REPORT
TASK FORCE

April 1992

REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
TASK FORCE ON THE USE OF FORCE

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
Table of Contents

............................................ page i
Members of t h e Attorney General's Task Force on
the Use of Force in Law Enforcement ............page iv
Introduction and Overview ............................
p age I
Foreword

...................................... page 1
The Establishment and Responsibilities of
the Task Force ............................Page 3
Background .....................................page 4
Task Force Approach ............................
page 5
Overview of Findings and Recommendations ............page 7
Use of Force in Law Enforcement .....................
page 25
The Issues

Police/Citizen Contact
Use of Force S u N e y
Purpose

.

.

o.e*..p o.e*.. page page

page

34

page 34

.................................*.page 35
Responding Population ..............*...........p...
35
Calls for Service ..............................page 36
Use of Force Incidents .........................
page 39
Excessive Use of Force .........................p
age 41
Firearms Discharge Activity ....................
page 43
................................ page 47
--+Reco.endations
Selection and Training of Police Officers ...........page 51
Pq'chological Screening ................. . . . . . . . p age 52
--bRecomendationa .............................
page 59
U s e of Force Training ..........................
p age 60
Distribution

-

Reco&endationa.

...........................

.page 73

..........page 73
Recommendations .............................p age 76

Training of Internal Affairs Officers

REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S

TASK FORCE ON THE USE OF FORCE
IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
Table of Contents (Continued)
Investigation of Complaints of Excessive Force

......page

77

...................................page 81
.Recommendations ................................
page 85
Monitoring Implementation ......................
page 97
Law Governing the Use of Force ......................
page 101
Observations

Clarity

page 105

......page 116
Criminal Liability Commensurate
with Culpability ..........................page 121
Recommendations ................................
page 125
Consistency with Constitutional Standards

Appendix A
Appendix B

- General Principles of Justification ....page
- Selected Bibliography ..................page

128
133

Respect for the law and confidence in public
officers cannot be compelled. These
attributes stand as a voluntary tribute to
just laws and integrity in public office.
While they exist both the law and the official
will retain public trust. 1
There is no c0ntex.t.h which the relationship between the
performance of public officers and public support for its
officers is more complex than when a law enforcement officer uses
force.

Law enforcement officers are required to prevent crimes

and apprehend criminals.

Performance of these duties necessarily

requires officers to confront and apprehend persons who violate
the law, persons who do not always willingly submit to lawful
authority.

The public expects officers faced with resistance t o

use reasonable force when necessary, yet demands that officers
-i

refrain from using unnecessary o r unreasonable force in
confrontations with citizens.
Recognizing that shared dissatisfaction concerning such
encounters and their aftermath threatened to erode public
Confidence in and undermine the morale and effectiveness of law
enforcement officers, Attorney General Robert J. Del Tufo began
to assemble this Tank Force in the fall of 1990.

Its members

include roprasantatives of community and civil rights groups as
well a8 ropresentativss of the criminal justice system.

In April

of 1991, the Attorney General asked us to begin our work of
reviewing current practices and procedurer in order to recommend
1 Bave8 v. Eudiwon Countv Board of FreQBolders 116 N.J.
Super. 21, 26 (App. Div. 1971) (quoting PqoDie ex rel. Keenan v .
McGuane, 13 Ill. 2d 520, 150 N.E.2d 168, 177 (1958)).
i

r e f o m that would "renew the traditional sense of trust between
the public and- law enforcement community" and "restore a sense of
common cause between law-abiding citizens and law-abiding law

enforcement officers."
After much study and debate we report our findings and offer
recommendations that we believe will serve to strengthen the
mutual trust and confidence upon which effective law enforcement
depends.

While each of us, if given sole responsibility, might

have called for greater or different reforms in particular areas,
we agree that the measures we propose, if fairly implemented
throughout the State, will have that effect.
We are regretfully mindful that no empirical data, however
accurate, and no change8 in procedure8 or in the substance of the
law relating to the use of force, however diligently pursued, can
result in completely defusing the potential for violence inherent
in police confrontations, particularly in c r h - r i d d e n
neighborhoods.

Anger, frustration and fear which may lie at or

just below the surface in some communities can quickly escalate,
with or without specific cause, when police arrive on the scene.
it is not surprising that in such highly-charged emotional
circumstances raaaon does not always prevail; indeeá, the
likelihood of irrational conduct can becorns dangerously high.

It

is in thi8 context that law enforcement officera are often called
upon to do their job.
There is a desperate but largely neglected need for social,

economic and political action to deal with the sen80 of privation
and despair that permeates life f o r a large segment of our
il

society and which adds to the risk of violence.
i

It is of course

far beyond the rolé of this Task Force to deal with these
underlying root causes.

We can only acknowledge their existence

and join those who insist that these significant problems be
addressed with a sense of urgency.

Within the limited framework

of our assigned responsibility, we have recommended reform

designed to promote a sense of fairness and restraint without
jeopardizing the public welfare.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
TASK FORCE ON

THE USE OF FORCE I N L A W ENFORCEMENT

TBE ATTORNEY GKNXRAL'S
TASK FORCE OH THE USE OF FORCE
IN L A W BNFORCEMEN!I!
Frederick P. DeVesa
First Assistant Attorney General

Chairperson
Leon Ariama
Director of Public Affairs and Safety
Plainfield, New Jersey
Thomas J. Bitar, E e q .
Dillon, Bitar & Luther

Jeffrey S. Blitz
Atlantic County Prosecutor
Wilfred0 Caraba110
Public Advocate
Department of the Public Advocate
William a v e r s
Department of the Public Advocate

Thomas Smith
Office of the Public Defender
Sally G. C e r o l l
New Jersey State Parole Board
Colonel Jurrtin J. D b t i n o
Superintendent
New Jersey State Police

Lieutenant Colonel Richard Jankuumki
New Jer8q State Police

Hajor Paiinick Trocchia
Haw J e r r q State Police
Daniel P. M u
Chief o f Police
Voorhaa8 Police Department
Deborah B l l b
Legal Director
,American Civil Liberties Union

Viacent Framigen
President
New Jersey S t a t e Lodge of t h e Fraternal Order of Police

tV

Frank J. Ginesi
president
New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association
Rocco Halanga
New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association
John J. Golba
Chief of Police
Newark Police Department
,
Keith Jones
President
New Jersey State Conference
NAACP

Moses B. Jones
United States Department of Justice
Community Relations Service

Colleen McLlahon
Sergeant of Investigations
Sussex County Prosecutor's Office
Edward Hartone

Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union
Edward M. Palardy

Chief of Police
West Orange Police Department
Paul P. Pintella, Jr.
President
Urban League of Metropolitan Trenton

T. PlOU8i8
Cherif f
Cape May County Sheriff's Office

J-8

W i l l i a m Ihnabna
Capa May County Sheriff's Office
Sharon B. Ramavago
Hunterdon County Prorecutor

Paul H. Robinson
Distinguished Proferror of Law
Rutgers-Camden

V

Clifford Gregory Stewart
Director
Division on -Civil'Rights
Rolando Torres
Division on Civil Rights
Robert T. Winter

Director
Division of Criminal Justice
Wayne S. Fisher, Ph.D.
Division of Criminai Justice
James R. Zazzali, Esq.
New Jersey Policemen's Benevolent Association
R o b e r t Fagella, Esq.

New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association

vi

i

,

INTRODUCTIûN AND ovsRvrBU

The Issues
"One of the fundamental duties of a police department, from

Chief of police to patrolman, is to be on the lookout for
infractions of the law and to use due diligence in discovering
and reporting them, and in the proper case, arresting the
perpetrator and lodging and prosecuting a proper complaint.

"A

police officer has the recognized duty to use all reasonable
means to enforce the laws applicable in his jurisdiction, and t o
apprehend violators. n 3 Off icers, unlike private citizens
confronted with danger, are under "a legal compulsion to act" and
not "free to turn

Indeed, they risk administrative,

civil or criminal charge if they do.5

They are "armed and

required to act,"ó to make split-second judgments in tense and
rapidly evolving circumstances,

so that society, through

enforcement of its laws, remains secure.
When law enforcement officers abuse their legal authority to
use

force, however, the "law enforcer becomes lawless.n8

2

# t ate v. Donovan, 132 N.J.L.

3

Stata v. Cohen

4

State V. William S, 29 YmJ. 27, 36 ( 1 9 5 9 ) .

319, 321 (Sup. Ct. 1945).

32 PJnJn 1, 9 (1960).

See State v. Donovan, 132 N.J.L.
State v. Williams, 29 Y.J.
Graham v. Connor,

*

The

U.S.

319 (Sup. Ct. 1945).

at 36.

, 109

S . Ct. 1865, 1872 ( 1 9 8 9 ) .

State v. Stevens, 203 N.J. SuDer. 59 (App. Div. 1984).

result is "violence, oppresirion and injustice. w 9

While such

incident8 are rare, the impact of a single incident is great.

AS

one police department's manual advises its officers:
The success of a police department is largely
measured by the degree of support and
cooperation it receives from the people of
the community which it serves.
It is of
paramount importance that w e aecure the
confidence,
respect, and approbation of the
public.
The cultivation of such desirable
a t t i t u d e s i s dependent upon proper
performance of duty by all members of the
department l o
It is obvious that "every segment of the community suffers when
the public loses confidence in the very people to whom they
should be looking f o r protection.
To avoid an unwarranted undermining of confidence in all

officers on the basis of isolated incidents of abuse of
authority, an officer who has violated the law must be brought to
justice.
must

To avoid undermining the morale of other officers who

continue

to

protect

the

public

under

difficult

circumstances, the process employed must be fair.

Foreword to the Washington Township Police Department
Rules and Regulations, quoted in policeman's Benevolent Association V. Townshir, of WarhinutoQ , 850 Er 2d 133, 138 (3d C i r .
109 S. Ct. 1637 (1989).
1988), cort. denied,
U.S.
11 Giaseer, pn the u'ne: Police B r utalitv and its Remedies,
lo

-

Preface (1991).
l2 See State V. Stevens, 203 N . J . SuDer. 59, 65-66 (App.
Div. 1984).
2

The Establishment and Responsibilities of this Task Force
i
\

Attorney General Robert J. Del Tufo assembled community
leaders, law enforcement officials, police union representatives,

civil rights leaders, law professors and practicing attorneys t o
serve as his Task Force on the Use of Force in Law Enforcement.
He established this Tisk Force to address concerns regarding the

use of force and the manner in which incidents involving its
suspected abuse are investigated and prosecuted

-0

concerns

expressed by both the general public and law enforcement
officers.
With the goal of renewing "the traditional sense of trust
between the public and law enforcement community" and restoring
''a sense of common cause between law-abiding citizens and

law-abiding law enforcement officers," the Attorney General asked
this Task Force to recommend reform that would address the
concerns of the public and law enforcement officers.

Our

recommendations were to be based on an evaluation of information
concerning the use of force by law enforcement officers, the
1

methods of selecting and training law enforcement officers, the

procedures for investigating and prosecuting incidents involving
abuse of force and the sufficiency of laws authorizing the use of
force and punishing itrr aburre. 13
l3 See Summrrry of the presentation of Attorney General
Robert J. Del Tufo to t h e United Sates Commisrion on Civil
Rights, Trenton, New Jersey, April 8, 1991. Letter from Attorney
General Del Tufo to members of t h e Task Force dated April 4,
1991.

3

Backoround
The e8tablishment of this Task Force is the most recent in a
long history of efforts in this State to better protect the
public by improving the administration of criminal justice.

in

1961, the Legislature established the Police Training Commission
to ensure that all law'enforcement officers in this State
received the educational and clinical training necessary to
insure the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of this
State.14

In 1970, "in order to secure the benefits of uniform and

efficient enforcement of the criminal law and the administration
of criminal justice throughout the State," the Legislature charged
the Attorney General with the responsibility of providing for "the
general supervision of criminal justice. " 15

1'-

For more than a decade, the Attorneys General of this State,
through the Divisions of Criminal Justice, State Police and C i v i l
Rights, and in cooperation with the county prosecutors, the
Police Training Commission and law enforcement agencies
throughout the State, have worked to provide officers with the
training and guidance necerrary to perform their duties safely,
in compliance with the law and in a manner that minimizes
friction w i t h and warranta the confidence of the public.

-

These

efforts include:
Development an¿ frequent refinement of Attorney General
Guidelines, directives and training material6 on the Ause of force;

'

l4 - N
l5

i

-4

N.J.S.A.

52:17B-66.
52:17B-98, 52:17B-112.
4

Development
chases;

of

Attorney

General

Guidelines

on

high-speed

Development of improved and more frequent delivery of firearms
training, which includes training in the legal restrictions on the
use of force;

ZFF

The gathering and analysis of data concerning suits filed
against New Jersey police officers and concerning discharge of
firearms, for the purpose of improving training designed to prevent
excessive use of force;
The development of procedures through which the Division of
Criminal Justice provides monitors and provides assistance in
investigation of complaints concerning misconduct by l a w
4
enforcement officers;
' i

/'

The development, in cooperation with the Anti-Defamation League
of B'nai B'rith, standards and training materials on all aspects of
bias crime;
A community-awareness program which, through the cooperation of
the Divisions of Criminal Justice, State Police and Civil Rights
and the United States Department of Justice, lead to the
development of programs concerning conflict identification and
resolution, and police profesaionalism and cultural-diversity
awareness;

Initiatives such as Urban-Initiative/Fighting Back, which
involve close cooperation between law enforcement officers and
community members;
of
Efforts to improve" the s
Attorney General Guidelines on drug testin

officers,

including

r

Development of standards for disciplinary procedures and
internal investigations to be employed in instances involving
allegations of Meconduct by a law enforcement officer.
Against this background, the Task Force began its work.
Task Force A m r oach
The Task Force convened for the first time on April 23, 1991.
It was apparent to all that the causes for discontent with current
practice, procedures and law governing the use of force and the
investigation and prosecution of complaints were complex and that
sensible suggestions for reform would require detailed study.
5

.-.

