Who or What Gives
You The Authority to
Use Force?
www.responsetoresistance.com
The Constitution
of the
United States of America
TH
4
AMENDMENT
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.
December 15, 1791
www.responsetoresistance.com
THREE MAIN AMENDMENTS
8TH – Right prohibiting “Cruel and Unusual”
punishment
14th – “Due Process” – Right to be tried on the
charges on which you are arrested
4th – “ Search and Seizure” The right to be
…………..
www.responsetoresistance.com
Use of Force
Constitutional Standard

Graham v. Connor

490 U.S. 386 (1989)

United States Supreme Court

Occurred: November 12, 1984
Submitted: February 21, 1989
Decided: May 15, 1989


www.responsetoresistance.com
www.responsetoresistance.com
Use of Force
Constitutional Standard

Today we make explicit what was implicit in
Garner's analysis, and hold that 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 a free
citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth
Amendment and its "reasonableness" standard,
rather than under a "substantive due process"
approach.
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)


www.responsetoresistance.com
Use of Force
Constitutional Standard

[T]he question is whether the officers’ actions
are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and
circumstances confronting them, without regard to
their underlying intent or motivation.
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989)


www.responsetoresistance.com
Use of Force
Constitutional Standard
“Objectively Reasonable”
vs.
“Reasonable Officer”
www.responsetoresistance.com
The Legal Basis for CIT
Canton v. Harris (1989)
In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the inadequacy of
police training may serve as a basis for municipal liability
where the absence of training amounts to deliberate
indifference for the rights of persons whom the police come
into contact with
www.responsetoresistance.com
Legal Basis for CIT
Olsen v. Layton Hills (1980)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held
That a municipality could be sued for failing to train
Its officers to recognize signs of the psychological
Disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder.
www.responsetoresistance.com
The two most common civil suits brought
* Failure to properly supervise, and
* Failure to provide adequate training
These suits charge that a department’s failure to
properly supervise and train led to a violation of a
person’s civil rights under Title 42, Section 1983,
U.S. Code ( Under Color of Law)
www.responsetoresistance.com
Walker v. City of New York (1992)
If you know to a moral certainty that officers will
confront a certain situation: and that the encounter will
force officers to make a choice between different
alternatives; and making a wrong choice will
expose persons to potential Constitutional
violations; then the agency must provide these
officers with reasonable training.
www.responsetoresistance.com
Hayek v. City of St. Paul, No. 06-3802,
488 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2007)
Police officers were found to have acted properly in
shooting and killing an allegedly emotionally disturbed 19year old, 300 pound man, 6’7’’ tall, who was attacking an
officer with a sword. The decedent had allegedly
continued to stab the officer despite being struck by initial
shots, saying “ow” but otherwise continuing his assault.
www.responsetoresistance.com
Buchanan v. State of Maine,
(2006)
Officers did not use excessive force in
shooting and killing a mentally ill man when
they only did so after he had repeatedly
stabbed one of the two offices present.
www.responsetoresistance.com
Ali v. City of Louisville, No. 3:03CV-427,
395 F. Supp. 2d 527 (W.D. Ky. 2005)
The court ruled that police officers’ shooting and
killing of a homeless mentally ill man sitting in a
car was not excessive force when they acted after
he raised a gun and did not know, until after the
fact, that the weapon was a BB gun.
Under the circumstances it was reasonable for
them to believe that their lives were at risk.
www.responsetoresistance.com
Fisher v. Harden, 398 F.3d 837, 841
(6th Circuit 2005)

77 year old man took his rifle, a tripod and a folding chair to
go and shoot groundhogs on a railroad grade about 250
yards from a country road.

A passer-by saw the man and thought it might be a suicide
attempt.

Called sheriff’s office and reported a possible suicide – said
that the man had his feet tied to the tracks.
www.responsetoresistance.com
Fisher v. Harden Cont.

“It is clearly established that an officer may not affect a
mental health seizure without probable cause.”

If you are responding to an unconfirmed report that a
person is mentally ill and/or suicidal, you need to confirm
the information in some manner.
www.responsetoresistance.com
Griffith v. Coburn, 473 F.3d 650
Sixth Circuit (2007)

Mother approaches township police dept. in Michigan

Wanted son hospitalized because he was “acting strangely”

Police said son was not a danger to self or others

Son had outstanding traffic warrant

Officers offered to arrest son to get help
www.responsetoresistance.com
Griffith v. Coburn Cont.
“It cannot be forgotten that the police were confronting an
individual whom they knew to be mentally ill or retarded,
even though the officers may not have known the full
extent of [his] autism and his unresponsiveness. The
diminished capacity of an unarmed detainee must be taken
into account when assessing the amount of force
exerted.”
www.responsetoresistance.com
Griffith v. Coburn Cont.

Judges not saying that you have to take unreasonable risks
with a person who had a mental illness.

Judges do say that if you go into a situation with an unarmed
arrestee who is mentally ill or had a diminished capacity and
you know you have to use force, you have to consider the
person’s capacity in assessing the type and amount of force
to be used.
www.responsetoresistance.com
Donald Webb III v. Adam Henderson, et al.
Franklin Circuit Court, Indiana (March 16, 2001)

Brookville Officers used Officer Presence, Verbal Direction
and Escort Position

Franklin Deputy used a Taser drive stuns

Plaintiff retained a social psychologist as their expert

He opined on Donny’s lack of ability to comprehend what
the officers were saying
www.responsetoresistance.com
Cole v. Bone, 993 F.2d 1328
Cir. 1993)
th
(8
This Court of Appeals stated, “The
Constitution…requires only that the seizure be
objectively reasonable, not that the officer
pursue the most prudent course of action as
judged by 20/20 hindsight.”
www.responsetoresistance.com
In re Miller
63 Ohio St. 3d 99 (1992)



Officers “pink slipped” individual into hospital for
mental health evaluation
No written statement of patient’s condition was given
to ensure at least a minimal level of PC
Other procedural issues were not followed
Not informed of rights
Affidavit not prepared by property person
Psychiatrist affidavit was conclusory only
THIS WAS FOUND TO VIOLATE HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
CONTACT

Chief Sam Faulkner [email protected]