Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 4028 AMERICAN POLICE BEAT: SEPTEMBER 2016 understand the dynamics or the legal standard for determining if the actions were appropriate. The blame for that falls squarely on law-enforce- ment agencies. They must do more to educate the public about use-of-force incidents. The United States Su- preme Court decided Gra- ham vs. Connor in 1989, establishing the legal stan- dard that governs all police use-of-force incidents. The court held that all claims that officers used excessive force during an arrest should be analyzed under the Fourth Amend- ment’s “reasonableness standard.” All high-ranking law en- forcement officials, who are supposed to evaluate their officers’ actions, should be familiar with the landmark case. And yet, testifying in a court case a few years back, even an Arizona po- lice chief, former Phoenix Police Chief Daniel Garcia, said he wasn’t familiar with Graham v. Connor. Within the guidelines of the Graham ruling, police have a variety of force op- tions for officers. Whether officers are justi- fied in the use of a specific option is governed by state statutes, internal depart- ment policy and case law such as Graham. Was it a robbery? We don’t always know Avehicle pulls up to a convenience store. The passenger enters the store. Moments later he ex- its, and the vehicle speeds off. It appears the officer just witnessed a robbery. The officer stops the vehicle and the passenger claims he is diabetic. The officer has no formal medical training, but his ex- perience has shown that of- ten a store robbery involves weapons. While trying to contact the store, the officer can’t let the vehicle or the passengers leave until he knows if a crime occurred. Later, it’s revealed the sus- pect was undergoing dia- betic shock. He’d asked his friend to drive him to the store to purchase something to correct his blood sugar. He went inside the store but saw a long line and abruptly left. He returned to the car and told his friend to drive. Although entirely in- nocent, any reasonable of- ficer would have suspected a possible robbery. This was the Graham case that played out a quarter-cen- tury ago. ‘Reasonable’ doesn’t include hindsight The ruling cautioned: “The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” That warning seems even more relevant today when body cameras allow every- one to watch a situation after the fact — after details are known and without the threat of the unknown that the officer faced. The Graham ruling tells us that an officer’s actions Conitnued from page one Agencies need to do better educating Agencies need to do better educating the citizens about use-of-force the citizens about use-of-force Cont. on next page Lon Bartel is a 19-year police officer and is presi- dent of the Peoria Police Officers Association. 5H[PVUHS:OLYPɈZ»(ZZVJPH[PVU Domestic Violence Training Law Enforcement Training: Domestic Violence Intervention and Investigation 6]LY[OLJV\YZLVMKH`ZSLHYU! ࠮ PU]LZ[PNH[PVUHUKPU[LY]PL^PUN ࠮ WYVZLJ\[PUNKVTLZ[PJ]PVSLUJLJHZLZ ࠮ ZVS\[PVUZHUKYLZV\YJLKL]LSVWTLU[ ࠮ HUKTVYL Domestic Violence Training for Communications Professionals +\YPUN[OPZVULHUKHOHSMKH`JV\YZLSLHYU! ࠮ [VNH[OLYJYP[PJHSPUMVYTH[PVU ࠮ Z[YH[LNPJPU[LY]PL^PUN ࠮ ZVS\[PVUZHUKYLZV\YJLKL]LSVWTLU[ ࠮ HUKTVYL ;YHPUPUNZJHUILOVZ[LKI`HU`HNLUJ`(TPUPT\TVMH[[LUKLLZPZYLX\PYLK[VOVSK[OL[YHPUPUN MVYHJVZ[VMVUS` WLYWLYZVU(ÅH[MLLVM PZJOHYNLKMVYJSHZZLZVMSLZZ[OHU WWW.SHERIFFS.ORG/DVTRAINING PRODUCTS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SINCE 1994 Now Offering Covert-Systems Products Surveillance / Video Vans / Bait Cars www.twitco.com 800-899-8948