Christopher Cooper, J.D., Ph.D., makes some suggestions for the patrol officer when they are dealing with a dispute between citizens; suggestions which attempt to end the dispute without any violence and perhaps reach a mutual resolution. The police officer can act as a mediator in a dispute, and attempt to bring a peaceful end to the conflict, and do this without threats or overstressing their authority, behavior that can often have a negative effect on the outcome. When an officer enters a dispute as a mediator, they should first introduce themselves and their intent with a statement such as: “My name is XXXX, and I will help the two of you reach a resolution.” The officer can then continue by saying: “I have a way that nay resolve this dispute. In order for me to help, I need your cooperation. I am simply going to ask the two of you to work hard to come up with a solution to this problem. My role is that of keeping this process focused and helping the two of you fashion your own agreement. Do I have your cooperation?” (Cooper 14-15). When individuals are in an argument, their emotions and anger are high, and having an authority figure step in with threats (such as, “Stop now or you’ll go to jail!”), can cause even further conflict and possible violence, when the problems perhaps could have been avoided with a different approach. A calming, reasonable, nonpartisan voice stepping in can have a better effect on peacefully ending a conflict, a much better effect than throwing more fuel into the fire.

Of course, this peaceful arbitration approach is useless when the conflict has already turned violent, and officers will have to make arrests. However, one should always strive to extinguish a conflict at the earliest opportunity. Before it reaches the point where force and arrest is necessary.

The officer must make an assessment of the situation before they enter it, to decide if arbitration is the correct course of action. The officer should first consider whether or not arrests should be made upon their arrival. If violence has already occurred, or if one or both of the parties is armed, then more forceful action should be carefully applied. If arbitration is appropriate to the situation, then the officer should make the following considerations:

1) The Applicable Law—What does legislation mandate for the situation? Do the facts of the scene allow mediation to be utilized?

2) Administrative Policies or Rules—The officer must follow their departmental policies, to avoid accusations of negligent retention concerning an officer who cannot follow departmental mandates.

3) Environmental and Social Context—All the factors pertaining to the parties in conflict should be considered by the officer before action is taken, to insure that the proper action is exercised.

4) Other Parties or Entities— Are their any variables at the scene in addition to the parties in conflict that may affect the officer’s course of action? (Cooper 34-35).

Arbitration/mediation is just one more skill that an officer can add to their ‘tools’. Having many options open to them, rather than just one or two options that would be ineffective in many situations, will enable officers to better deal with all possibilities and become a more professional and super-effective law enforcement agent. When an officer has such skills at their disposal, it greatly decreases the chances that an accurate charge of negligent retention will ever be charged against their department.

Some officers may have a problem with arbitration/mediation and other unconventional conflict/dispute resolution training, due to the ‘social worker’ qualities about it. They see the duty of police as law enforcement, not social work. Many police officers fail to realize that performing police work incorporates many of the duties of social workers. Moreover, many police officers just don’t realize that patrol police officers have been performing social worker duties since the beginning of modern policing. Arming police officers with unconventional conflict/dispute resolution skills and expecting them to employ them professionally and scientifically, is simply a way to perfect what police have been doing all along (Cooper 63).

In addition, the training that is provided will act as a defense to negligent retention, and to negligent selection if the training is incorporated into police academy studies. The skills that the officer gains from this and other training will also equip them to avoid negligent retention from ever becoming an issue.

Of course, due to the nature of police work, some problems will occur despite the number and quality of precautions taken to defend against them, and “an excellent training program will not be a defense against gross negligence or willful misconduct of the police officer; however, when the officer is involved in the daily (and often complex) mechanics of police work, an effective training program could very well mean the difference between a dismissal and a judgment of thousands of dollars against the government unit employing the officer (Walters 1971; Territo 154)”.

So, gross negligence is something that no training program can eliminate, but rather it is a trait of a personality that should be avoided during the hiring process.

Conclusion

Police administrators and chiefs have the duty and responsibility to insure that all new hires are more than adequate to fulfill the requirements that being a law enforcement officer entails. Police officers have great power and the authority to exercise it, so they must be held to higher standards than other professions are. When a mistake is made and an unfit officer is selected for duty or retained for duty, expensive civil suits can arise when that officer makes an error in judgment, or commits an act of gross negligence. Such civil suits can be avoided in the first place if rigorous standards are used to research new police hires and to train them before and after their appointment. Training should be both practical and unconventional, such as patrol officer mediation/arbitration. No plan can be totally effective due to the nature of police work, but having such thorough, diverse and detailed training in place as a matter of policy will be helpful in defending a department against charges of negligence. Police organizations must be proactive in assuring that their officers are properly trained, to avoid poor police work and expensive lawsuits. 

Page One of Legal Employment: Avoiding Lawsuits for Negligent Selection and Retention

Works Cited

Charles, Michael T. (2000). Police Training--Breaking All the Rules. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.

Cooper, Christopher. (1999). Mediation & Arbitration by Patrol Police Officers. Lanham: University Press of America, Inc.

Cordner, Gary W. and Kenney, Dennis J. (1996). Managing Police Organizations. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co.

Levine, Marvin J. (1983). Public Personnal Management: Structure, Process, and Practice. Sun Lakes: Thomas Horton and Daughters.

Palombo, B.J. (1995). Academic Professionalism in Law Enforcement. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Schmidt, Wayne. (1976). Recent Developments in Police Civil Liability. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 4, 197-205.

Sherman, L.W. and National Advisory Commision on Higher Education for Police Officers. (1978). The Quality of Police Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Territo, Leonard. (Ed.). (1984). Police Civil Liability. Columbia: Hanrow Press, Inc.

Thaiss, Christopher and Hess, John E. (1999). Writing for Law Enforcement. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1992, April). National Update, 1. 4.

Walters, Douglas M. (1971). Civil Liability for Improper Police Training. The Police Chief, Nov. 1971, 28-36.

Website

National Institute of Justice

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/speeches/police.htm