(

Development
chases;

of

Attorney

General

Guidelines

on

high-speed

Development of improved and more frequent delivery of firearms
training, which includes training in the legal restrictions on the
use of force;

-

The gathering and analysis of data concerning suits filed
against New Jersey police officers and concerning discharge of
firearms, for the purpose of improving training designed to prevent
excessive use of force;.
The development of procedures through which the Division of
Criminal Justice provides monitors and provides assistance in
investigation of complaints concerning misconduct by l a w
I
enforcement officers;
/

The development, in cooperation with the Anti-Defamation League
of B'nai B'rith, standards and training materials on a l l aspects of
bias crime;

' i

A community-awareness program which, through the cooperation of
the Divisions of Criminal Justice, State Police and Civil Rights
and the United States Department of Justice, lead to the
development of programs concerning conflict identification and
resolution, and police professionalism and cultural-diversity
awareness;
Initiatives such as Urban-Initiative/Fighting Back, which
involve close cooperation between law enforcement ofiicers and
community members;
Efforts to improve rne selection of oZxacers,
Attorney General Guidelines on drug testj-7; and

including

Development of standards for disciplinary procedures airiu
internal investigation8 to be employed in instanceil involving
allegations of misconduct by a law enforcement officer.

~

Againrt this background, the Task Force began its work.
Task Force A D D ~ O ~ C ~

The Task Force convened for the first time on April 23, 1991.
It was apparent to all that the causes for discontent with current
practice, procedures and law governing t h e use of force and the
investigation and prosecution of complaints were complex and that
sensible suggestions for reform would require detailed s t u d y .
5

Accordingly, the Task Force divided into four subcommittees,
t

each responsible for providing the full group with detailed
findings and recommendations.
Recognizing the need to understand the frequency and the
circumstances under which officers in thio State use force, the
Task Force assigned one subcommittee to prepare a report on that
issue
,

.

.

Recognizing that the proper selection and training of
officers is essential to their ability to perform, the Task Force
asked another group to study and recommend any needed reform in
current relection and training policies.
Mindful that the need for full and fair investigation of a l l
suspected incident8 of improper use of force is critical to both
the public and law enforcement officers alike, the Task Force
asked a third s u b c o d t t e e to investigate procedures for handling
such incidents.

-

Finally, recognizing that law governing the use of force and
the puniahment of officers who abuse it might be inadequate and
contribute to concern on the part of the public and officers
alike, the Task Force asked the fourth subcommittee to evaluate
the law.

Each subcommittee reviewed relevant factual data, policies,
procedures and training materials currently employed in New
Jersey, model policier prepared by expert8 in the area and

scholarly publications.

Two of the subcommittees conducted

surveys designed to gather additional factual data.
Draft8 of each s u b c o d t t e e report were distributed prior to
Task Fomo meeting8 and each draft report war extenrively
dircur8.d by tha full Task Force.

The subcommittee reports were

then re-drafted and refined in light of the recommendations of
the other members of the Task Force and represented for approval

of the full. Tark Force.

The full Task Force met seven times

between April 23, 1991 and April 13, 1992.
The four chapters that follow are a product of this process.
6

Overview of Findinas And Rec<*IAIndations
Char>ter One : - Information Concernina Use of Force
Chapter One of this Report summarizes and analyzes available
data concerning the frequency with which law enforcement officers

i
t

1

i
i

in this State employ deadly, non-deadly and excessive force.

1

i

Law enforcement oeficers use deadly force in an extremely

small percentage of their encounters with members of the public.

I

’Based on data supplied by 502 of the 543 law enforcement agencies
in this State, in 1990, law enforcement officers in this State
handled over 8,500,000 calls for service and discharged their
I

Stated differently, when

jl-firearms in only 167 incidente.

; compared with the number of officers involved, only one of every
161 officers was involved in a firearms discharge incident in
1990I

It is clear that use of deadly force is a rare event.

,

-

h..ile it

is fair to conclude that deadly force is rarely

used, due to the absence of standard procedures for reporting use
/ o f non-deadly force and the lack of any common understanding as

to what contact

=-

ranging from handcuffing an arrestee in

compliance with department policy to phyricaï altercations

=-

should be considered a use of non-deadly force, the Tark Force i s
unable to report with certainty on the frequency of the use of
non-deadly force.

Nonetheìer8, on the basis of available

inf-ormation, publirhed studies conducted drewhere, complaints
filed with law enforcement agencies and a two-year rtudy of s u i t s
filed in federal and State court against New Jer8ey law
enforcement officers, the Ts&k Force believes that the use of

7

non-deadly force ir also infrequent when compared with the total
number of poiice/citizen contacts.
‘

Again due to lack of common definitions and uniform standards

I

for recording complaints and dispositions of complaints alleging
1

excessive force, the Task Force cannot report with any degree of

i

certainty the frequen&

with which law enforcement officers use

excessive force or even the frequency of allegations that such
I

force is employed.

A total of 576 muits were filed against law

1

‘enforcement officers employed in this State during the two-year
I

‘period of 1985 and 1986, 43% alleged assault and battery.
i

Considering that information and the limited available
information concerning complaints recorded by law enforcement

.

agencies throughout the State, the Task Force can only conclude
that complaints which the agencies record arr involving excessive
force are infrequent when viewed in the context of all
g

police/citizen contact, and that the number of these complaints
has changed little between 1988 and 1990.

Despite theme data, it i m apparent that public perception of
the frequency with which law enforcement officers use brutal
force ir quite different.

A high percentage

of people surveyed

in a recant, nationwide Gallup Poll believe that incidents like
the one involving Rodney King, which was captured on videotape in
March of 1991, occur at learnt momewhat frequently.
But public opinion on police brutality ir also difficult to
decipher.

While 688 of those responding to the Gallup Poll

believed that incident8 like the one in Lor Angeles occur v e r y or
somewhat frequently, only 20% of the respondents believed that
8

\

incidents of that nature occur in their community and only 20%
responded affirmatively when asked if they knew a person who had
been treated similarly.
The Task Force has concluded that the quality of data
pertaining to the use of force must be improved in order to gain

any real understanding of the nature or magnitude of any problem
concerning the use of force in law enforcement.

Accurate

information is also essential to understanding and perhaps
closing the gap between reported incidents of excessive f o r c e and
public perception of the frequency with which excessive force is
used.
Accordingly, the Task Force recammends the following:
c o d t t e e of criminal justice professionals
should be appointed to identify and define
infoxmation concerning the ase of force that law
enforcement officer8 and law enforcement agencies
mhould be required to report and collect. The
c o d t t e e al80 should design m t h o d s to assist law
enforcement agencies in collecting, campiling
utilizing the data gathered.
A

L

Standard definitions identifying levels of force
that officer8 must report should be daveloped.
All law enforcement officers should be required to
file reports concerning the use of such force and
all lav enforcement agencies should be required to
Collect u3d Mintain these reports.

All citizen c-laints
alleging excessive use of
force and information concerning the disposition of
much caplaint8 mhould be recorded.
Bach law aaforcaœnt agency should be required to
file an annual report with the county prosecutor
indicating the total nurber of h c i d e n t s involving
use of force, the total nuiber of incidents
hvolving f h e u r s disCharg88 and t h e total number
of h i d e n t 8 fnvolving alleged ume of exce8oive force. These reports should be made available to
the public
9

Bach county proaecutor'm annual report to the
Attojcney Gsneral should include the &ta reported
by law enforcement agencies.
ChaDter "wo:

Selection and Trainincf of Law Enforcement Officers

Law enforcement officers are entrusted with "exercising the
most awesome and dangerous power that a democratic state
possesses with respect to its residents-the
force to arrest and detain them."lá

power to use lawful

The selection and training

of persons who will be given this authority is clearly critical.
Individual officers are the key factor in the performance of
duties that demand t h e exercise of round discretion under
potentially confrontational circumstances.
A.

Selectioq.

State law establishes xninhum standards for

' Lhe selection of law enforcement officers
I

-0

they must be

citizens, of good character, sound body and good health, be able
to read, write and speak Englilrh and have sufficient intelligence

and skill to successfully complete the baric training course
mandated by the Police Training C o d r r i o n .
Despite this attention to selection of officers who are fit
and qualified, prychological testing to screen-out persons who
lack the emotional stability and psychological fitness needed t o
carry out the duties of a law enforcement officer or endure the
rtress of the conditions in which there officers perform is not
uniformly required.

Numerous rtudies indicate the importance of

such screening.

n'a Benevolent Asrociatron o f New Jersey v.
I 850 L 2 d 133 (3d Cir. 1 9 8 8 ) , Gort. denied,
I

-.
s.
16

us

-I

109

Ct. 1637 (1989).
10

.

,
i?

i

The Task Force also discussed whether psychological tests
i

should be administered subsequent to an officer ' s appointment i n
order to determine whether veteran officers remain f i t and
qualified.

The evidence of the utility of such tests, when

compared to careful evaluation of the performance of individual
officers, is less cleai.'. And, because the views of individual
members of the Task Force ranged from support for routine,
universal psychological testing to opposition to any such
testing, the Task Force generally agreed that there was
5.

I

insufficient evidence to recommend a uniform policy on in-service
psychological testing.
Thus, the Task Force recoinmends the following:
0

j

b

The Attorney General should s e e k to introduce
Legislation requiring the Police Training
CommPisrrion to establish standards for psychological
testing and requiring all law enforcement agencies
to adahister tests meeting those standards prior
to appointing a candidate as a police officer.
The Divirion of Crisinal Justice rhould bring
together experts to develop a model policy
concerning ia-service psychological testing, and
police depart#ntr rhould be encouraged to develop
and implement policias concerning in-semice
pßychological testing that provide clear criteria
as to when such testing is warranted.

B. Tfaininq.

Given its mission, the Task Force focused on

the adequacy of basic and in-service training addressing the use

of force in law enforcement.

The ba8ic course, which addresses

police community relations, patrol conceptr, unarmed defense,
baton utse, firearms use and all aspects of the law governing
the use of force, is well-developed and continually refined in
light of legal developments and improvement0 in law enforcement
11

techniques designed to reduce the need for the use of force.
Effort8 such as those currently underway to stress the uae of
verbal communication skills as a means of de-escalating the need
for the use of force should be continued.

In-service training on the proper

u849

of firearms is

statutorily required o i an annual basis, but due to Attorney
Aneral directive, thi8 training is delivered on a aemiannual
basis and has been extended to include re-training on the law
governing the use of force.

While some law enforcement agencies

provide additional in-service training, there is no uniformity in
this regard.

And, although the Department of Law and Public

Safety has developed in-service training programs on police
professionalism and cultural diversity awareness, which are being
i

offered throughout the State, the program is not mandatory.
Further, there are currently no programs designed to explain thz
importance and nature of the police function to members of the
community or to educate local public officials responsible for
civilian oversight of police departments concerning their
responsibiìitier.
Accordingly, the Task Force recomenda the follwing:
O

The Attorney General should reek the

introduction of legislation directing the
Polico Training C d s r i o n to develop
fn-morvico trainhg requir~iantsand mandating
that a l l law anforcement officers roccerrfully
complete t h t trlfning.
O

The Iægirlation 8hould provide funding for
in-mervice training

.

Police h d n h g C d r r s i o n rtaff should be
directed to continus to review and revise use
of force curricula to incorporate the latest
12

i

~

b

legal and technical developrents, in
particular development of verbal c m n i c a t i o n
skills. And, the Attorney General should
continue to update directives and guidelines
concerning the use of force to reflect changes
Fn the law.
The continued development and delivery of
training and public awareness program8 dealing
with cultural. divermity, the role of the
police officer:'and the responsibilities of
local government officials for oversight of
police departments should be encouraged.

c. Trainina of Officers ReSDOnsible for Internal Affairs
ïnvestiaations.

As diecussed below, Chapter 3 of this Report

recommends full-implementation of the "Internal Affairs Policy
and Procedures" recently developed through the cooperative
efforts of the Division of Criminal Justice and the New Jersey
State Association of Chiefs of Police and issued by Attorney
General Del Tufo.

Successful implementation of the substantial

improvements outlined in these current procedures will require
training of the officers asirigned this task.

Accordingly, the

Task Force r e c r n d 8 the following:
The Division of Cr-1
Justice should
develop mtandardized guidelines for internal
affair. training and this training should be
made available to ail officers arsignad to
conduct internal affairs investigations.

and responds to citizen complainte concerning the uee of
excessive force is critical to the morale and effectiveness of
'

officerr and to the public's trurt and confidence in law
enforcement.

Mtmber8 of the community and fellow officers must
13

feel free to make 1,egithte complaints and to bring problems to
the attention of responsible officials.

If problems concerning

the use of force are to be identified and addressed, officers and
citizens alike muet be confident that the filing of a complaint
will lead to a thorough, objective investigation and a just
result

.

t

Prior to the recent issuance of "Internal Affairs Policy and
Procedures" and to Attorney General Del Tufo's directive
requiring all law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies in the
State to conscientiously implement the standards and procedures
for receipt, investigation and disposition of use of force
complaints contained therein, there were no uniform practices.
The Task Force considers this lack of uniformity to be the most
significant factor contributing to the perception, which law
enforcement officers and citizens seem to share, that the system
is not fair and does not lead to just results.

It ha8 led some

members of the public to conclude that the system shields
officers who abuse their authority and it has led some officers
to conclude that even a proper uae of force will be presumed
abusive.
Tho Task Force has concluded that implementation of the
policie8 and procadurea outlined in "Internal Affaira Policy and
Procedurea" as amplifiad in Attorney General Del Tufo's
accompanying directives to law enforcement officials and county
prosecutors will do much to remedy these problems.

Together

these documents establish a uniform, statewide aystun for
handling complaints.

Under this system, all complaints must be
14

'

(

--.i

recorded and thoroughly investigated by officers trained in b o t h
-

-

---~

,

criminal investigation; and administrative proceedings. The
i
,
result of the investigation must be reported to the complainant
and recorded for inclueion in an annual report which must be
provided to the county prosecutor.
The document provides for an additional measure of
uniformity, predictability and fairness by establishing standards
for officials to apply in determining when an officer named in a
complaint or involved in an incident involving discharge of a
h

firearm or a suspected use of excessive
force should be
---_'--reassigned or suspended.
\--

In order to ensure that all perceive investigations of
serious matters to be objective and fair, the unifonn policy
requires immediate notification and involvement of the county
prosecutor or the Attorney General, through his Division of
Criminal Justice, when an investigation involves the discharge of a
firearm resulting in injury or any use of force resulting in
serious injury
- _ - or death.
Finally, in directing that "any matter which involves factors
indicating the posrible Ume of unjustified force by a law
enforcemnt officer which resulted in death or rerfous bodily
injury mhould ordinarily be presented to the grand jury for
review and disposition, particularly in carea involving factual
dirputer," the Attorn8y ûeneral has provided for an independent
conmiunity judgment of there serious matter8 that rhould ensure
citizens that law enforcement officials and the elected public
officials responsible for their supervirion are not rrhielding
15

,-.

officers.

