Content area
Full Text
I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................155
II. THE LACK OF JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT OR CLEAR GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT........................157
III. INACCURATE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT........161
A. Police Officers' Aggressive Use of Force..........................161
B. The Absence of Effective Deterrents..................................163
C. A Lack of Professionalism and Internal Discipline............166
D. Exaggerated Impression of the Danger of Policing............167
IV. SLOSHING THROUGH THE "MORASS OF REASONABLENESS" .... 170
A. Police Officer Randall Kerrick...........................................171
B. Police Officers Dominique Perez and Keith Sandy............172
C. Police Officer Lisa Mearkle................................................173
D. The Reasonable Officer Standard....................................174
V. UNRECOGNIZED BUT PERVASIVE PATTERNS OF EXCESSIVE FORCE.........................................................................................176
VI. CONCLUSION: WHOSE LIFE MATTERS MORE?..........................180
I. INTRODUCTION
A series of shootings has started a national debate about the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers. Though this debate has entered mainstream media and the public consciousness, the law gives little guidance on when the use of force by police is justified. While the Supreme Court has made it clear that the Fourth Amendment applies to questions about the use of deadly force, the Court has never given any specific guidance to law enforcement on when the use of deadly force is justified-and the standard of review the Court has promulgated is highly deferential to the judgment of police officers.1
The first part of this article examines the Supreme Court's decisions regarding the use of deadly force by police officers, concluding that the Court has failed to provide law enforcement with any meaningful guidance on when the use of deadly force is appropriate.
The second part of this article calls into question the Court's justifications for not limiting the use of deadly force by law enforcement. The Court overestimates the deterrent effect of civil rights litigation and places too much confidence in police professionalism on the one hand, while failing to take into account the militarization of law enforcement and exaggerating the inherent dangerousness of police work on the other.
The third part of the article illustrates the malleability of the reasonable officer standard promulgated by the Supreme Court. Three recent cases in which a police officer was charged with homicide are explored in order to demonstrate how officers can use unscientific training and tactical practices, along with exaggerated claims regarding the dangerousness of police work, to justify the...