In Saucier v. Katz (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that deciding whether an officer is eligible for qualified immunity depends not merely on whether an officer's actions were objectively reasonable,
but also on whether the officer might have reasonably believed that his actions were reasonable. Was a reasonable officer on notice that his particular use of force would be unlawful? Or could he have reasonably believed that his actions were legal? This test recognizes that there may be behavior that is objectively unreasonable but that nonetheless an officer might have reasonably believed was reasonable. If so, then the officer should be entitled to qualified immunity for his behavior. If VPO Jones had fair notice that a bear hug and take-down were unlawful, and if there is a factual disagreement over whether he used excessive force, then the case should go to trial. The legal standard in Alaska statutesthat a police officer making an arrest may not use any restraint that is not necessary and proper for the arrest or detention of a personis too general to give officers notice that specific actions taken in specific circumstances may or may not be reasonable. There is only one federal case that suggests that a bear hug and take-down may be reasonable, which is not sufficient to establish clear law that says that a bear hug and a take-down are excessive uses of force when applied to an intoxicated and assaultive arrestee. However, if Jones's use of a bear hug was so egregious, so excessive, that he should have known it was unlawful, then the nature of the act gave sufficient warning that a bear hug and a take-down were excessive means to restrain someone. One should not let the lack of explicit law in an area be a substitute for the reasonable officer's common sense. Although the events in this case resulted in tragedy, Jones's conduct was not shocking. He did not do anything we can now, on reflection, say that he should have known at the time was excessive and unlawful. Cognizant of the reality that officers must often make quick judgments which might have unanticipated consequences, we must resist the urge to second guess those actions when things turn out badly. Jones, in acting as he did, could have reasonably believed that his actions were not excessive.
What will be an ideal response?
(Question #2) The best way to guarantee that the evidence will withstand inquiries about what happened to it from the time of its finding to its presentation in court is to do what?
a. Properly mark evidence for identification
b. Properly complete evidence submission forms
c. Properly record the crime scene
d. All of the above
(Question #3) can indicate how officers are behaving on the streets.
What will be an ideal response?
(Question #4) At an arson scene, the collection of a substrate control would require the arson investigator to do what?
a. Collect a sample from the center of a potential accelerant stain
b. Collect samples of surface material from areas far away from the fire's origin
c. Collect a piece of the surface material near the fire's origin that he or she believes was not exposed to the accelerant
d. Collect a sample of the vapors at the fire origin
(Question #5) In most states, parole board members are elected to office.
a. True
b. False
(Question #6) Any research that examines information from many units or cases across more than one point in time is called ____________.
Fill in the blank(s) with correct word
(Question #7) The final stage in coping with a critical incident is .
What will be an ideal response?
Quick Reply
