Policy and Procedure Manuals in Police Environment - Essay Example

The answer to whether the deputy is in overall compliance with the use of force policy is highly nuanced and cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. Firstly, due to the aggravating circumstances and inappropriate actions that the deputy took as a means to exacerbate the situation, the use-of-force policy is further complicated with the fact that no mention of when to use the taser was referenced (Johnson 2011). Rather, the deputy has clearly abrogated the rules by using a less-than-lethal device for which he was not specifically trained. However, ignoring the other wrongdoings, it would appear that imminent officer harm was something that the deputy was faced with. As such, discharging his sidearm as a means of firing warning shots at the ground was justified. However, the extenuating circumstances and the clear ignorance or disregard, the deputy showed for the other use-of-force policies greatly jeopardizes the sheriff department’s case in this matter.

With regards to whether or not the lieutenant should end the pursuit, it is the opinion of this student, from the evidence at hand in this particular matter, that the lieutenant should not. Although protocol has not been followed with respect to the ways in which the deputy has handled himself up until the point that the car left the scene, the fact remains that the car charged the officer and presented a clear case of attempted vehicular manslaughter/homicide. Due to this fact alone, a clear felony has been committed. As such, according to the departmental policies that have been enumerated upon, the deputy and the lieutenant as well as the department are justified in seeking to pursue the criminal.
With regards to whether or not the deputy should have fired shots, the answer is a resounding yes. Due to the fact that the deputies life was in danger, he was well within his rights to fire shots and alert the suspect that the actions that he/she were taking were putting him/her in danger of their life and in clear violation of the law.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that even if the suspect/suspects are proven guilty of seeking to evade arrest, charging the officer/attempted vehicular manslaughter, they would still be able to lodge a valid complaint to the Internal Affairs Unit and find the deputy at fault for not following a litany of procedures involving the use of an unauthorized dog while on patrol, over-aggressive tactics, and the unauthorized use of a taser. In this manner, the use of the unauthorized police dog and the unauthorized and untrained use of a taser should be disciplined by the department as a clear abrogation of the training procedure and rules of conduct that bind every officer to act in accordance and compliance with stated rules and regulations. Due to the fact that there is no excuse for the improper use of the taser or the unauthorized animal while on patrol, the deputy would most certainly be at fault with regards to these two issues (Miffaud 2006).

Although the policies that were in place did not help the deputy to regard them or follow them, there was no mention of the use of the unauthorized police dog. Although such is common sense, it should nonetheless be specified and the penalties up to and including termination for an employee disregarding these should also be specified as means of a deterrent to encourage those employed by the sheriff’s office to abide by any and all policies that have been stipulated. Read More