The reasons listed above reflect problems both in hiring and in training and discipline, or problems of negligent selection and negligent retention. When the rules and regulations a department operated under fail to address modern issues and concerns, then all their decision-making is questionable and dangerous. Judging the quality of officers using decades old standards is certainly, and at the very least, negligent. The lack of post-appointment training (and lack of encouragement for post-appointment training) is a topic belonging to negligent retention, the other major liability to be discussed.

Some guidelines on police hiring practices can be taken from guidelines to general hiring for other businesses. The required qualifications to become a police officer, or to be accepted into the police academy, should not be so narrow as to rule out the recruitment of all except those with an ideal background (Levine 19). They should be specific enough to be used in reviewing candidates’ applications, and to be presented in court if a suit is filed. However, police officials need to be sure that these guidelines are especially clear, due to the importance and sensitive nature of the profession. It can be a difficult and delicate task to formulate policies that follow all the recommendations and requirements that have been mentioned here, the requirements that already exist, as well as anticipating other problems that may arise, but due to the number of expensive civil suits that arise, it is necessary work.

The other theory of vicarious liability leading to expensive civil suits is negligent retention. Sometimes, despite the strictest and most thorough hiring process, some negative traits will not arise until some time into the officer’s employment. The negligent retention of a known unfit officer could subject a police chief and municipality to vicarious liability for subsequent misconduct (Schmidt 1976; Territo 4). How to discover and deal with unfit officers after the fact will not be covered in depth here, but rather suggestions for policy implementations designed for the purpose of eliminating the possibility of misconduct occurring in the first place. The history of policy making has been one of reaction. Traditionally, policies have been produced in response to a problem (Cordner and Kenney 112). In response to civil suits, new, better and stricter policies need to be adopted to stop this reactionary policymaking from reoccurring, and to take a proactive approach to both cease expensive lawsuits as well as promote better policing.

In the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals’ Report on Police (1973), they state “Policy is different from rules and procedures. Policy should be stated in broad terms to guide employees. It sets limits of discretion” (Cordner and Kenney 113). In other words, the set limits are being given in broad terms. This may be acceptable for a supermarket manager telling the bagboy how they should package groceries, or even for officers being told which traffic violations should receive the most attention, but when it is concerning police officers who have guns and the willingness to use them, as well as the ability and authority to deprive people of their freedom, policy should be just as specific and clear as procedures and rules are. When an officer has more than a split-second to decide whether to use their weapon or whether to start a high-speed pursuit, they should not have to go through a mental volume of discretionary policies, procedures, rules ,etc. There should be clear, non-discretionary rules to follow when the possible risk of injury and/or death is apparent. Not all individuals are able to make accurate, thoughtful decisions under such stressful circumstances. Those individuals should be identified and weeded out before they are hired, but some will always get through and not manifest their shortcomings until after they are already on duty. Clear, strict policies will help in preventing a possibly negligent appointment problem from becoming a possible negligent retention problem in the future.

Alpert and Smith suggest elements that model policies should follow, policies that reflect the values of the command staff and community, and include input from officers at all levels. Those elements are:

1. Be workable in real-world situations;

2. Be adaptable to training;

3. Be written in a positive manner;

4. Refer to or incorporate relevant laws;

5. Be pre-tested to assure that all officers understand the specific intent and consequences of non-compliance;

6. Include in-service training, as a matter of record, for all officers and upervisors; and

7. Provide examples of behavior (Cordner and Kenney 121).

These principles may seem obvious, but they can be easy to ignore or overlook, as the Court’s ruling of liability mentioned earlier proves. Far from discouraging training, the model policy above requires such. Again, going the extra mile at the outset will prevent costly consequences in the future.

The accountability of officers is also very important. Whether it is a simple contact with a citizen or the issuance of a speeding ticket, all actions taken should be documented in detail and reviewed. Yes, it’s micromanagement, but the power that a police officer wields demands that checks be in place, and that those checks are properly monitored.

Officers who make contact with citizens are usually asked to take notes on the meeting to preserve any information that was provided. Officers who are involved in automobile accidents will have to complete a mandated accident reporting form. Officers who must control a suspect with force to affect an arrest should be responsible for completing a “control of persons” report (Cordner and Kenney 123). Not only should such reports and others be completed, but also they should be completed in such a manner that they are informative, worthwhile and able to be checked for accuracy.

Considering the time, effort and risk that a police officer puts into their work, and the scrutiny that often follows, one would assume that their written records of those events would be presented in a thorough, clear, well-organized and meticulous fashion. A report may contain written accounts of numerous interviews, surveillances, searches and arrests. These reports may contain contributions from many people, but the ultimate responsibility rests on the case officer or lead investigator. In a criminal case, the defense attorneys will seek to discover any error in the methodology or the results, and use such evidence or lack of evidence to attack the investigators (Thaiss and Hess 42-43). So it is clear that thorough, accurate records must be kept for every move that an officer makes, so that criminal cases are won and so that the department has large volumes of evidence to prove that an officer is knowledgeable and professional, not an example of negligent retention. Testimonials from witnesses towards the character and skills and performance of an officer is good, but to be able to back such testimonials up with written records that can be verified for authenticity and accuracy is much better.

In addition to all agencies developing strict policies requiring its officers to keep detailed written records on all their actions, however minor and unimportant they may seem at the moment, certain criteria should be adopted regarding how such reports are written, so that they wield the maximum possible benefits and level of information. All reports should record which officers were involved in the questioning, incident or other event; who the primary officer was; what the event was; date, time, place, etc.; what suspects or other civilians were involved, and their contact information; a detailed description of the incident and the events precipitating it; the outcome, and; any other information that is important. Such reports will not only help ion the eventuality of a civil suit, but will also prove as valuable references for the officers as the investigation proceeds. Information that at the time may have seemed irrelevant may be very crucial in the future, and such information will be recorded in the reports. A few minutes of extra work can pay off greatly in the future, and such a disciplined practice will serve to make the officer more thorough and professional, helping to avoid a true charge of negligent retention from ever rising.

Professionalism must be encouraged, required and monitored closely by law enforcement officials and supervisors. This starts with the selection of already professional and responsible individuals during the hiring process, and it must continue throughout the individual’s time as an officer. The strict monitoring of written reports is way to go about this, and another is to train officers in and encourage them to use various methods when dealing the public, especially when a conflict is close to arising. A person who only knows how to deal with problems one way will not get very far, have constant problems, and in the case of law enforcement, be a candidate for negative retention. Law enforcement should teach their officers, starting at the academy and continuing throughout their employment, different methods for handling conflict. One of those methods is arbitration by police officers.

continue with negligent retention...