Application of this objective standard for referring

i

matters t o the grand jury should also do much to eliminate
concern on the part of officers that individual cases are
presented to the grand jury on an arbitrary bash.
While the Task Force atudicd and debated the question of
establishing civilian 'kview boards to conrider allegations of
police misconduct, it agreed that the uniform system
establiahed in this State should be tested firat.

10

recently

In this

regard, the Task Force considera it quite significant that each
police agency In thi8 State, under current law, ia aubject to
oversight by and directly answerable to elected officials.
Accordingly, the Task Force, with minor modifications,
recommends continuation of the conscientious implementation of
the syatem for investigation and disposition of complaints
recommended in "Internal Affaira Policy and Proceduresn and of
the Attorney General's directives concerning referral of cases to
the county prosecutor, Division of Criminal Juatice and grand
jury.

Chapter 3 of thia report includes a propoaed schedule f o r

implementation and publication of reporta detailing progress
toward that goal.

r

e

c

Tha assential c a p n e n t 8 of the mystam

m u. as follow:

All citizen colpldntr should be accepted, recorded
and inveatigatd thoroughly and objectively and
uith.raapect for the right. of officers under
investigation.

The invertigations rhould be conducted by officers
trainad in both crisinal and rdpiairtrative investigations.
16

Coœplaint brrd incidents involving the posnible use
of excessive force or discharge of a firearm
resulting in injury or death should be reported to
and investigated vith appropriate oversight by the
County Prosecutor or the Division of Criminal
Justice

.

Any matter vhich involves factors indicating t h e
possible use of unjustified force by a law
enforcement Òf-ficer which resulted in death or
serious bodily injury should ordinarily be
presented to the grand jury for review and
disposition, particularly in cases involving
factual disputes.
L a w enforceEtent agencies should apply uniform

etandards to determine an officer'. duty assignment
pending the outcome of an investigation. These
standards should include a p r e s w t i o n in favor of
administrative reassignment in cases involving a
une of force vhich resulta in death or serious
bodily injury.
Records of caqlaints, investigations and
dispositions of ratters involving su~pected use of
excessive force c q l a i n t s should be kept.

-!

Disposition8 and reasons for diapositions should be
disclosed to the complainant and the officer.
O

Bach law enforcetment agency should be required to
complete an annual report sumarizing, without
identifying individuals, the nuibsr and typcra
of complaints received and the dispositions of
there coipldnt8. The report mhould be rade
available to the public and filed with the county
prosecutor.
Bach county prosecutor'r annual report to the
lbttornq General should include a -8
of the
croturty'm oxcersfve force coæplahts and their
di8po8itiOn.0
The d f o r r procedures for external overright of

fnvemtigatfons by county pro8ecutorm, the Division
of Cridaal JU8tiC. and the grand jury should be
implemented.
M e a e ~ a rto -lament
the procedurem and standards
outlined above mhould be taken with all due
diligence in accordance with the mchdule for
compliance included in Chapter 3 of this report.
17

Chanter Four:

Law Governinu the Use of Porca

Society has an interest in the vigorous enforcement of its
criminal laws.

For this reason we authorize and require law

enforcement officers to use reasonable force when necessary to
perform their duties..

In tense and uncertain circumstances often
\

-

involving grave personal danger, we expect law enforcement
officer6 to make rplit-second decisions and take appropriate
action so that society may remain secure.
Society has an equally significant interest, however, in
seeing that officers do not "unjustifiably" coerce, threaten,
restrain, injure or kill in the name of law enforcement.
Statutory and constitutional rules describe when and how much
force law enforcement officers may use.

These rules distinguish

"justifiable" and appropriate from "unjustifiable" and
inappropriate law enforcement conduct. Law enforcement officers
must operate within the boundaries set by these rules. They have
a duty to obey the law and to enforce it, and their adherence t o
both is essential to preservation of a free society.
A. The Need

For C

l

e

.

Given the importance of statutes

defining when and how much force may be used in furtherance of
law enforcunent, the Tark Force began with the airrumption that
there laws mast ba clear and understandable.

Officers are often

required to make 8plit-second judgment8 in tense, uncertain, and
rapidly evolving circuistancer, and the law should clearly
identify, not obfurcate, the judgment8 they muat make.
Currant statutes governing the use of force in law
enforcement, self-defense, defense of others and defense of
18

property, each potentially applicable to the conduct of law
enforcement officers in the performance of their duties, are
too detailed and complex to be applied under circumstances

requiring rapid judgment and quick action.

The statutes describe

when and the amount of force that may be ured through a series of
detailed and specific hier, each with numerous exceptions and
limitations, and cross-references to exceptions and limitations.
The Task Force has concluded that these rpecific, detailed and

I

t' confusing rules can be subsumed in, and more comprehensibly
/I

i

/

-stated as, general principles incorporated in fewer statutory
provisions.
Accordingly, the Task Force recnaaiurnd8 the follawbg:
0
%

.

Current detailed mtatatory rules and exceptions
governing the use of force in law enforcement
should be replaced with m r e co~prehenrible,
general rrtandards.
Statute8 governing the urre of force in
relf-defenre, defense of other8 and defense of
property should be combined in order to avoid the
need for confusing crear-reforencem and should also
be revirreã to replace detailed statutory rules and
exception8 with m r e corprehen8ible, general
8tMdmd8

B. The Need for Consirtencv with Constitutional Standards.
As noted above, t h e use of force in law enforcement is subject to

both statutory and conrtitutional restrictions.
decision renderad in the care of Tenne ssea

V.

In 1985, in a

Garnel;, the United

States Supreme Court announced that a law enforcement officer's
use of deadly force to apprehend a perron rurpected of a crime is
constitutionally permirribìe only if a failure to effectuate the
suspect's immediate arrest would pore a threat of serious
19

physical harm to the officer or others.
Current statutory law authorizes the use of deadly force in
arrest on a different basis.

It focuses on the crime committed

rather than the danger posed by the suspect.

As a result, New

Jersey statutes pennit the use of deadly force in some cases in
which Garnet would noti,,and prohibit its usa in some cases where
Garner would p e x d t it.
Statutes similarly fail to account for constitutional
restrictions on the use of non-deadly force.

In 1989, in Graham

v. Connor, the Supreme Court held that no forca used in law

enforcement is constitutionally permissible unless it is
"reasonable under the circumstances."

Current statutory law does

not limit the use of non-deadly force in thio manner.
i

Although these inconsistencies have been reconciled in
guidelines issued by the Attorney General, the Task Force
nonetheless recommends amending statutory law to conform with the
constitutional standards.

The current inconsistency creates an

intolerable level of confusion where clear guidance is needed.
Further, an officer who has acted in accordance with
constitutional limitations should not be rubject to punishment
for a c r i n under the laws of this State, and the laws of t h i s
State ohould not authorize force that is inconsistent with the
constitutional rightr of its citizens.
Thur, the Tamk Force d e s the following recorr-ndations:
Statutory l a w d e f i n i n g when and the aiount of force

t h a t ' m y be used h law enforcement rhould be
amended to otate standarda consistent with
constitutional restrictions.
20

Use of non-deadly force for law enforcement
purposer qhould be justified only when immediately
necarsary and =reasonable under the circumstances"
to accomplishment of an officer's lawful duty.

,-

U 8 8 of 'deadly

force' for law enforcement parposes
should be justified when hmeàiately necessary:

(a) to effect a lawful arrest of a person who would
pose a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any
pereon if appehension were delayed;

(b) to prevent the c d 8 i i o n of a C r h involving
a substantial risk of M a t e death or rrerioue bodily
harm to any parrron; or
(c) to prevent an escape from a prison.
C.

Criminal Liabilitv Commensurate with CulDabiïity.

The

Task Force also examined current law in order to determine
whether the law provided appropriate ~anctionsfor law
enforcement officers who use excesuive force in the performance
of their duty.

Here, the Task Force began with the premise that

the criminal law should distinguish between and provide different
punishments for officers who intentionally inflict injury or
cause death without jurtification, and officers who knowingly
cause such injury becau88 they believe, albeit unreasonably, t h a t
the circumstances with which they are confronted in the line of
duty require the

U88 O f

force.

Undar current law, an officer who purposely or knowingly
c a u s c ~d m t h bocause he mistakenly believer that the use of
deadly force is necessary to protect the life of an innocent
citizen, to effect the arrest of person who has just committed a
homicide, or .to preserve hi8 own life from a threat encountered
in the line of duty, has a complete defense if his mistake is
21

reasonable.

If thq officer's belief is recklerr, or even

negligent, however, the officer is liable for murder if he
knowingly causes death.
Recognizing the possible consequences of this rule to public
safety officers, the Supreme Court recently suggested that the
\

Legislature reconsider'its recent abolition of a common law r u l e
which provided a mitigation for officers who acted because of
such unreasonable belief.

After considering the consequences,

the Task Force recommends reform.
Officers are under a legal compulsion to act and must make
split-second decisions in circumstances that art tense and
fraught with danger.

An officer acting

in furtherance of h i s

lawful duties who believes, albeit unreasonably, that the
circumstances justify his conduct is simply not aa blameworthy as
an officer who kills or injures without such a belief.
Accordingly, t h e Ta8k Force rac-nd8
0

the follcrwing:

The law rhould be amended to provide a
mitigation for officer8 acting ia the lawful
perforrance of their duties who negligently or
recklemsly balieve that the circuæstance
justify the use of force.
An officer whose airtake is negligent
should have a completo defenae to any
offanse other than one requiring
negligence am to any element-- for
example, negligent injury with a deadly
wrpon.

is reckless
should havo a cooplet8 defonse to any
cri# other than one r e q u h b g
reck~essne~8
or negligence ar to any
element
for example, negligent injury
with a deadly weapon or recklsua
~nslanghter.
& officer d o s e a i r t a k e

--

22

c-'

D. SDecific Public Policv Judaments.

Laws defining when and

how much forcë may be used in law enforcement, together with
those that define the extent of a law enforcement officer's duty
to act and the extent of a suspect's duty to submit, embody
society's view of the proper balance of its interests in
preventing crime, apprdhending criminals, protecting the public
safety and preserving individual rights.

The Task Force, for t h e

most part, has attempted to recommend clarification of statutory
law without altering the balance the Legislature has struck.
The Task Force is mindful, however, that the policy judgments
incorporated in current law can be revised to reduce the
likelihood of forceful encounters between police and citizens.
For example, if the public were willing to sacrifice vigorous

enforcement of the criminal law in order to avoid forceful
encounters, the law could absolve officers of the duty to arrest
persons who resist or direct officers not to pursue suspects.
Alternatively, if the public is unwilling to relieve officers of
the duty to pursue persons who do not comply with lawful orders
but is nonetheless interested in limiting dangerous chases and
encounters, the law could be revised to discourage flight by
imporring rtrict ranctionr for non-compliance with orders to halt.

w h i h the Task Force has not attempted to resolve these
difficult questions of public policy, it recommands that the
Attorney Ganara1 conrider whether it ir appropriate to solicit
additional public opinion on these issuer.

23

e

The Attorney General should consider soliciting
additional public opinion on the following issues:
1. Should law enforcement officers be absolved of
the duty to arreet permone who resist or flee.

2. Should the law be revised to impose strict
sanctions for non-coripliance with orders to halt or
8-t

60

me8t.

coblcLus~oH
Attorney General Del Tufo gathered this diverse group
together and asked us to review current practices, procedures and
law relevant to the use of force in law enforcement in order to
recommend reform.

His goals were to "renew the traditional sense

of trust between the public and the law enforcement community"
and "restore a sense of common cause between law-abiding citizens
and law-abiding law enforcement officers."
The report which follows represents our effort to fulfill
these responsibilitier.

The issues with which we grappled were

complex, and the process of reaching a consensus was difficult.
Implementation of the recommendations outlined here will be no
aarier

.

The mmbers of the Task Force, encouraged and enriched by the
exchanga of view8 that led to this report, are confident that
the goal8 of t h e Attorney General while elusive are, with
vigilance and effort, attainable.

24

USB OF FORCE IN LAW ENFORCEHBNT

The Task Force quickly recognized that an assessment of l a w
enforcement use of force as it currently exists in New Jersey
a

necessary

foundation

forthcoming in dealing'with

for

any

progress

which

this complex issue.

would

was

be

The Task F o r c e

relied on various sources of information to determine the exteat
and nature of the use of force by law enforcement.

The most

important was a survey designed and administered by the Task
Force to estimate the frequency with which force is actually
utilized by law enforcement in New Jersey.
gather

information

about

calls

for

The survey sought to

service,

use

of

force

incidents, complaints of excessive force and firearms discharge
incidents.
research

In

addition,

literature with

the

Task

Force

reviewed

existing

regard to police use of force and

collected published information pertaining to public perception
of both the frequency of police use of excessive force and the
appropriateness of using force in specified situations.
Much effort has been devoted to the study of deadly force
incident6 with

one major study concluding, *it comes as

no

surprire that when compared to the total number of contacts
police officers have with civilians, police-civilian shootings

are extremely infrequent events.*17

The New Jersey Task Force

survey resulte, reported later in this chapter, rupport this

l7 Geller, W.A.
(1982).
Deadly Force:
What we know.
Journal of Police Science and Adminirtration, 10(2), pp. 151-177.
25

Police agencies responding to the New Jersey survey report

view.

that they handled 8,666,93418 calls for service during 1990 and
discharged

their

weapons

in

only

167

incidents.

Stated

otherwise, the use of deadly force by police officers in New
Jersey is a rare event, occurring about once in every 52,000
calls for service.

Adgitional information available to the Task

Force further supports the conclusion that the discharge of a
weapon at other persons by law enforcement officers in New Jersey
is a rare occurrence.

Agencies responding to Task Force survey

items pertaining to calls for service and firearms discharges
employ

a

Recalling

total
that

of

26,852

167 shooting

sworn

law

enforcement

officers.

incidents were reported in the

survey, another way to view the frequency of police use of
firearms is by noting that only one of every 161 officers was
involved in a firearms discharge incident during 1990.
While

the

literature is replete with

studies regarding

police use of deadly force, there are very few studies focusing
on

police

use

of

non-doadly

force.

As

a result, general

information derived from the Task Force survey is needed to
provide detail to existing published information and to shed
light on t h e u m of all lsvelrr of force by law enforcement
officeri ia New Jersey.

The Task Force recognizes that although

complete and accurate information about police ure of firearms is
l 8 The reported number of calls for service is t h o u g h t to

under represent actual police activities and citizen contacts.
For example, aome departments report self initiated activity
while others include only those activities for which an officer
was dispatched in response to a third party.
26

t

_.

of critical importance, it alone is insufficient to properly
address the entire range of issues raised by law enforcement's
use of force.

