Exploring Liability Profiles: A Proximate Cause Analysis of Police Misconduct: Part II
| Author | Brian A. Kinnaird |
| Published date | 01 September 2007 |
| Date | 01 September 2007 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2007.9.3.201 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Exploring liability profiles: a proximate
cause analysis of police misconduct:
part II
Brian A. Kinnaird
Director of Research and Training, Forceology Research Group, 909 Sunrise Dr., Salina,
KS 67401, USA. Tel: (785) 404 2208; email: brian@forceology.com
Received 15 August 2006; revised and accepted 20 October 2006
Keywords: liability, police misconduct, complaints against police, police
training
EDITORIAL NOTE: This is the second part of a two-part article by Brian Kinnaird. The first
part appeared in IJPSM 9(2).
Brian A. Kinnaird
PhD serves as the Director of
Research and Training for Forceology Research
Group (http://www.forceology.com). Dr Kinnaird
is a former chairman and tenured professor of
criminal justice at Fort Hays State University in
Hays, KS. He is also a former, full-time law
enforcement officer and was assigned to various
units during his tenure, from field training officer
to lead combatives instructor.
A
BSTRACT
Recent history shows that a significant number of
citizens, internationally, are now seeking litiga-
tion against police agencies when law enforcement
officers violate their civil rights. Often the events
that precede complaints occur due to poor policy,
training and early warning by law enforcement
agencies. Hence, this study analysed past policies
and training procedures that were in effect for the
San Francisco, California Police Department
(SFPD) during 1998, to determine if there was
any liability of risk following evidence of officer
misconduct. Mixed methodology, using a descrip-
tive quantitative approach and based on a histor-
ical design, was used to determine whether or not
the SFPD had appropriate policies, training, and
control measures in place to minimise potential
citizen complaints against officers that could have
led to misconduct allegations and, ultimately, civil
litigation. Results showed that SFPD policies,
recruit and in-service training and early warning
system measures resulted in a lower number of
substantiated complaints of officer misconduct
based upon clear policy, appropriate training, and
deployed early warning system measures. Conse-
quently, the findings suggested that the SFPD
created a lower liability profile in respect to
random versus non-random risks required in court
to explain a department’s position relative to their
risk management of officer misconduct.
INTRODUCTION
This article is the second and final part of an
article which continues from Exploring Liab-
ility Profiles: A Proximate Cause Analysis of
Police Misconduct: Part I (Kinnaird, 2007).
The first part provided the theoretical
framework, rationale, design and method-
ology of the research study, while this
article provides the research results and
police implications garnered from the study.
With increasing criminal and civil litiga-
tions resulting from citizen complaints of
excessive force, contemporary police
International Journal of Police Science & Management Volume 9 Number 3
International Journal of Police
Science and Management,
Vol. 9 No. 3, 2007, pp. 201–213.
© Vathek Publishing,
1461–3557
Page 201
To continue reading
Request your trial