Tag: Police Operations

Audit of the Municipal Police Training Committee

Executive Summary
In accordance with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor has conducted a performance audit of the Municipal Police Training Committee (MPTC) for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2022.

The purpose of our audit was to determine the following:

whether MPTC developed and implemented the trainings required by Chapter 69 of the Acts of 2018 (also known as the Criminal Justice Reform Act) and Chapter 253 of the Acts of 2020 (also known as the Police Reform Law), which are codified in Sections 116 A–D and G–K of Chapter 6 of the General Laws;
whether MPTC ensured that all MPTC-operated and MPTC-authorized training academies delivered a standardized training curriculum as required by Section 4(f)(1) of Chapter 6E of the General Laws; and
whether MPTC processed permanent exemptions to, and temporary waivers of, training requirements in accordance with Section 3.03 of Title 550 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations.
— Read on www.mass.gov/audit/audit-of-the-municipal-police-training-committee

Why school police officers may not be the most effective way to prevent violence

In an article from The Conversation: “Why school police officers may not be the most effective way to prevent violence” (available HERE) there are 5 main points raised in the article. I think that the author of the article has never closely observed or worked with a police-school partnership. The 5 points of why police should not be in schools discussed in the article are frequent talking points from the “anti-police in school” groups. I will briefly discuss each of the 5 points below.

They don’t address the root problems

Professor Behnken suggests that hardening school security and having social workers and therapists would make schools safer. Yes better physical security and appropriate therapists, social workers etc. could make schools safer. That is only part of the puzzle. Police are also part of a coordinated effort to make schools safe. Police are the enforcement part that is needed in the most unsafe schools. The police’s role is not to address root causes, the role of police in schools is to help promote a safe and positive learning environment for the 95% to 99% of students that go to school to learn without causing trouble.

Their role is not well defined

The role of the police in schools is defined specifically by the school, school district, and the police department. Each school district is their own government entity. The same with police departments, they are individual government entities. In many states its called home rule. The point here is that the school and the police department many times enter into a contract or memorandum of understanding to define the expectations and operation of police in schools. Nationally the role of police in schools might look not well defined but for each school the role and expectations of police in schools can be very specifically defined.

They do not increase students’ feelings of safety

“Most students either do not realize that their school has a school resource officer or don’t mind that one is present. In fact, most students report liking the officer at their school.” Professor Behnken this is a good thing that the school police are unnoticed and work in the background. Most of the student population probably has little contact with the school police officer. Why? Because most students (95%) behave in school and the police in school spend the majority of their time dealing with a very small percentage of the school population that commit most of the crime and disorder in school. Most of the students don’t know what the school officer has done to promote safty and a good enviornment in the school so the students can easily conclude that the officer doesn’t impact school safety. It might be uncool to want police in school.

They contribute to the ‘school-to-prison pipeline’

Professor Behnken writes “Research shows that the presence of school police officers increases the likelihood that a school will report common forms of student misbehavior, like cafeteria fights and vandalism, to law enforcement agencies”. Why shouldn’t the school report these activities to law enforcement? How is the offending student held accountable. Not every transgression in school ends with an arrest.

How are the good students valued if disorderly behavior, criminal activity, and damage to school property is ignored. Again keep in mind that about 5% of the school population engages in bad behavior. The rights of the 95% good kids need to be protected.

In today’s Juvenile Justice Systems no kid is being taking from school and placed in prison unless they earned it. A juvenile has to have committed a very serious crime (homicide, rape, robbery with a weapon, serious assault) to be removed from school and sentenced to detention. Or the student has had a very long record of criminal activity (in and out of school, most likely out of school) and a Family Court Judge might sentence then to detention. Probably 10 to 20 arrests. These examples are a direct result of the juveniles behavior and has nothing to do with having an officer in their school.

They sometimes infringe on students’ rights

Students have less rights than adults do. The 1st amendment doesn’t allow students to walk out of school to protest. Students would be disciplined for cutting school without permission and would receive their punishment from the principal and not the school officer. Students lockers and book bags can be searched at anytime by the school administrators. Police in schools probably rarely search a student or their belongings because the threshold for the police to conduct a search is much higher that when a school administrator can search.

Make sure to read the article by Professor Behnken (Here) and then share your thoughts.