It is equally important that accurate and complete

information be available regarding police use of less than deadly
levels of force in the course of exercising their public safety
responsibilities.
In 1987, the New York State Commission on Criminal Justice
and the Use of Force drew similar conclusions.
research

focused on deadly force, the

"Noting that most

[New York] Commission

decided to ask 'broader questions' about the frequency and nature
The New York Commission found

of 'less than deadly force."19
that

not

only

did

police

use

deadly

force

infrequently,

suggesting that the discharge of a weapon occurs perhaps once in
a decade in smaller police agencies, but almo concluded that
police use of any force is rare.

The survey conducted by the N e w

York Commission indicated that police in New York State used
force, primarily "pushing, grappling or wreatling with an unruly
citizen," in approximately 5% of all arrests and in less than
one-tenth of one percent of all police citizen encounters. 2 0
In 1987, the Division of Criminal Juotice conducted a s t u d y
of civil liability raits filed against New Jersey law enforcement

l9 Fischer, E. (ed) 1987.
New York Panel Finds Abuse of
Forceby Police-NotSystemic. InCriminalJusticeNewsletter , 18(11).

27

officers2I.

This, effort was undertaken for the purpose

of

"defining fut-ure efforts in training and policy formulation as
they relate to the issue of police liability.n22

During 1985 and

1986, a total of 576 suits were filed under state and federal
law.

Of these suits, assault and battery (43%) was the most

commonly cited cause of action.
Generally, the use of force by law enforcement officers
occurs infrequently.
is

not

always

so

However, there is some suggestion that it
infrequent

enforcement officers.

an

event

for

individual

law

The ReDort of the IndeDendent Commission

of the Los Anaeles Police De~artrnent'~ organized following t h e
Rodney King incident on March 3, 1991, looked carefully at the
use of force by that police department.

The Commission relied on

a Los Angeles Police Department requirement that all incidents

involving police use of force beyond a firm grip be reported by
the officer involved.
a

There are 8,450 sworn law enforcement officers in t h e
Los Angeles Police Department.

0

During a 51 month period, 6,000 officers (71%)
reported that they had used force greater than a
firm grip.

0

Of thora 6,000 officers, two-thirds had used force
lese than 5 t h e s during t h a t 51 month period.
However, 63 (1.19) officers filed 20 or more use

21 Fisher, W.S.,
Kutner, S . L . and Wheat,
Civil Liability of New Jersey Police Officers:
Criminal Justice Quartcrlv. 1 o r 1 1 .
22

J.I.

(1989).

An Overview.

Jbi4. at p. 45.

23 Christopher, W O I Asguelles, J.A., et al. (1991). Report
of the Independent Commission on the Los Anueles Police DeDartment.
28

of force reports for that same time period.

f

Understanding that the self reporting of incidents involving
force may under represent the actual number of force incidents,
the conclusion remains that a small proportion of officers are
involved in a disproportionate number of force incidents,
Despite the infrhquency with which the large majority of
police

use

physical

force,

especially

deadly

force,

public

perception regarding such frequency is certainly important.
recent Gallup

A

conducted in March 1991, about two weeks

after the Los Angeles incident, provides timely information w i t h
regard to the public's perception of police brutality.

The

national poll involved telephone interviews of 1,005 randonly
selected adults.

The following information was obtained from

this poll:
" H o w often do you think incidents like this [Los Angeles] happen
in police departments...

Freuuency

across the Countrv

Very frequently
Somewhat frequently
Not very frequently
Not at all
No opinion
o

o

24

frequent

2 n Your Local Area

22%
46%
27%
2%
3%

5%
15%
45%
32%
3%

More than two-thirds (68%) of respondents
believe that incidents such as that in Los
Angeles occur very or somewhat frequently
across the country.
Only one-fifth (201) of those polled report
that incident8 similar to that in Los Angeles
occur vory or somewhat frequently in their
local police department.

(1991). American8 ray police brutality
not locally. GaïiuD Poll News Service, 55(42b).

Gallup, A.M.

- but

29

AS is evident, respondents believe police brutality is a rather

frequent occurrence nationally,

but

view

it

as a far less

pervasive problem in their own police departments.

In f a c t ,

almost one of every three (32%) respondents stated that brutality
never occurs in their .local police department.
Another way to aksess the frequency of police brutality
incidents

is

to

question

respondents

about

their

personal

knowledge of people who have been mistreated by the police.

The

Gallup poll asked respondents if they knew anyone who had been
mistreated by the police, if a member of their family had ever
been mistreated by the police or if they, themselves had been
mistreated.

!

The following are those responses:

Personal Knowledge of Individuals
Mistreated or Abused bv Police
Yes
Know someone
Family member
Respondent

No

20%

80%

8%
5%

92%
95%

While one of every five (20%) respondents report knowing someone
who had been mistreated by the police, less than half that number
report that a family member had been mistreated and only one of
every

20

respondents report

that

they

themselves

had

been

Metreatad
A8

ha8 become apparent throughout the Task Force effort,

defining police brutality as a general concept is deceptively
difficult, and the concept of brutality to which the respondents
of the Gallup poll are answering is no less nebulous.

Almost 25

years ago, Albert Reiss, a distinguished professor of sociology
30

at Yale University, noted that "What citizens mean by police
brutality
practice

covers
that

the

full

degrades

range

their

of

status,

police
that

practices.. . a n y
restricts

their

freedom, that annoys or harasses them or that uses physical force
that is frequently seen as unnecessary or unwarranted. n 2 5
Like the matter Òf- brutality, even defining just what p o l i c e
use of force entails in general can be quite difficult.

However,

while all would agree that brutality on the part of police
officers is conduct which should be univereally condemned, use of
force is at times both necessary and acceptable.

To evaluate use

of force, it is necessary to understand the situation within
which it is used.

Appropriateness with regard to the use of

force at all, or with respect to the degree of force employed,
can only be determined by an analysis of the conditions and facts
evident at the time it is used.

Any effort to make

such

assessments necessarily requires the availability of accurate and
current information about police use of force in general.

A

threshold barrier to accumulating such information is the very
way in which uue of force is to be operationally defined.

It

must be done in a way which allows for necessary information
about infrequent events to be accurately reported.

A t the same

time, howaver, it cannot be defined in such a way as to require
unnecessary

reporting of all physical contact between police

officers and citizens.

For example, doe8 reportable use of force

25 Rei&
A.J. (1968). Police Brutality, Answers to Big
Questions. TRANS-actioq, S ( 8 ) pp. 10-19

31

include handcuffing
procedure

in

arrestees, which

most

police

is a standard operating

or

departments,

should

the

classification of use of force be limited to incidents which
surpass

a

certain physical

threshold

and

take place

in

an

atmosphere of confrontation?
The police alone .in our society bear the responsibility to
use force when force is necessary to insure the public safety.
We expect the police to use force.
the use

of

force by

police

It is their duty.

officers

is dependent

However,
upon

an

assessment of the necessity of force given specific situations.
To insure that officers are properly trained and familiar with a

wide range of force techniques, and to be sure that they are
cognizant of those situations in which force is appropriate, a
key portion of the Police Training Commission approved basic
course for police officers is devoted to this topic.
O

The use of force unit "presents New Jersey l a w s
pertaining to the use of force as it applies to a
police officer's duties.
The trainee will be g i v e n
situations where force, including deadly force, may be
The trainee will
necessary and legally justifiable.
identify appropriate responses in each situation. The
unit al80 cover8 the consequences that might result
from the d r u s e of force.n26

The public al80 generally recognizes that use of force by
police officers ir at times necessary and acknowledges that there
are situations in which they approve of its use.
Social

Survey,

conducted

annually

by

the

The General

National

Opinion

2 6 Division of Criminal Justice, Police Training Commission
(1990). Basic Course f o r Police Officers.

32

Research C e n t e r 2 ' c o n t a i n s a series of q u e s t i o n s designed to
aa8C)ns p d 1 i - c p e r c e p t i o n of p o l i c e uac of f o r c e .

Respondents

w e r e aakcd "Are t h e r e any s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i c h you would approve

of a policeman s t r i k i n g an a d u l t , male c i t i z e n ? "

In addition,

r e ß p o n d e n t s were a sk e d i f t h e y would "approve of a policeman
s t r i k i n g a c i t i z e n u n d e r c e r t a i n circumstances."

A t t i t u d e s Toward Police Woe of Force
"Are t h e r e any situations you can a g i n e i n which you vould
a p p r o v e of a policeman s t r i k i n g an a d u l t rale c i t i z e n ? "

Not S u r e

Xlen
70%

25%

5%

w a s a t t a c k i n g an
officer with his fists

92%

6%

2%

was a t t e m p t i n g t o

74%

21%

5%

s a i d obocene t h i n g s
t o police officer

12%

84%

4%

war baing quertionod
i n a murder caro

11%

86%

3%

Would you a p p r o v e of a
polieo t r i k i n g a c i t i z e n who:

e a c a p c from c u s t o d y

Ur.

'

of forco by p o l i c e o f f i c e r 8 i8 of coune n o t necessarily

i n a p p r o p r i a t a bohavior.

A8 the rurvey nuke8 clear, hawever,

varfour rituationa uabody a strong presumption f o r o r against t h e

appropriatana88 o f polie. ure of forca.

33

U88

of f o r c e can o n l y be

judged in the context of the situation in which it is employed.
For instance-, during 1990, 5,214 person8 were arrested for

assaulting a police of ficer2*. Obviously, circumstances such as
these m y result in the need for police officers to use force
themselves.

Force is but one technique among many available to

police as they work to insure the public safety.

While most

would agree that force is not the tactic of choice when
alternatives can be safely utilized, ita ure nonetheless is of
paramount concern to law enforcement and the public in general.
In an effort to obtain information relating specifically to use
of force in New Jersey, the Taok Force designed and administered
a survey to develop bareìine information which would arsiet in
our understanding of the nature of this complex irrue in our
state
i

.
POLICB/CITIZEM CONTACT MID USB OP POR-

smvm

Puroose
As would be expected, the Tark Force initially sought

information about use of force by law enforcement officer8 in N e w
JeIley from existing, routinely collected data.

It was

immediately evident that existing information, ruch as criminal
indictnnt8 alloging u80 of exceriive force, would provide
information portaining to but one small segment of the general
28

Data were extractad from the Computerized CriPPinal
ñirtory data bar. and include the numbor of u r r r t incidents
involving a Charge of 2C:12-16(5)(a) which rtatar that a person
ir guilty of aggravated arrault if he c o d t r a rfmpla arrault
upon "any law-8nforcement officer acting in t h 8 performance of
hi8 dutirr while i n uniform or exhibiting evidonce of hir
authority."
34

issu8 of police use of force.
t

Further, existing data was of

little value in aiding o u r understanding of the context within
which force occurs in this state.
As a

result of limitations of these existing data, the Task

Force developed a survey instrument designed to collect general
use of force data for,a three year period of time: 1988, 1989 and
The survey consirted of four very baric items:

1990.

total
total
total
total

number
number
number
number

of
of
of
of

calls for service;
incidents in which force was used;
use of force complaints; and
firearmr dircharqer.

The survey war mailed to 543 law enforcement agencies in New
Jerrey.

These agencies include municipal police departmentr,

sheriff's offices, college police, county police, park police and
other law enforcement agencies ruch ar the Division of State
Police, Port Authority and Palisades Park police.

A total of 502

police department8 responded to the r u m m y resulting in a
rerponre rate of 92%.

Rerpondentr conrirted of 502 law enforcement agenciei.
Collactivoly, thoro agoncier include 95% of the rworn police

officozr ia Hew Jorray and ara rerponribh for providing police
a o ~ i c o rt o 95% of thir rtate'r population.

Ia ordor to acknawldgo tho fact that tho nature of policing
difforr ar a function of tho characterirticr of tho area and
population baing policd, rurvey rorulto
35

U.
grouped

by the

characteristics of the employing municipality or as nonf
\

municipal police agencies.

These categories closely resemble

those contained i n Unifofin Crime ReDorts: State of New Jersev
1990

which are described as follow:
Urban 100+

-.

Urban police departments with 100 or
more police officers located in or near
densely populated areas with extensive
development

Urban < 100

Urban police departments located in or
near to densely populated areas with
lese than 100 officers

Suburban

Suburban police departments located in
predominately residential areas without
regard to the number of police officers

Rural

Rural police dopartment. located in
relatively rmrrll communities without
regard to the numbor of police officers

Non-Municipal

Sheriff, county, colloge, state
(including the New Jersey State Police),
and other law enforcamant agencies t h a t
do not have primary municipal law
enforcement jurisdiction

Calls f or Service
In general, the majority of law enforcement agencie8 were
able to provide data regarding the numbor o f calls for senrice
handlmd by thoir dopartment on an annual basis. 29

It muat be

anphamizd, ~OY.VOZ, that not all doputmant8 included all
activiti.8

in thoir annual totals.

29

S o w departwntr include s e l f

Polic. dopartnnnts - t o k t t o r able to provide recent
infomation requested in the survoy than thoy were information
for prOviou8 y o u r . For oxample, 45 ( 9 . 0 a ) rerponding
doprrtni.nt8 were unablo to provido tho n u b a r of 1990 calls f o r
80wice a8 comparad t o t h e 89 (17.7%) doputni.nt8 unable to
provide 1988 data.
36

initiated activities as calls for service.

For exrnplc, every

time an officer stops a car and issues a motor vehicle summons,
some departments include that as a call for service.

Others,

however, include only those activities f o r which an officer was
dispatched in response to a third party request.

While the types

of calls included in'these totals are not consistent from

department to department, and thus under-report the total number
of police/citizen encounters on an annual basis, they do
accurately measure operationalized calla for service as defined
by individual departments at this time.

What ia made clear is

the absence of a consistent definition, among departments, of
those units of police activities and citizen contacts which
should be routinely recorded within individual agencies.

The

following table contains information regarding calls f o r service
as reported by survey respondents.

37

CALLS FOR SBRVICB

199io
DeDartment
Avtrcrsc

Remonse Total

Urban 100 +
Urban < 100
Suburban
Rural
Non-Municipal

.*

2,923,165
I, 187 399
2,586,275
5 2 1 544

224
82

,

uxua

'50
502

8,666,934

ResDonse TotaL

Urban 100 +
Urban < 100
Suburban
Rural
Non-Municipal

27
119
224
82

Total

DcDartment

s for ~ervice3O

27
119

Total

DeBartment

u

Total

Calla for #.mice,

for servicc

17,264 8

Averaae

A!

