Tag: Police Use of Force

Daniel Prude death: No charges for Rochester police officers


Police officers in New York need to pay attention to the agenda of AG Letitia James. After not being able to indict the Rochester Officers involved with the death of Daniel Prude AG James now thinks the Grand Jury process is inadequate. She controlled the investigation in the Daniel Prude case, her office presented the evidence to the Grand Jury and after the Grand Jury didn’t indict the Grand Jury system is broken? WHY? 23 citizens didn’t fulfill their oath as a Grand Juror? Maybe the Grand Jurors felt that there simply wasn’t enough probable cause to indict the officers on the charges that the AG office was alleging.
The most concerning attack on New York Police is AG James wanting to change when a police officer will be permitted to use deadly physical force. AG James said she wants to change Penal Law Article 35 from a “subjective simple necessity” standard to an “absolute last resort exhausting all other non-lethal means before using deadly force”. This is very dangerous for police. The concern is that Police will be too pressured not to make a mistake that police and citizens will be more at risk of injury or death because of the hesitancy and confusion when police can use deadly force to protect themselves and others. It is easy to see that “Absolute Last Resort Exhausting All Other Non-Lethal Means Before Using Deadly Force” would create circumstances that police might delay their use of deadly force just enough where the offender’s use of deadly force would be effective injuring or killing someone. Reaction is slower than action. Clouding the officer’s reaction by mandating a menu of mandatory responses when immediately needed response should be deadly force places people in unnecessary danger.

Attorney General James Press Conference – February 23, 2021 HERE
The NYS Attorney General Website is HERE

Special Investigations and Prosecutions Unit Report on the Investigation into The Death of Daniel Prude
can be accessed HERE

Special Investigations and Prosecutions Unit

On July 8, 2015, Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order No. 147, which appointed the New York State Attorney General as special prosecutor in incidents where a law enforcement officer causes the death of an unarmed civilian, or where there is a significant question as to whether the civilian was armed and dangerous. The following day, the office announced the creation of the Special Investigations and Prosecutions Unit (SIPU) to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute all cases that fall within the scope of Executive Order 147.
The SIPU website with more reports is HERE

“How the Fourth Amendment Frustrates the Regulation of Police Violence” by Seth W. Stoughton

Within policing, few legal principles are more widely known or highly esteemed than the “objective reasonableness” standard that regulates police uses of force. The Fourth Amendment, it is argued, is not only the facet of constitutional law that governs police violence, it sets out the only standard that state lawmakers, police commanders, and officers should recognize. Any other regulation of police violence is inappropriate and unnecessary. Ironically, though, the Constitution does not actually regulate the use of force. It regulates seizures. Some uses of force are seizures. This Article explains that a surprising number of others—including some police shootings—are not. Uses of force that do not amount to seizures fall entirely outside the ambit of Fourth Amendment regulation. And when a use of force does constitute a seizure, the Fourth Amendment is a distressingly inapt regulatory tool. There is, in short, a fundamental misalignment between what the Fourth Amendment is thought to regulate and what it actually regulates, and there are good reasons to doubt the efficacy of that regulation even when it applies. Put simply, the Fourth Amendment is a profoundly flawed framework for regulating police violence. The Constitution is not the only option. Police reformers have offered state law and police agency policies as promising regulatory alternatives. What has largely evaded academic attention, however, is the extent to which state courts and police agencies simply adopt or incorporate the constitutional standards into state law or agency policies. In this way, the Fourth Amendment’s flaws have spilled over into the sub-constitutional regulation of police violence. This Article details the substantial shortcomings in constitutional jurisprudence, describes the problem of Fourth Amendment spillage, and argues that the divergent interests underlying the various regulatory mechanisms should lead state lawmakers and administrative policymakers to divorce state law and administrative policies from constitutional law. In doing so, it advances both academic and public conversations about police violence.
— Read on scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol70/iss3/1/

Summer of Violent Policing Means More Federal Review for Portland Police – Courthouse News Service

Summer of Violent Policing Means More Federal Review for Portland Police – Courthouse News Service
— Read on www.courthousenews.com/summer-of-violent-policing-means-more-federal-review-for-portland-police/

This is ironic for Portland Police. They have been in a constant conflict with protester/rioters since late May 2020. At times the Portland Officers hands are tied trying to control the protesters/rioters and it appears the officers did not always have clear guidance on amount or methods of use of force to control the protesters/rioters. Which is a troubling and difficult position to be in. It appears that this confusion was created by the Judge Hernandez and the politicians. Now Judge Hernandez is thinking to hold Portland in contempt over the police departments response to the violent rioters.

-Read on https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-mulls-sanctions-after-holding-portland-in-contempt-for-violent-protest-policing/

United States v. City of Portland DOJ’s Fifth Periodic Compliance Assessment Report can be accessed here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/PortlandPD-DOJReport.pdf