Best Viewed with IE or Opera. Sorry, Firefox works, but loses some sidebar layout,
'my profile' and other stuff... Anybody with a fix, please leave a comment. Many thanks in advance.

That said, if you must use Firefox (and I don't blame you, it's become my browser of choice, too)
...get the "IE Tab" extension. This allows you to view problem pages with the IE rendering engine. Very cool!

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Police Reform Would Save Civilian Lives

By Radley Balko
In my last column,
I outlined the problem of the "militarization" of America's civilian
police departments, chiefly through the increasing proliferation and
use of SWAT teams.

As you might have seen on shows like "Dallas SWAT" or "COPS," these
raids typically involve kicking down doors, "flash grenades" and heavy
weaponry, and they're increasingly being used for drug policing and for
crimes as slight as possession of marijuana or gambling. This week, I'd
like to offer a few policy recommendations to address some of the more
troubling aspects of this trend.
___continued...click link below >>>


CONTINUED...

The most obvious recommendation is, of course, to end the drug war.
Nearly 35 years since President Nixon declared that "war" and 25 years
after President Reagan reinvigorated it, it is unquestionably a
complete and utter failure. Use of illicit drugs has remained relatively constant.



Meanwhile, deaths from drug overdoses have more than tripled, the prison population has soared and the purity of illicit drugs on the black market is up or unchanged, while the cost has dropped dramatically.



Of course, given today's political landscape, ending drug
prohibition is a pipe dream (excuse the pun). So let's look at the next
best solution — reining in the SWAT teams. SWAT teams do serve a
useful purpose — to provide a swift, overpowering response in
those emergency situations where a suspect presents an immediate threat
to the public safety.



In this capacity, SWAT teams are not only appropriate, they've
proven tremendously effective. We should get SWAT teams and similar
paramilitary police units out of the business of serving search and
arrest warrants and return them to the function originally envisioned
for them — defusing dangerous situations like hostage takings,
barricades and apprehending fugitives. Leave warrant service and other
routine police procedures to traditional police officers.



Of course, that policy too is likely to be met with some resistance.
So here are a few other, less drastic measures that would seem to be
pretty intuitive:



End the Pentagon giveaways. One big reason
paramilitary tactics have become so common in domestic policing is that
Congress has made surplus military equipment available to civilian
police departments, which they then use to form a SWAT team. Civilian
police officers shouldn't be outfitted with equipment designed for war.
The use of tanks, armored personnel carriers and other military
equipment on civilians creates scenes more appropriate for police
states and military juntas, not free societies.



Rescind asset forfeiture policies. Asset forfeiture
enables police departments to sell off the property of drug suspects,
keeping much of the revenue for themselves. Even suspects later
acquitted or never even charged must then sue in court for the return
of their property or reimbursement. Even then, success is rare, and
court costs can run higher than the value of the assets seized. Such
policies create corrupt incentives and invite overly aggressive drug
policing.



Tighten search warrant standards. Too many of the
several hundred botched raids I've researched happened because police
collected tips from shady confidential informants, then failed to do
enough corroborating investigation to verify the information. It
doesn't take much evidence to procure a conventional search warrant.
Using a SWAT team to kick down someone's door ought to require a bit
more. Mere possession of an illicit substance should never be enough to
merit these kinds of tactics. If we must use SWAT teams to serve drug
warrants, it should only be in cases where it's clear the suspect is
distributing, is armed and is likely to react to a warrant with
violence.



More transparency. Search warrants should be
tracked from the time they're applied for to the time they're executed.
Once a warrant has run its course, it should be kept in a database,
accessible to the public. Names of innocent suspects and informants
could, of course, be kept confidential.



It's difficult to assert things like exactly how many SWAT raids go
down in this country, how many are "no-knock" raids and how many are
conducted in error because very few police departments keep such
statistics. There's no reason why they shouldn't. Each of these raids
should also be video recorded. Too many raids I've researched that have
ended in gunfire have turned on the word of police versus the word of
suspects and witnesses, when it comes to whether or not the raiding
officers knocked before entering and whether or not they gave the
suspect the appropriate amount of time to answer. A video recording
would put such disputes to rest.



More accountability. Botched raids should be
reviewed by external review boards, preferably staffed with civilians.
Many cities already have such review boards in place to deal with other
police brutality issues but have limited their jurisdiction when it
comes to botched and erroneous police raids. Review boards are a great
idea, but they should be permitted to review not only the conduct of
police officers, but the judgment of the prosecutors and judges who
sign off on these warrants, too. In too many jurisdictions, judicial
oversight of the warrant process has degenerated into a rubber-stamp
exercise. Scrutiny from an independent review board would be helpful.



We also need to remove the immunity we grant to police officers and
government agencies when it comes to mistaken raids that result in
death or injury. Qualified immunity (granted to individual officers) and sovereign immunity
(granted to the government entities that employ them) raise the burden
of proof so high that it becomes extremely difficult for the victims of
botched or mistaken raids to recover damages.



Sadly, it's the threat of lost revenue, not concern for civil
liberties, that seems most likely to spur governments to reform. In the
few cases where a botched raid has resulted in real policy changes,
it's been after a high-profile raid resulted in an expensive settlement
or threats from the government's insurer to revoke coverage unless
local officials implemented reforms.



Most of these suggestions would be relatively inexpensive. Many are
simply changes in procedure. If mistakes are indeed as rare as
defenders of SWAT raids attest, there should be no problem with local
governments and individual officers agreeing to more transparency and
accountability when it comes to the citizens they serve nor to assuming
full liability when their actions or the policies they've endorsed lead
to unnecessary violence against innocents or nonviolent offenders.



Radley Balko is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute
specializing in "nanny state" and consumer choice issues, including
alcohol and tobacco control, drug prohibition, obesity and civil
liberties. Separately, he maintains the
The Agitator weblog. The
opinions expressed in his column for FOXNews.com are his own and are
not to be associated with Cato unless otherwise indicated.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

free webpage hit counter

Performancing