2,983,976
1,180,688
2, SOS, 4 9 0
491,611

Jl&u&u

110,517.6
9,921.7
11 9 189 2
5,995.3
28.666.7

so2

8,595,103

17,121.7

RerDonre Total

Urban 100 +
Urban < 100
Suburban
Rural
Non-Municipal

8

108,265.4
9,978.1
11,545.9
6,630.3
28,651. O

27

Call I f o r Service

224
02

2,923,145
1,151,917
2,453,145
463,947

1p

r,393.610

502

8,303,764

119

Averaae
108,264.6
9,679.9
10,951.5
5,657.9
27,872.2
16,704.7

more precirely dofined ar "police

activity incidoatr," a r o conriderad tho best available mearure of
Caîlr for 8ervic8 were artbated for tho88 rccrponding
departmont8 unablo to provide therm data, The a r t h a t a r were
bared on calla for r e m i c e , agency clarrificationa and number of
police officers and account for only 5 , 7 8 of the total 1990 calls
for 8 . N l C 8 .
38

the volume of police/citizen contacts.

Although specific

activities which constitute a Call for ServiCe are not consistent
from department to department, calls for service nonetheless

provide a useful basis for assessing the rate of use of force
incidents as a proportion of police/citizen contacts.
'

The number of calls for service has remained
relatively stable over the three years for
which data were collected.
When these agencies are grouped by category, the
average number of calls for service in 1990 range
from 6,630 in rural police department8 to 108,265
in urban police department8 employing 100 or more
off icerr

.

'

Almost half of all calls for service (47.6%) are
handled by urban police departments.

Use of Force Incidents
The Task Force generally agrees that data regarding use of
force incidents are not complete and are of only marginal

utility.

Specifically, only about half (54.6%) of responding

departments provided any information in response to this item.
In addition, the data fluctuates rather extremely within

similarly grouped departments suggesting that a use of force
incident ir not defined, reported or collected in anything even
approaching a standardized manner by responding departments.
Derpite the rhortcodngr of the data, it has been included in the
report.

ure thea.

Hwever, caution niurt be exercised when attempting to
data to m k e m y generaliz~tionrregarding use of force

ar a rtrategy or tactic q l o y e d by police agencies or individual

law enforcemint officrrr in this state.
39

INCIDENTS

USB OF FOR-

1990
DeDartment
Urban 100 +
Urban
100
Suburban
Rural
Non-Municipal
Total

Responding
DeDartments

U s e of Force

5

43

. 105
” 44

Jncident s

Averaae

2,116

423.2

4,207

97.8
31.1
7.7
41.8

3,264
339

-

II

u25

228

11,222

49.2

Uoe of Force
Inc idents

Averaae

1989

DeDartment
Urban 100 +
Urban < 100
Suburban
Rural
Non-Municipal
Total

D8Daflm cnt

Urban 100 +
Urban
100
Suburban
Rural
Non-Municipal
Tokl

Responding
DeDartments
5

2,018

38

4 ,350

100

2,863

403.6
114.5
28.6

43

314

A

1_,699

217

10,930

50.4

Responding
D e D a m e n tQ

Uoe of Force
Incidents

Aver aae

4

1,872
3,534

35

88
38

7.3
54.0

2,680

468.0
101.0
30.5

251

6.6

2

1,299

50.0

19 1

9,636

50.5

On average, incidont8 of u80 of forco have
ranmined abort conrtant ov8r tho three years
for which data wore col1.ct.d.

ha8 b o n notod in rorponrer to previously
reportd survey itomr, u r b m poiico
departmont8 um. force moro frequently than
any other categorized group.

A.

40

0

Urban police departments with 100 or more sworn
officers, use force more than four times as often
as-urban police departments with less than 100
officers and about ten times as often as nonmunicipal law enforcement agencies.

Excessive Use of Folrce
As

with the preceding item, the Task Force is not as

confident in the responses to this survey item as it is in survey
information regarding calls for service and firearms discharges.
As was true for calls for service, albeit to a lesser degree,

there is not universal agreement as to just what constitutes a
reportable complaint of excessive force.

For example, some

departments reported only thoae complaints for which formal
charges were filed, while others reported all much reports filed
by citizens regardless of disposition.

In addition, fewer

departments were able to respond to this item than calls for
service.

Specifically, 15.5% of rerponding departments were

unable to respond to this survey item.

The absence once again of

a consistently accepted definition of excerrive force complaints

makes detailed analysis of these data quite difficult.

Differing

rates among departments could be either a reflection of the
extent of thir problem in an individual agency or could simply be

a function of varying reporting or record keeping procedures.

41

BXCESSfvB USB OF

FORCE

1990

DeDartment
Urban 100 +
Urban < 100
Suburban
Rural
Non-Municipal
Total

DeDartment
Urban 100 +
Urban < 100
Suburban
Rural
Non-Municipal
Total
\

Responding
DeDartments

.,

Force ComDlaints

Ave ra se

19
102
185
73

562
123
134
60

45

189

0.8
4.2

424

1,068

2.5

Responding
Departments

Force ComDlaints

18
99
179
70

513

91

244

30.0
1.2
0.7

Averaue

29.0
1.3
0.6

131
101
35

-

0.5

5.4
2.5

1,024

411

1988
-

Renponding

PeDartmcnt
Urban 100 +
Urban < 1 0 0
Suburban
Rural
Non-Municipal

Tokl

17
92
171
66

Force ComDla ints
472

Averaue

22

28.0
1.1
0.5
0.3

9p

122

2.9

390

801

2.1

101
79

ûverall, compïaintr of excerrive ure of force
have changed little over the three years for
which data were collected.
Complaintr of excerrive use of force have
increrred proportionately more among nonmunicipal law enforcement agenciar than
municipal police departmentr.
42

Excessive use of force complaints, as
operationalized by responding police departments
occur infrequently.
During 1990, more than one of every two (52.6%)
allegations of police use of excessive force are
made against the largest municipal police
departments in New Jersey.
In urban 100+ police departments, excessive
use of force complaints ranged from 2 to 87
during calendar year 1990.
Firearms Discharue Activitv
Of a l l the survey data collected, the Task Force considers
information pertaining to firearms dircharges to be the most
valid and reliable.

More than 9 2 8 of responding departments were

able to provide these data.

Furthermore, there is little

confusion as to what constitutes the discharge of a weapon.

The

survey instrument defined a firearm8 discharge as any non-

training firearm discharge incident by law enforcement personnel,
including on and off
not there was an injury.

accidental or intentional, whether or
The chart which foìiows includes the

total number of firearma discharge incidents reported for a three
year period of time.

I

.

43

FIREARXS DISCHARGE ACTIVITY
1990

7

DeDartmen t
Urban 100 +
Urban < 100
Suburban
Rural
Non-Municipal
Total

Responding
DeDartments

Firearms Discharge
Jncidents

21
112

104

24
16
4

208

Averaae
5.0
0.2

o. 1

73
47

-

-ie

0.4
-

460

167

0.4

0.1

3989
Denartment
Urban 100 +
Urban < 100
Suburban
Rural
Non-Municipal
Total

Responding
DeDartments

Firearms Discharge
Jncidents
Averaae
92
21
26
4

20

110
203

73

Total
La88

0.1
0.1
0.7

A

11

-

457

174

0.4

Responding

Firearms Discharge
Incidents

Avcraue

l&suawm
Urban 100 +
Urban
100Suburban
Rural
Non-Municipal

4.6
0.2

19
109
193

103
12

5.4

2s

0.1

0.1

*

67

2

A

22

0.5
-

433

164

0.4

than .1
The overall firearm dircharge rat8 has
remained conrtant over the three years f o r

which data were collected.
44

o

c
o

On average, each police department in New Jersey
discharged a weapon less than once during 1990.
In fact, there was only about one firearm
discharge for every-three departments in New
Jersey.
More specifically, only urban 100+ police
departments discharged weapons frequently enough
to be meaningfully measured on an annual basis.
Each urban'100+ police department discharged a
weapon on approximately 5 occasions in 1 9 9 0 . In
fact, these departments are rerponeible for almost
two of every three (62%) firearm8 discharge
incidents in New Jersey during 1990.

o

Of the 21 urban departments with 100 or more
sworn officers, the number of firearms
discharges in 1990 ranged from O to 48.

The survey conducted last spring by the New Jersey Task
Force on the Use of Force yielded results very similar to those
found in 1987 in New York.
The New York Commisrion on Criminal Justice and the Use of

Force contracted with Dr, Elizabeth Croft, School of triminai
Justice at the Rochester Institute of Technology, to study "the
frequency and nature of lass than deadly force."

This study

included 1,762 incidents of use of force by police officers in
Syracuse and Rocherter during 1984 and 1985.31

From these data,

Dr. Croft concluded:
e

Police use of force is infrequent, occurring
in approximately five percent o f arrest8 and
in less that one-tenth of on. parcent of all
polfce/cititen contacts

.

31 Naw York Stat. Commirrion on Criminal Justice and the
Use of Porce (1987). peDort to the Governa. 'Albany, New York.

Of the 1,762 use of force incidents examined
in this study, five involved police officers
shooting at persons.
The type of force most commonly used was
physical restraint, that is, pushing,

grappling or wrestling with an unruly
citizen, as opposed to beating with fists or
striking with nightsticka.
The New York data were collected from just those two
departments, Syracuse and Rochester, which require officers to
report all use of force incidents. To provide for some
comparisons with the New York data, data from New Jersey is
limited to just those departments providing 1990 data for all
items of interest; calls for service,
excessive forcei2

u88

of force and use of

By collecting both general and exceasive

force information, the Task force sought to distinguish those
i

incidents in which sllegationr exist that police officers used
force beyond that which was appropriate and necessary.
In New Jersey, police use force infrequently.
It is estimated that during 1990, New Jersey
law enforcement officers used force in about
one-half of on8 percent of reported calla for
service.
The data collected by the Task Force suggest that use of
force by police officers does occur and that even police officers
themmaltnr ackaowldge that at timas this use of force may be

32 In ord8r to draw coinparison8 betwe8n the s u ~ e y s ,only
those New J8rs.y
daprrtwntr providing responses to all three
items; Call8 for 8 a ~ i c 8 ,use of force and u18 of excessive force
for 1990 are^ included in this particular analysirr. It should be
noted that these 198 agamies can not necessarily be considered
reprarentativa of all law enforcament agencies in New Jersey.
N8W York's use of force srmple ir also not random.
46

excesrive.
i-

t

Although accurate quantification of the actual m o u n t

of excessive force incidents is not possible with available d a t a ,
the Taik Force nonetheless believes that use of force occurs
infrequently when compared to the total number of police/citizen
contacts.

It further believes, however, that the quality of the

data pertaining to

Uge

of force must be improved if definitive

conclusions are to be made.
RBCO)O(LWDATIONS

I.

All law enforcement officer8 mhould be required t o
report, and all lav enforcement agencies should be
required t o c o l l e c t information about incidents
involving use of force.

After designing and mailing a survey questionnaire to every
police department in the state requesting information pertaining
to calls for service, use of physical force, complaints of
excerrive force and fireanns discharge incidents, the Task Force
was imprerred with the willingness of police departments to
provide this information.

The suwey, however, made the Task

Force aware of both the abrence of a standard definition for
these activitier and a rtandard mechanirm for the reporting and
collection o f thir vital information by law enforcement agencies
in N w &tray.

II.

A rkndud oprational dafinitfoa of ura of

forca rhould k developad which Fncludas
threrhold. bayoad vhich bidant. of force
m r t k r8port.d by police o f f i c u r .

Undorrtanding that use of forca ir dafined differently from
departmant to department, the Task Porco r@comendr that a
47

standard definition of what constitutes use of force for
reporting purposes be developed.

The Task Force is also aware

that use of force encompasses a broad range of police activities,

from handcuffing arrastees in compliance with departmental

standard operating procedures to discharging a weapon.

The Task

Force believes that-a threshold barrier for reporting purposes is
!

necessary to permit the reporting of necaruary information about
infrequent events without burdening police officers with a
requirement to report all incidenta of phyaical contact with
civilians.
111.

infomation pertaining to caqplaintr of
excesrive force raceiveci by l a w enforcement
agencie8 as dercribeâ
the .Internal
A f f h s Police and Proc
asa chapter of t h e
pollice Wanaoemnt Ihnoa
be uiatrineci at
the law enforcement agency.

p

While the Task force underrtandr that police use of force is

an acceptable and at timer necerrary tactic during confrontations
with citizens, it does acknowledge that there tactics are
sometimes used unnecessarily.

IV*

Tha Tark Porco baliev88 that roporthg and collecting
information pertaining to u m of fore8 at th8 department level is

33

“Internai Affair# Policy and Procedur8, a Police
Management Manual, Chapter 5 , 1991.
48

but a first step.

This information should be provided to the

county prosecutor as well as being utilized at the department
level.

The county prosecutor is already required by statute to

submit an annual report to the Attorney General.

The c o u n t y

prosecutor should include in this annual report a summary of use
of force incidents

~ r a
l

countywide basis.

Although firearms discharges are to a large extent i n c l u d e d
within the broad spectrum of use of force, The Task Force
believes that deadly force is of much importance that it should
be included as a separate item for external reporting purposes.
V.

c d t t w of criminal justice profeasionals
should be appointed to: identify specific
itof information to be collected by every
law enforcement agency in blew Jarsay,
operationally define those itvhich must
be reported, design i a t h d i to assist l a w
enforcsiant agencies to collect this
information and develop statwide guidelines
for the utilization of infoxmation collected
h t h within the individual police department
and by the county proitmator.

A

The Ta8k Force strongly believes that information about use
of force is of paramount importance to law enforcement agencies
themselves.

The Task Force suggests that agency use of these

data will permit early identification of police officers who
might ba adsusing force and thus require intervention such as
remedial training, counseling or disciplinary action.

In

addition, tho Tark Force believe8 that these data might also be
used to identify citizens who file a disproportionate number of
unfounded oxcorsivo use of force complaintr.

49

The Task Force is aware that t h e initial barrier to
obtaining valid and reliable information about use of force in
New Jersey is a l a c k of standardized definitions, r e p o r t i n g

procedures and data collection methodrr.

The Task Force believes

it would be quite useful t o develop a precise definition of
police service unitsqw well as operational descriptions of other
force activities.

The Task Force has taken note of the

definition of force utilized by the Lor Angeles Police Department
for reporting purposes and believes it can serve as a useful
starting point for this committee.