What Happened after California Changed the Rules Related to Police Use of Deadly Force? – Public Policy Institute of California

Five years ago, state lawmakers limited the legal justifications for police officers’ use of deadly force. We examine recent trends in the number of people seriously injured or killed during police encounters as well as in the provision of timely medical care for those injured.
— Read on www.ppic.org/blog/what-happened-after-california-changed-the-rules-related-to-police-use-of-deadly-force/

Despite fewer people experiencing police contact, racial disparities in arrests, police misconduct, and police use of force continue | Prison Policy Initiative

New Bureau of Justice Statistics data reveal that concerning trends in policing persisted in 2022, even while fewer people interacted with police than in prior …
— Read on www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2024/12/19/policing_survey_2022/

10 years after the targeted killing of 2 NYPD officers, policing in NY has changed – Gothamist

Ten years ago today, two NYPD officers were shot and killed while sitting in their patrol car in Brooklyn.

It was a shocking act of violence that came on the heels of citywide protests over police brutality in the wake of Eric Garner’s death. Garner had been placed in an prohibited chokehold by an NYPD officer who was never charged with a crime.

The 2014 killings of officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu as they sat in their patrol car marked a turning point in New York City’s relationship with law enforcement. Law enforcement experts said the tragedy caused police to put new safety measures in place for officers, and public sentiment about criminal justice reform has swung back and forth over time. Families of the men killed said there is more work to do to improve police-community relations.
— Read on gothamist.com/news/10-years-after-the-targeted-killing-of-2-nypd-officers-policing-in-ny-has-changed

US appeals court reverses ruling that Arizona police used excessive force against anti-Trump protesters – JURIST – News

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that qualified immunity applied to the police interactions because the protestors did not cite a case that “‘clearly establish[ed]’ that Defendants’ use of force … was objectively unreasonable.” The appeals court explained that qualified immunity is granted to government officials “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Protestor Ira Yedlin was part of a crowd aggressively pushing a fence separating the Free Speech Zone from another security zone distancing the anti-Trump protestors from the rally. The police fired pepper balls that struck and bruised Yedlin. The court found that the police did not use excessive force because the breach would have been “an immediate and substantial threat to the safety of the officers, nearby members of the public, and potentially [Trump’s] motorcade.”
— Read on www.jurist.org/news/2024/12/us-appeals-court-reverses-ruling-that-arizona-police-used-excessive-force-against-anti-trump-protesters/

Interview with Michelle Phelps – The Majority Report

This is the first time I listened to a podcast from “The Majority Report”. The interview was with Michelle S. Phelps, professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota, to discuss her recent book The Minneapolis Reckoning: Race, Violence, and the Politics of Policing in America. The interview begins at the 20:15 minute mark and can be access HERE. The interview ends at the 48:00 minute mark.

The podcast topic is what happened with policing in Minneapolis, MN. and police reforms more generally.

To be clear the Minneapolis Mayor and legislature (or any municipal executive and legislative branch) can end policing at anytime they want. This is unless police are part of the municipalities (or State) constitution, charter, or some other legislative prohibiting the dissolution the police department. The bottom line is that if the Mayor and Legislators have the votes they can put a end to policing in their municipality. This is true across America. Phelps said that many of the legislatures wanted to defund/dissolve the Minneapolis PD. Knowing that the Minneapolis government could have moved forward and cancelled police funding or more radically dissolved the police.

Why didn’t the Minneapolis government eliminate the police? Phelps said that Minneapolis has a large base of community activism which is highly coordinated. The “activism majority” leaned towards defunding or eliminating the police. It should have been easy for the Minneapolis government to defund or eliminate the police. Phelps said that people that vote most often were against the idea to reduce or eliminate the police and this influenced government officials.

What happened is that the rhetoric about the issue of defunding or dismantling the police eventually the turned into reality. Therefore the Minneapolis government had to stop being controversial or edgy and had to do what was the best for Minneapolis, which is keep the police and maintain funding.

There is no other municipal agency or other organization that can replace the police to fulfill it’s mission. Schools, Mental Health Services, Department of transportation, etc. none of these organizations can replace the police. Phelps said that police are only useful for being present at scene of a potential crime (deterrence) or to make arrests (but arrests are bad). Phelps forgot that police are authorized to use of force (most of the time the threat of force) which is necessary to make persons acting outside of societal norms to comply. There is no other organization better equipped, trained, or with authority than the police.