Introduction
The deployment of force by officers continues to be a thought-provoking and challenging issue in New Jersey. This has continued to exhibit a devastating impact on public perception of police and how the public responds to officers, and yet there is still the absence of universal laws for this facet of law enforcement (Mclean et al., 2022). It is for this reason that states like New Jersey, through the Attorney General, have implemented a raft of changes in the use of force policy and procedures. The changes are aimed at eliminating imperfections in the previous policies and preserving the sanctity of life.
Overview
The guideline on the application of force by law enforcers was first written in 1985 and later updated in the year 2000. The Attorney General has continued to issue supplemental provisions around conducted energy devices (CED) and less-than-lethal ammunition (LLA), coupled with other directives for improvements. The latest directive number 2020-13, issued on December 2020, brings forth the new use of force policy among law enforcers and demonstrates a strong commitment to making New Jersey a police reform leader (Auteri, 2022). The new policy is centered around the core principles, which all support the idea that force shall only be applied as a last option when obtaining a lawful objective. Especially when using verbal instructions, de-escalation, or tactical deployment would be futile.
The law enforcers are permitted to apply force under certain conditions to effect an arrest. These conditions are contained in the new Use of Force policy and also guide how police officers should exploit their authority. The officers are required to use alternative means when enforcing arrest, and having the use of force as the last option. The overall aim of the new policy is to eliminate, or reduce injury or death and limits the excessive use of force when arresting a suspect. The policy provides guidance that police officers should consult whenever they are faced with a dilemma on whether to use force or alternative techniques.
The officer is allowed to use an extra amount of physical force when dealing with the subject to eliminate physical resistance or protect other people or property (State Of New Jersey, 2021). Examples of physical force include wrestling the subject to the ground to handcuff him. Furthermore, the officers are permitted to exercise mechanical force when they believe it is necessary to overcome the subject’s resistance to a lawful arrest. For instance, the officer can deploy batons, pepper sprays, or canines to neutralize the suspect’s resistance, but not use firearms under such situations. Additionally, law enforcers may deploy lethal force to cause serious injury or death to a subject by firing at the subject, structure, or vehicle.
However, the New Jersey policy has imposed restrictions on the deployment of lethal force under certain situations. For instance, the use of lethal force is not applicable where alternative techniques can be deployed to neutralize resistance or eliminate the danger. The policy also stipulates that officers should not discharge their firearms to signal help, when such an act may cause harm to other persons or disable a moving vehicle.
The policy requires the officers to have proper recorded annual training on the application of force. Additionally, the law enforcers in New Jersey require to prevent any unlawful deployment of force by fellow officers. Similarly, any officer who exercised force must provide and disclose all reports about the event or the condition that necessitated the use of force. This means that the criminal justice department needs to be informed of any case of the use of force that resulted in injury or death.
Legal Sufficiency
There are no universal laws that guide how to exercise force. It is therefore for this reason that states like New Jersey develop their policies for guidance. Directive number 2020-13 does not in any way presuppose law abuses. For instance, this is demonstrated by the requirements for the accepted types of less-than-lethal ammunition (LLA). From the legal angle, as far as the use of language used is concerned, all the terminologies used in the policy, taking into account those that might seem equivocal, for instance, “reasonable’’ or “imminent danger’’, are provided with clear and coherent definitions. The structure of the policy is logical, with all the necessary report sections provided. The policy contains a set of coherent provisions, that are free from ambiguity and do not contradict the legislation. Therefore, the policy is legally sufficient.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The existence of supplementary provisions that address arising issues that have been demonstrated to be of significant importance is a strength of this policy. If the continuous revisions and updates of the policy to accommodate the changes in the legal landscape are something to go by. The modifications of the policy are entirely based on the recommendation of the experts, and those directly involved in policing. The policy’s comprehensiveness, commitment, and promise to continue serving the needs and demands of the citizens.
However, several issues can be identified. The abuse of this policy by officers can be noted as evidenced by recent cases involving minority groups. This problem is attributed to inadequate training for police officers, especially on how to handle to interact with and handle subjects under difficult conditions. As a result, officer-subject-related injury is likely to occur. Furthermore, the aspect of qualified immunity has been subject to continuous debates as far as policing is concerned since this is a doctrine that protects officers who violate the Constitution. Under this legal doctrine, an officer’s violation of the law can only be established if the act is egregious or there is court precedence that factually determined a similar case. Therefore, it means that the officer’s violation of the law can only be established if there is a prior court ruling or determination of a similar nature (Stoughton et al., 2021). Under this doctrine, qualified immunity has become one of the impediments to civil rights claims.
In addition, the law enforcement culture of exercising authority to prevent crime has raised issues and has made the officers feel to be above the law. They believe it is their responsibility to protect another officer’s life. With this notion in mind, some police officers believe that their badge will protect them from the law, thus using lethal force where minimal force can eliminate resistance or danger.
Recommendations
The state should consistently and continuously monitor the use of force by officers, and hold violators of this policy accountable. For example, an officer with more than two complaints of abuse of the policy should be placed under a retraining program, and those found guilty of their actions should be prosecuted to ensure zero non-compliance. The policy should provide and define situations when excessive force is warranted and not left at the discretion of the officer. Public education and police training on policing may help ensure compliance with this policy.
Conclusion
To conclude, the use of force policy aims to bring police reforms in New Jersey. It specifically provides conditions under which force can be deployed in making a lawful arrest. However, the policy has some weaknesses that affect total compliance with the policy. Therefore, the state should initiate improvements ranging from training of officers, prosecution of violators, and use of body cameras to monitor and record the use of force.
References
Auteri, A. (2022). NJ Attorney general adopts revised use of force policy. Web.
McLean, K., Stoughton, S. W., & Alpert, G. P. (2022). Police uses of force in the USA: A wealth of theories and a lack of evidence. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing,1-22.
Office of the Attorney General. (2022). Reducing the use of force by law enforcement.
Stoughton, S., McLean, K., Nix, J., & Alpert, G. (2021). Policing suspicion: Qualified immunity and “clearly established” standards of proof. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 1-42. Web.