"The Los Angeles Police

Department guidelines regarding use of force identifies five
levels of force; (1) verbalization; (2) firm grip; ( 3 ) compliance
holds; (4) interamdiate force, including the use of the baton,
kicks, swarm, chemical spray, saps and taser; and ( 5 ) deadly
i

force, including tha modified carotid hold and firearms. 34
I*

use of force report must be completed whenever an W

"A

D officer

uses force greater than "firm grip" compliance.35

34 Chrirtopher, W:, Argueller J.A.r et al. (1991). R e D o r t
of t h e IndeBendent Com~~usrron
on t h e 7108 Anaeles Police

-nt,

p.. 26.
35

Jbi4. at p.

36.

so

CHAPTER TWO

i

S U C T I O N AND W N I N G OP POLICE OFFICERS

In addressing issues related to the selection and training
of law enforcement officers, the Attorney General's Task F o r c e on

the Use of Force in Law Enforcement examined the following:
The selectidn and screening process for law enforcement
officers;

0

Basic and in-service law enforcement training; and
internal affairs officer training.

Existing New Jersey law, the laws of other states, and sumeys,
reports and recommendations of variou8 law enforcement
organizations were reviewed and analyzed to determine what
changes, if any, should be recommended to improve law enforcement
in New Jersey.
The key factor in the delivery of police services is the
individual police officer.

A police officer is vested with

conmiderable discretion in performing the many duties he or she
Unlik8 many other

m y be called upon to undertake.

proferrionalr, the police officer ir expected to become involved
in potentially confrontational rituationr and move them toward
rerolution.

In performing there varied duties and resolving

confrontationr, the police officer ir authorized to use force
when nacerrary.

G i V m the importance of such authority, the use

of prychological screening of police officers war examined as
well ar the training provided in the area of ure of force.
Police proferrionalism and community confidence in police are
51

enhanced if there are assurances that police officers are
apptopriateiy screened and selected.

Noting the importance of

the internal affairs process, the Task Force reviewed the

detailed guidelines , "Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures ,lt36
issued by the Attorney General this past s u m e r and considered
the need for training\officers assigned to such a sensitive
position.
Ar

a result of these efforts, the Task Force is issuing

recommendations in each of the areas considered.

In general,

t h e s e recommendations pertain to:
e

Psychological screening for police applicanta;

e

Psychological testing to determine an officer's
continued fitnerr for duty;

e

Basic training for law enforcement officers;

o

Mandatory in-service training for law enforcement
officers; and

o

Selection and training policy for internal affairs
off icers.

Psvcholo~icalscrernins

In order to accomplirh their duties, including mârntaining

public ordor, providing copnnunity protection, and effecting

U.

arr8rt8, police officers are authorized to use force.

polica officer8
dut'i.8,

While

entrusted to use force in performing their

rafeguarda are necessary to eniuro th8 proper utilization

of forc..
"Internal Affairs Policy and Procedur8s I

Management Manual, Chapter 5 .
52

Police

State law establishes minimum qualifications and criteria

f o r the appointment of police officers.
40A:14-122,

Pursuant to N.J.S.A.

a person can be appointed as a police officer only if

that person is:
O

a citizen of the United States;

sound in body and of good health sufficient to satisfy
the board of trustees of the police and firemen's
retirement rystem of New Jer8ey a8 to eligibility for
membership in the retirement system;
able to read, write and speak the English language well
and intelligently; and
O

of good moral character, and ha8 not been convicted of

any criminal offense involving moral turpitude.

Other than these very basic requirementr, there is no uniform
criteria f o r screening and selecting police officers in New

Jersey.
-i

Additionally, there is no u n i f o d t y in employment

criteria for the various classifications of law enforcement
officers, such as regular officers and special officers, because
the enabling statutes were enacted at different times.
Currently there is no statutory requirement that police
candidates undergo prychological terting before appointment as
police officer6 in New Jer8ey.

Some municipalities, however,

have individually ertablirhed requirements for such screening of
polico officer candidates.

While no rtatutory requirement e x i s t s

for prychological rcreening of regular, full-time police
officerr, B o J . S I A L 4OA:l4-146.10b(6)

doar raquire that Special

Law Enforcement Officer8 muat undergo the

8-

prychological

terting that i r roquired of all ragular police officers in the
municipality in which they are appointed.
53

Special officers hired

for a seasonal period by a resort municipality which requires

i-

psychological testing of its regular police officers are required
by statute to undergo a psychological testing program approved by
the Police Training Commission.

In order to examine state requirements for psychological
testing of police offiicers, the National Association of Directors
of Law Enforcement Standards and Training conducted a national
survey in 1986.

As a result of that survey, 16 states were

identified as having requirements for a psychological examination
of police candidates prior to appointment as police officers.

Fifteen of those 16 states originally identified responded to a
Division of Criminal Justice survey conducted in 1991 to
determine by what means or authority the prychological
examination is required.

In addition, another state was

identified as having a prychological exadnation requirement.

Overall, the Division of Criminal Justice survey revealed that:
Eight states require prychological examinations through
state law;
Five rtates require psychological examinations through
regulations issued by the state's police standards
agency or conmisrion; and
Three states, through 88lf-bpOred agency standards,
hava
atatewide practice of requiring psychological
examinations.

According to the results of another study partaining to
psychological screoning, more than 50 por cant of the major
police agencies, ( L e . agencies serving a city with a population
over 100,000)-in the United States have a psychological screening

process. 37
Several major law enforcement organizations recommend
psychological testing before a person is appointed a probationary
police officer.

The Commission of Accreditation for Law

Enforcement Agencies, Inc., and its four major law enforcement
executive membership.aesociations, the International Association
of Chiefs of Police, the National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives, the National Sheriffs' Association, and
the Police Executive Research Forum, issued a mandatory standard
for all police agencies on psychological testing.

Standard

of the Commission's voluntary accreditation program

32.6.6

directs that:
An emotional stability and prychological fitness

examination of each candidate be conducted, prior to
appointment to probationary rtatus, using valid, useful
and nondiscriminatory procedures.
C o m e n t a m : Law enforcement work is highly stressful
and placer o€ficers in positionr and situations of
heavy responsibility. Psychiatric and psychological
asresrments are needed to screen out candidates who
might not be able to carry out their responsibilities
or endure the rtrerr of the working conditionsO3*
The International Amrodation of Director6 of Law
Enforcement Standards and Training (UDLEST), an association
conaimtfng of directorr of the statawide POST (Police Officer

37

Bennett, L.A. (1990). The Untapped Potential of
Psychological Arseismentr, The Police Chief M a u I p* 231,
(February 1990).
38 S t a n m d r for
w Enforcement AuU)ciag I Commission of
Accreditation for L a w &nforcemcrrnt Agenciar, Inc., ( 1 9 8 8 ) ,
p. 32-8

Standards and Training) agencies, al80 reconanends psychological
screening in its Model National Training Guidelines.

In its

commentary for this recommended standard, IADLEST noted:
psychological assessment is necessary to screen out
candidates who may not be able to carry out their l a w
enforcement responsibilities or endure the uniquely
stressful yorking conditions or who lack the necessary
emotional stability 39

A

Based on these findings, the Tark Force recommends that
legislation be proposed mandating p8ychological examination of a
candidate before appointment as a police officer.

The

legislation should designate the Police Training Commission (PTC)
as the agency to establish standard8 for such testing. Moreover,
to ensure that psychological testing achieves its desired
purpose, the Tark Force believes that rtandards should be
established that are conrirtent with the accepted standards of
the American Psychological Armciation.
While the Tark Force believer prycho~ogicaltesting should
be utilized by police department8 in attempting to employ only

those persons who are able to meet the demands of this
profersion, such testing rhould not be ured a8 a device to
-

excluda applicant8 becauro of cultural diV.rrity,
gender.

race, or

A prychological recommendation rhould not be the s o l e

banir for a hire or no hire decision.

Rather, a recommendation

b a m d on pmychological tasting rhould be only one criteria among

other r a h c t i o n critaria.
3g

National Amrociation of Diractors of L a w Enforcement
Standard8 and Training, Draft of Modal National Training
Guidelines.
56

In addition to psychological screening f o r employment of
police officers prior to appointment, the Task Force considered
psychological fitness-for-duty testing among veteran police
officers, with cause or reason.

Psychological testing for

fitness-for-duty is to determine whether the individual officer
remains qualified to,be a police officer.

Generally, if an

officer's behavior poses a r i a k of danger either to the officer
or others, there could be sufficient cause or reason for such
testing.

Procedures to specify when testing takea place would be

necesaary. 4 0
Psychological testing would aid in identifying potential
problems and determining appropriate courses of action.

However,

policies and procedures must be in place not only to specify when
testing ehould take place, but also to ensure that test results
are appropriately utilized.

Caution must be exercised to ensure

that police officers are not arbitrarily or unfairly subjected to
psychological testing procedures.

There guideline8 would provide

direction concerning the action to be taken ar a result of the
psychological terting.

Appropriate actions could range from a

raconmi.ndation for counseling to a recommendatfon for a new
asrigawat or aven dismissal.

Tho noad for psychological testing to assess an officer's

o

Factor8 indicating a need for fitness-f or-duty
psychological testing would inchada, but not necessarily be
limited to, m g or alcohol .bulle, obvious emotional disturbance,
violence or throats of violence, abur8 of authority, or a
dirproportionately high number of citizen complaint8 against an
off icer

.

57

ability to appropriately perform assigned duties is illustrated
by two court decisions.

In Bonsiunore v. Citv of New York41, New

York City was found liable f o r a shooting by a police officer who

was mentally disturbed.

On December 20, 1976, an off-duty police

officer shot his wife with his off-duty revolver which he was
required to carry 24 hours a day. The Second Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld a jury verdict of $425,000 against the city on the
ground that the city was negligent by failing to adopt adequate
mechanisms for detecting officers who are mentally or emotionally
unfit to carry firearms.

In the 23 years Bonrignore was on the

police force, he was never given a psychological examination. In
Hild

V.

Bruner,12 the New Jersey municipalities of Andover and

Newton were found liable for a total of S40,OOO in connection
with a civil rights action brought against the two municipalities

and three named police officers. The lawsuit charged that the
officers had falsely arrested two people who were injured as a
result of a struggle and the arrests.

The court noted in its

decision that tho jury reasonably could have inferred that the
failure of the town of Nowton, N.J.,

"to conduct roma kind of

psychological tart8 of its police officer#, at h a r t after 1975
(when according to expert testimony, such teating became widely

accepted), constituted gross negligence."
againrt Andover, N.J.t

Concerning the verdict

t h 8 court said that municipal officials

-ore
v. Cftv of New York 921 P.SUDL 394, 396,
398 (S.D. N.Y. 1981), .ff'd, 6 8 3 &2d 635 (2d Cir. 1982).
41

4 2 U d v. 8( D . N . J . 1980).

496 SUD^ a t 99 (citations omitted)
58

knew that the named police officer had "aggresaive tendenciesiiin
the past.

Moreover, based on testimony that the Andover p o l i c e

commissioner did not know whether police officers underwent
psychological testing, the jury reasonably could have inferred
that these facts indicated gross negligence on the part of
Andover
Recognizing the significance and importance of a police
officer's ability to respond appropriately to the various
situations which may arise in police work, the Task Force
recommends that police departments develop and implement a policy
concerning psychological testing of regular police officers.
This policy should be clear as to when psychological testing of
veteran officers is warranted.

The Task Force further recommends

that the Division of Criminal Justice bring together law
enforcement representatives and experts as needed to develop a

model policy for the usa of in-service psychological testing.
RBC-TIONS

VI.

VII.

ïagislation should be proposai mandathg psychological
exmination of a canâidate before appointment am a
policm o f f i c u . Th8 lagislation should designate the
Police Trriniag C d i m i o n (E)
as the agency to
88tablirh atrnAlrds for such t8stbg.
Polico dapartmnts should k encouraged to develop and
iæplaisnt policy concerning psychological testing of
rrgillu police officerr. The departmental policy
rhottld k clear as to when pmychological testing of
V 0 t m r . n offfcu8 is w u r r n t d . ?ho Division o f
C r i d a a l Jurtice should bring together a body of
cup.-.
to d m l o p a rod81 pOliCy for th. \II. O f hservice p.ychologica1 testing.

59

Use of Force Traininq
The various'types of training for law enforcement officers
within the state were considered by the Task Force.

Of

particular concern was that training provided in the area of use
of force.

Both basic and in-service training for police officers

were reviewed.
In reviewing basic training for poiice officers in New

Jersey, the Task Force found that, in 1985, the state adopted t h e
Performance Objectives System of Training (POST) for the

compulsory Basic Courre for Police Officers.

The POST program

relata8 apccific training iesrons to activitiar and tarrkr
performed in t h e field by police officers to ensure the relevance
and appropriatenesa of police recruit training.

The Baric Course

for Police Officers includes the following subject8 relating to
the uae of force:

police community relations, patrol concepts and agency

training,
training

unarmed defense, baton training, firearms

.

In 1985, along with introducing th8 Performance Objective
Syrtem of Training, tho u80 of forco curriculum war raviaed and

specific porforiarince obj.ctivo8 w8r8 ortablirhad to comply with

tha U.S.

Suprona Court doci8ion in T.nn88rae v. G B U ~ P I ; 4. 3

curriculum

w
.
8

The

ia turn, adopted for u r d in all police academies

rtatowído ia conjunction with tho Attormy Genara1 Directive on
the of Force.

v. GQIILPE

43

L.Ed.2d

4 7 1 U.S. 1, 105 $ * C t * 1 6 9 4 , 85

1 (1985).
60

r;

In 1989, the use of force curriculum again underwent a major

--

revision pröcess.

T h e revised curriculum, approved for use

beginning March 1990, provides not only current, relevant
performance objectives, but also a comprehensive guide for t h e
academy instructor on the instruction and application of t h e
of force laws.

The&

use

instructional units provide clear teaching

concepts to explain the laws, rather than just reiterate them.
Also,

sbulated situations, often based on actual court cases or

real life examples, were incorporated to aid the trainee in
understanding the concepts taught.

In general, curriculum

revisions were made to reflect current training techniques on use
of force, to examine the legal justifications of force as
rtatutorily required in Y.J.S.A.

2C:3-1 pt sea. and leading court

decisions on the use of force, and to introduce the trainee to
practical conriderationr in determining the appropriate options
to be ured in an encounter, with emphasis on the use of verbal
persuasion ar an effective option and a useful method for the
de-ercalation of force.

Some specific features of the curriculum

follow.
Concept of Rearonablenerr. In t h i s segment, the
definition of reasonable force is dircursed, along with
tho critaria for determining reasonable force.
trc~ïationof Force. This regment covers the four
levelr of force (conrtructive or verbal, phyrical,
mehanical and deadly force), ar wall as the Mportance
of attmpting lower levelr of forca to de-escalate the
n o d for A higher level of force. The usa of
conrtructive or verbal force is emphasized as an often
effective law onforcement rtrategy, as well ar the
option to attampt contaimant until backup officer6 can
be rumonad.
61

(--

Force to Effect an Arrest. The use of verbal f o r c e
again i,s stressed as an effective levei of force. The
training curriculum makes it clear that an officer
should develop a range of strategies for use, as
conditions warrant, in matters where resistance is
encountered.
Deadly Force. Because of the serious consequences
involved with this level of force, this training
segment was designed to present a clear concept of when
deadly foxtie would be justified. The officer is taught
to considck less drastic alternatives when there is no
immediate need to use deadly force.
Use of Force Liability. A segment on liability is
incorporated to emphasize the consequencer of the
misuse of force, while also making it clear that an
officer will have a qualified immunity if the force
used is reasonable.

Based on its review of ba8ic training, the Task Force found
that police officers are adequately trainad in the Basic Course
for Police Officers in the use of verbal techniques, various
i t e m of defensive equipment, such as the uae of the baton, and
i

physical defensive tactics.

Horeover, firearm8 training and

requalification are adequately addressed through the Baric Course
requirements and s d - a n n u a l requalification requirements iseued
pursuant to t h o Attorney k n e r a l Directiv8.

Poriodic reviaions

made to the uae of forco curricula rclflect refinements in the law
or in officer rtrateqier and techniquas.

While t h i s Ta8k Force

ir a w u a that curricula revirions are again underway to further
strerr tho u18 o f conrtructive force and t o incorporate more

verbal conmmication a8 a means of de-ercaïating a hortiia
rituation, the Tark Force nonethelos8 r8c-ndr
efforts to *rove

that there

ure o f force training continue in the future.

While New Jerrey does have statutory provisions requiring
62

basic training f o r police officers, currently, there is n o New
Jersey statute requiring that a police officer receive i n - s e n i c e
training.

While some police departments in the state require in-

service training, many do not.

Bergen County is one county that

does require in-service training for ali police officers.

For

several years, that county has required that police officers
complete 16 hour8 of in-rcrvice training annually.

Statewide,

the only required in-service training is for radar operations and
firearms requalification.
required in N.J.S.A.

While annual firearms training is

2C:39-6y,

an Attorney General Directive

mandating semi-annual requalification augments the statutory
requirement.

The prescribed program established pursuant to

Attorney General Directive consists of handgun requalification
twice annually, under daylight conditions and night-firing
conditions for handguns issued or authorized for use both on and
off duty.

The program also prescriba8 qualification requirements

pertaining to shotguns, automatic weapons and 8d-automatic
weapons for thore officers who are or might be required to carry
an agency issued shotgun or an automatic or semi-automatic weapon

in the course of their duties.

The required qualification

program aïs0 incltados guidelines for classroom instruction and
training. Thir training, to be conducted twice annually, is to

conrirt of inatruction in tha ure of force and an update of all
reluvant policiar (atata, county and agency policier), rtatutes,
and court deCi8iOn8.. Tho program alro raquirer law enforcement

agencies to review remi-annually a l l of ita firaarma policie8 as
63

they pertain to warning shots; moving vehicles; removal of
firearm fro& holster Or display of firearm; surrender of fiream;
disposal of animals; Carrying of Weapons, on and off duty;
consumption of alcohol; use of prescription drugs; and covert
operations.

To determine the status of in-service training nationwide,
the New Jersey Law Enforcement Study C o ~ s s i o nconducted a
survey of all 50 states.

Survey results indicate that 26 of 50

states legislatively mandate in-service training, exclusive of
firearms re-qualification or other skill-oriented certification,
such ar radar or CPR, for police officerr.

The amount and type

of training varied from state to state. The mínimum number of
hours required for thir training ranged from 8 to 40 hours
annually.

In addition to the 26 stator with mandatory in-service

training programa, at loart nine other states have instituted
voluntary in-service training programs.

The curriculum content

for there courrer, whether mandatory or voluntary, is generally
optional or flexible.

The rtato agency rosponaible for

doveloping and adainistering polico standards ir generally
rasponsibla for: davdoping and approving i n = r e ~ i c etraining

progruu within th8 8t8t.0
I(.ruam i s an example of ono of tho80 stater surveyed that

ha8 a mtatutorily mandatory in-roritice training requirement.

in

satisfying tho roquirod 40 hour8 o f in-somice training, no more
than 16 hour8 of training can be dovotod to firearms training.

Whil8 nfrrirrippi ha8 no itate in-iervice training rnandate, t h e
64

state's Police Officer Standards and Training Agency is
cornencinq a-voluntary in-service training program to address the
continuing professional development of law enforcement officers.
This 40-hour annual program will be phased in over the next five
years.
Through its Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies program,
the Commission of Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies,
ïnc. and its member organizations, including the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Organization of
Black Law Enforcement Executivea, the National Sheriffs'
A8sociation, and the Police Executive Research Forum, recommends
mandatory in-service training. 44

The International Aesociation

of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST),
in its Model National Training Guidelines, has issued a similar
recommendation.

In general, these organizations recommend

mandated annual retraining which covers firearms requalification,
agency policy on the use of force, and the use of deadly force.
The nead for continued firearma traiaiag to avoid civil

liability for a violation of a parson's constitutional rights was
highlighted by the U.S.

Supreme Court in w o n v. Barr i S. 45

The

Court r a i d that wh8re city policy maker# "know to a moral

certainty" that thair police officers will be required to use
firaarma to u r a a t floeing felons and fail to train the officers

m,at

44

SOO

45

Canton v. Bar

50Ed.2d

nota I ,

33-7.

489 yes, 381, 109 sect. 1197, 103

808 ( 1 9 8 9 ) .
65

on the limitations on the use of deadly force, this could be
characterized as “deliberate indifference” to a person’s
constitutional rights.

By extrapolation, this holding can be

applied to the other force options, rruch as unarmed defense and
baton tactics, because the use of t h e s e force options al80 can
deprive a person of his or her constitutional rights.
While firearms are the predominant weapon involved in use of
force training, there are other skill8 and techniques a police
officer has access to and which should be carefully considered
when reviewing training requirements.
verbal skills.

One such technique is

It is this skill which the police officer uses

mort often.

In conridering the type of in-service training needed for
police officers, the Tark Force agree8 with a finding of the
IACP/BJA National Law Enforcement Policy Center:

“Civil rights

litigation ham made it abundantly c h a r that law enforcement
agencies have a rerponribility to ensure that police officers are
adequately trained in the use of all weaponr which they are
permitted to carry on and off-duty.”

Police officers must be

trained to rempond appropriately to the various types of
situation8 they will oncounter on the rtreat.

Therefore, the

officaxa mart bo trainad in the usa of a variety of equipment and
techniquam in ordar t o rorgond proporly to tha rituation at hand.
A need for continuing use of

force in-8antice training

involving not only firearnu but othor waaponr ar well is

66

illußtrated by parkcr

('

V o

DlStrict of ~oïumbia.4 6

In this

case, a

jury found the diatrict liable for over $400,000 because it was
deliberately indifferent to the officer's physical t r a i n i n g
program. The court on appeal noted that the record supported t h e

jury's determination that the officer reaorted to the u s e of his
firearm to subdue ParJccr because the officer was unable
physically to subdue Parker by less drastic means.
Recognizing the significance of verbal skills and
communications in conjunction with police duties, emphasis in
police training throughout the nation i r being focused on
development of a police officer's verbal skills.

In every

encounter an officer has with a citizen, whether related to a
criminal activity or to a non-criminal activity, there is a
verbal exchange between the officer and citizen.

Over 90 p e r c e n t

of the encounter8 between a police officer and a citizen can be
skills are
handled by verbal c o m m ~ n i c a t i o n . ~Communication
~
recognized as an affective force option for a police officer
which, at time#, can b. more effective than other method8 ruch as

baton or the firee~m.~* Proficiency in the use of verbal i r k i l l s

as a forca option can bo acqufrad through training.

A

raconwndation i r r u d by th8 U.S. îhp4rtment of Jurticc 8upports
46

V. Dia trict of C
o 'w I 850 L 2 d 708 (D.C. C i r .
lose), W . d u r 489 tl,s. 1065, 109 S.Cte 1339, 103 &.EdoZd

808' ( 1 9 8 9 ) .

" Thompron, G. J. and Stroud, M.J. ( 1 9 8 4 ) .

R.dfr.ctinu

'
*
Ord.r*

Verbal Jud O'

B a v i o r w i t h WQ&.

Clade, B. ( 1 9 9 0 ) .

Now Uv8la of Lethal Force.
67

L a w and

*

<

In its report, Etinc i n l e s of GO&

this.

Pol icinq49, the

Department of Justice recornends that police departments
incorporate in their in-scrvice curricula training in verbal
skills and negotiation as a means of resolving confrontational
situations.
Due to the complexitie8 of encounters police officers may be
involved in, it ir incumbent upon the officers to maintain
proficiency in all types of skills and defenrive equipment.

This

is particularly true for verbal skills, those skills which police
officers use most frequently.

However, when officers graduate

from the police academy, there is no mandated retraining or
requalification to insure continued proficiency in thore skills.
It i r axiomatic that prycho-motor rkills dateriorate when they

are not exercioed.

Officers lacking confidence in their skills

in verbal cownunication, unarmed defanrive tactics or baton
tactics have limited the force options available to them in
rerolvinq an encounter.

Officers confidant in such skills and

tacticr may be able to rerolve the eacouatar by rerortinq to
graduated level8 of force.

Continueà training in these skill8

and all forca option8 will arrirt the officer8 in preparing for
and r8rponding to t h e diversity of rituationr which may be
encoutarad
A

joint rtudy by the U.S. D a p u t m a A t of JUrtiC8 and the

Colorado Law Enforemant Training Academy found that 86% of the

49
of
Poli- and C itizm O.S.

.

pol icinat

Avoidinu Violence Between

Department of Jurtice.
68

law enforcement departments polled considered overly aggressive
behavior a result of lack of training. The study was undertaken
to research and develop a training program which incorporates a
eyetern of violence reduction or intervention techniques.

One

factor documented from the study was that officers must have
sufficient training.and practice in all of the use of force
techniquesso.
Police training is of critical importance in the control of
police-community violence.

According to a report, Pr inciPles of

Good Policinq, published by the U.S. Department of Justice,
training in the "use of firearms is a koy consideration [in the
control of police community violence].

However, the training of

police officers in general must go beyond the traditional
practice of teaching a single response to complex situations. The
focu.

should be on training a 'thinking police officer' who

analyzes situation8 and rerponds in a manner baaed on a value
system that is supported by organizational policy."
Following an utenriva 8tudy on the

u88 o f

force, the San

Diego Police Department published a raport which has received
-

national attention. Th8 study was bared on a concern about the
number of conftontationr between police and citizens which
concludd in violent outcomes. Tha report air0 analyzed what nonh t h a i forca option.

war. available to th8 officers. The research

so Nicoiatti, J . (1990)
Force.

Training for D8ercalation of

a e Pouce Chief Muazine.
69

for thir report included visits to 15 law enforcement agencies,
including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and forums held to
obtain information from the public and from police officers.
Baaed on this research, recommendation8 pertaining to training
were issued. Some of these recommendations include police
training in verbal skills; use of video firearms simulators to
evaluate officer'r judgment and diacretionary skills; more police
training in confrontation management; increased training in nonlethal tactics and in alternative user of force: and police requalification quarterly with all defanrive equipment.

In remponse to the need for continuing police training, the
Department of Law and Public Safety ham developed a police
proferrionalism and cultural diversity awarenear program for law
i

anforcoment officors.

This program, which includes segments on

police profemrionalirm, managing cultural diveriity, attitudes
and prejudices, and police-community relation8 and
connminicationr, i a currently underway throughout the rtatc.

To

anrura that thir program i r offorod to am nuny police departments
as pomrible tbroughout th8 state, it i r rocomanendad that a
detaileà, syrtamatic training plan and rchedule be developed.
In addition, the DfVhfon of Criminal JU8tiC8 i r currently
dovmloping h r r o n plurr for police in-rervice training which will
incorpor~tav8rbal co9imunication rkillm and r o w of tho ler6 than
lethal force optionr a polico officor may hava to remort to on

the rtraot.

Thora larron plans arm baing derigned for training

on a departmental level.

Both of the80 program rtrerr police
70

In

verbal skills and communications with community members.
con junction with these efforts to *rove

police communications

and relations with the community, it is also recommended t h a t a
nystem be established to promote public awareness of the role of
police.

One means of achieving this would be through Division of

Criminal Justice participation
in quarterly League of
I
Municipalities reminars and other r d n a r r for local government
officials and citizenr.

Efforts to regularly educate local

government officials as to their rerponribilities for police
oversight would further the goal of improving the delivery of
police services.

SUailarly, effort.

to promote greater public

awarenerr of the role of police would almo help to reduce public
dirtrurt of law enforcement officerr.
While some jurisdictions within New Jcrrey may provide inr e m i c e training other than that required by the Attorney
General's semi-annual firearms requalification program, the Task
Force believer that legirlation mandating in-rarvicc training f o r
all police officerr and authorizing the Police Training
Cornmirrion (PTc) to ertablirh rtatewide in-service training
requirmmentr ir needed.

While a number of topics warrant ongoing

training, the Tark Force hliever that irruer involving
force training are of critical importance.
training needs will vary from dep.rtoi.nt

UIC

of

Although rom

to department or county

to county, the Tark Porca believer that uma of force training

rhould ba uniform throughout the rtate. Topic8 which rhould be

conridered for inclurrioa i n t h e

U I o
~ f force curriculum are:

71

simulated firearms training; conflict resolution techniques;
de-ercaìatiön of force techniques; development of verbal skills;
and development of physical force defenrive tactics.

The Task Force a l s o joins with the New Jersey Law
Enforcement Study C o d s r i o n in recognizing that funding for law
enforcement training’ir a major irrue.

A

key factor limiting

police department8 from conducting ongoing in-service training
programs is the cort of the program. Even when instruction is
provided in-houre, there are cortr ancillary to the instruction.
Departmental corts could involve salaries for officers attending
the training rerrion and for relief officerr to continue police
rervicer to the community while other officerr are being trained.
Based on a survey of states nationwide, at leart 17 states
i

provide some m e a n s of dedicated funding for law enforcement
training through cruPinal or motor vehicle finer ar penalty
asserrmentr.

Ten of the 26 stater with mandatory in-service

training utilize ruch a mochanirm to fund training activities.
Seven states which do not mandate in-remice training al80
utilize such a mechanirm to fund training activities.

For the

mort part, there dadicatad funds are urad to cover the
adminimtrativa and oporationai coot8 of a rtate centrai training
academy or the rtata agency rerponrible for ertablirhing police
rtandudr.

In four inrtmcer, dedicated fund8 a r e dirtributcd to

local law onforcmaat agoncier to conduct training or to
reimburso trainee exponrer 8uch as tuition, travel and ralary.

Since funding ir errantial to arrirt police agenciei develop
72

and conduct the recommended training, the Task Force concurs with

the Law Enforcement Study Commission’8 recomaendation that
variou8 s t a b l e , ongoing funding sources be considered for

inclusion in t h e proposed legislation.
-CO-ATIONS

VI11

.

Legislation should be propored mandating in-aenice
training for all police officer8 and authorizing the
Police Training C0mmia8iOn to ertabìirh in-service
training requiraisnts

.

IX.

Variou8 funding mean8 mhould be examined and conridered
for inclusion in the proposed legislation concerning
in-service training.

X.

Police Training C d r s i o n staff should be encouraged
to continue to review and ravise the use of force
curricula to incorporate the latest legal and technical
develop#nts in the ure of force, in particular the
development of c-cation
skillr.

XI

.

The continued developeat and delivery of statewide
training and public awarenerr programs dealing with
cultural diversity and the role of the police officer
should be encouraged, inciading Division of Cridaal
~usticeparticipation in k a q u e of )lunicípalities
s d n ~ r and
r
other local governient meminar8 to educate
local governisnt officials as to t h e i r police operaight
responmibilities.

u of Interml ~ f f g U r0ffic.r~
In Augu8t 1991, Attornoy Gonor.1

Robert J. D e l Tufo directed

that a11 law onforcenient agencieir i n thfr rtate “adopt and
conrci8atfou8~y impïomont” the “Intarnal Affairs Policy and

Procdurorasl dovolopad cooperatively by tho Dividon of Criminal

Jurtice and t h e New Jerrey State Asrodation of Chief8 of Police.

51 “Int8rn.l
Affair8 Policy and Procedure,
ManaguPent Manual, Chapter 5 .

73

Police

There detailed guidelines, prepared for incluclion in the Police

i-

yanaaemnt Hanual, provide basic standarda and uniform procedures
for handling citizen complaints and investigating allegations of
police misconduct.

Among other thingr, the "Internal Affairs

policy and Procedures" directs that:
A formal internal affairs unit or function in each

e

police agency;
Police departments accept citizen complaints, including
anonymous complaints, at any time;

0

a

All complainti about police officer conduct be
thoroughly and objectively investigated to their
logical conclusions; and

e

The county prorecutor be immediately notified in the
event of any allegation of criminal mirconduct by a
police officer or whenever a firoarmi discharge results
in an injury or death.

The handling of citizen complaints rogarding police officers
i

ir a key factor in ertablirhing and maintaining good community
relations.

Not only is it important for general relationships,

it is critical in the area of polico-community violence,

One way

for police administratorr to become awkte of incidents involving
the

~ b of
e

.-

force, or situation~that might escalate into violent

encounterr, ir through citizen complainto.

In order for this to

be effective, m r r of the community mart feel free to make
complafntlr against officerr.
00-

Citizen8 and police alike m i t have

alrlrurance that complainto will k objoctively invertigatcá

and d8alt with by the departmmt.g2

52

"Intarnal A f fairr Policy and Procedurer, " Police

Management Hanual, Chapter 5.
74

The responsible investigation of citizen complaints and
internal affairs matters is essential to ensure the integrity of
the criminal justice system and to fortify public confidence in
the system.

Those policies and procedures that direct that all

police departments designate a unit or function to handle citizen
complaints and internal investigations, also designate that those
officers assigned to the internal affairs function should be
properly selected and adequately trained.

However, the Task

Force is aware that very few internal affairs officers receive
specialized training.
The detailed "Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures"
promulgated by the Attorney General directs that the internal
affairs officer be familiar with proper investigative techniques
and legal standards for both administrative proceedings as well
aa criminal proceedings.

This is necessary to ensure that the

evidence obtained will be admissible in the proper tribunal and
the rights of the officer under investigation will not
inadvertently be violated.

Internal affairs officers should be

trained not only in the elements of criminal law, court
procedures, rules of evidence and use of technical equipment, but

al80 in the dirciplinary and administrative law process.

intarnal

Each

officer murt be skilled in intenriewing and

iat.errogation, obrenration, sumeillance and report writing.
errance, it i8 er8entiaì that experienced investigators be
a88igned t o t h e internal affairs function.

Personnel arsigned to conduct internal affairs
75

In

investigations must hold the police responsibility to the
community and prófessional co&tment
loyalties.

above personal and group

Internal affairs personnel must have unquestioned

integrity as well as the ability to withstand the pressure
associated with complex and sensitive investigations.

it is also

recommended that personnel assigned to the internal affairs
function reflect the citizenry of the community.
Because of the significance of the internal affairs function
and the need to have properly trained officero assigned to that
function so as to ensure the quality and fairneas of
investigations concerning improper use of force and other
allegations of misconduct, this Task Force recommends that the
Division of Criminal Justice develop standardized guidelines for
internal affairs training.

Such training should be made

available to all officers assigned to an internal affair8 unit or
function.

Moreover, the Task Force r8cóa~nendsthat those

guidelines set forth in th8 "Internal Affairs Policy and
Procedures" be applied and utilized by law enforcement agencies

statewide.

XII.

The Divimioa of Criainal J U 8 t f C e rhould develop

a t u r d u d i t d guiddiaem for iatarnrl a f f d r s training.
Such training mhould be mada available t o a l l officer0
A 8 8 f m to .P b t e m A f f r k 8 a t O t fmC'tiOn.

76

CHAPTER TEWB

INVESTIGATION OP COWLAXIITS OF EXCESSIVE FORCE

Law enforcement is committed to providing services that are
fair, effective, and impartially applied.

To accomplish their

often difficult tasks, law enforcement officers have been given
unique responsibilitbs and authorities by our society.

One such

authority is the capacity to use the force that is reasonably
\

necessary to accomplish their law enforcement duties, within
limitations set by statute, court decisions and department
policy

.

Law enforcement officers make critical, split second
decisions concerning the ure of force, often under extremely
adverre circumstances.

The correct deciilion will ultimately r e l y

on the individual officer's exercire of sound judgement.

The

development of the capacity to exercise ruch judgement ir the
goal of law enforcement's rigorous recruitment and selection
procerr, its reghen of baric and in-renice training, and
effective supervision.
There ir general agraement that recruitment and selection,
training and suparvision are the primary m a n i of preventing

mircoaduct in tho area of use of force.

However, when an

used excesrive force doa8 arise,

allegation that an officer ha.

th8ro 8U8t b. UI obj8ctiv8 and COnrirt8nt proc.dure
inv8rtigating th8s8 actionr.

for

Ail officers ar8 of course rubject

to disciplinary action and posiible criminal proceeding8 for

violating their oath and trurt.

Yet, the public too often
77

perceiver that police e 8 U S e of force ir commonplace, and that
complaining-about such misuse would only be ignored at best, and
invoke active retaliation at worst.

At the same time, many

police officers also believe that complaints of excessive force
are not Mpartially investigated.

It is their perception that

officers so accused-cannot get a "fair shake," with investigative
outcomes shaped more by public pressure than the facts of the
case.
The intensity of public reaction to incidents of excessive
force war well illustrated during the public hearings on the
Rodney King incident, which involved a videotaped beating of a
civilian by three uniformad officers o f the Los Angeles Police
Department in the presence of a sergeant and other officers.

The

incident elicited ruch public concern and outcry that the
Independent Commission on the Lor Angeles Police Department was
created to examine all aspects of the law enforcement structure
in Lor Angeles that might have caused the incident or contributed
to the problem of the use of excesriva force by law enforcement.
The Independent Commisrion concluded that no area of police
operations received more adverse public cornent or revealed more

public frustration than the depa-nt'r

handling of excesrive

force corplainta againrt munberr of ita force.53

Tho offactivrnnesr of law enforcemnt ir dependent upon
public approval and accoptuce of polico authority.

There can be

Pe&a of the Independent C o w* r t . o n on tho Lor Anue l e s
police D.Dart9ient, July 1991, p . xix.
53

78

no doubt that citizen confidence in the integrity of the police

f

increaser when police departments implement meaningful and
effective procedures for reporting and investigating complaints
of excerrive force.

This confidence engenders community support

and facilitates the cooperation vital to the department's ability
to achieve its goals:
An effective framework for handling use of force complaints

alrio permita police officials to monitor officers' compliance
with department policies and procedures.

A n appropriate internal

investigation policy will enaure a fair and consistent avenue of
redrerr for citizen complainants.

Equally important, an internal

investigation policy will enrure fairnerr and due process
protection to officers accured of uring oxcerrive force.
Toward thir end, police agencie8 rhould have formal
procedures to accept from any citizen all complaints of alleged
excesrive force by an officer of that department.

Following a

thorough and impartial examination of all of the available facts,
the officer should be either exoneratod or held rerponsible for
the alleged mirconduct.
Recognizing thfr r o d n g l y c h a r rtatement of the conditions
that rhould oxirt, tho Tark Force war convinced that there were
roveral irruor that noodod to be addrorred in order to move in
that dir8ction.

Tho Tark Porco noedod to r o r o u c h axirting rtandards
and procoduror for internal invortigationr of excesrive

fozc8 allegation8 and c o m p u a thoro to current
79

acceptable police management practices.

i

The Task Force needed to examine the methods and

procedures for conducting investigations of serious
incidents to determine if the appropriate levels of
oversight and intervention are in place.
The Task ¡?orce needed to review the consistency and
fairness of procedures governing the status and duties
of law enforcement officers under investigation for
allegations of excessive force.
The Task Force needed to study the reporting and record

keeping mechanisms on use of forco complaints to
determino the available data on the current problem.
The Task Force relied upon numerous rourcer of information,
including individuals with recognized experience, a survey of
local law enforcement agencies, and research publications to

assist in compiling recom~m~dationr
in this area.
Prior to completion of the Tark Force'r work, the Police
Bureau of the Division of Criminal Justice, Departnent of Law and
Public Safety, completed Chaptor 5 of tho Police Xlrnauement

Manual entitlad "Internal Affairs Policy and Procedurer"
(herainafter C h p t r r 5 ) .

The police -nt

Manual is an

ongofag wojoct o f th8 Police BureAu to daliver guidance and

asrirtiiince to police ex.cutivar in operating their agencies.
8

-nt

XAnu.l bogan in 1985 with the release of

Chapter8 1 and 2, "Background Invartigrtion" and "Model Rule.
Regulation8."

The

Chapter 3, "Guida to Daooloping a Written
80

and

Directive System,t1was released in 1987.

Chapter 4, "The

property and Evidence Function," was published in 1989.

Each

chapter of the Police Manacrement Manua 1 has been distributed to
every municipal law enforcement executive in the State upon its
completion.
On August 21, 1991, after notifying the Task Force, Attorney
I

General Robert J. Del Tufo released Chapter 5.

At that time, h e

directed law enforcement agencies throughout the State to "adopt
and conscientiously Mploment" the standards and procedures in
that document f o r investigating allegations of police misconduct
in the area of excessive use of force allegations.s4

On the same

day, he advised County Prosecutors of the manner in which they
rhould proceed when notified, ab required by Chapter 5 , of an
allegation of criminal misconduct by an officer or of an incident
involving the dirchargc of a firearm that results in injury or
death.55
Oboemations
The Task Force reached two broad conclurions with respect to
a "break of confidence" among segments of both the public and law
enforcemunt regarding the irsue of axcersive force.

First, the

Tark ?orco recognizer that public confidence in law enforcement

officor8 i r jeopardized by the perception that officers who ure
exco8r~Voforco may be rhielded from the appropriate conrequences
54 U t t e r
Augurt 1 4 , 1991.

from Robert J. Del Tufo to Chiof Executives,

s5

M&orandum from Robert J. D.1 Tufo to County
PZOIOCUtOZI, AUgurt 21, 1991.
81

of such actions.

Second, the Task Force recognizes that the

ability of law enforcement officers to perform their duties c a n
be signäficantly hindered by the fear that even

a

proper use of

force may be presumed abusive, and that judgment of such police
action will not be conducted in an atmosphere of objectivity.
,

in addition, thGtTask Force has also identified several
specific problems in the current aystem for investigating and
reacting to allegations of excessive forca.

The recommendations

of the Task Force in this area are intended to correct the
obremationa and problem areas outlined below.

Moreover, the

Tark Force believes that by properly addressing t h e s e specific
issuer, important steps can be taken to address the general break
of confidence noted above.
A.

sack of uniform rtandards and Drocedures

When the Task Force began its deliberations, there were no
uniform, consistently applied standards or procedures for
accepting, investigating, acting upon or reporting the final
dirp08itiOn of complaint8 alloging misconduct by law enforcement
officers.

Uniform rtandards and procedures are necessary to

onrura thm conrirtmcy and accountability errantial for fair and

objactitn trmatmont of all person8 involved in tho complaint
procer8.

Unfforiity and predictability in the complaint process

u m tha foundation of a truly foipartial rciivfmw of axcarrive force
allogationr.

Porcoptions of bias and hproprioty are fueled when

ruccorsive invortigationr are handled diffarantly, Opening

quartion the rmronr and motivation8 for 8ach rtmp in t h e
82

UP

to

investigative process.

The best intererts of citizens and law

enf orcement -officers are served by unif o m complaint review
procedures.
Statu8 of 1aw enforcement officer8 Dendinu outcome of

B.

an excessive force alleaation
Uniformity war also absent in existing policies regarding
those law enforcement duties an officer should be allowed to
perform while the subject of an active investigation into an
excesuive force allegation.

Exirting rtatutes and regulations do

not provide adequate guidance in thir area.

The lack of

conuistency in thii area fosters the public perception that
decisions on such matteri are not impartial, ar well as feeding
the perception of law enforcement officerr that such deciiions
t'

may be guided by public reaction to a given incident, rather than
by an objective arreriment of the facts.

Rrrther yet,

inconsistency within a given polico department may stigmatize an
officer under investigation if hi8 interim dutier are different
than thoie arrignod to othor officerr involvod in prior
incident#.
C.

to rapp;d;iDa and record k s e b u

Many polico dapartoi.nts fail to maintain adequate records of
complahtr of Pfrconduct and their rubioquent dirporition.

This

contributas to goaaral dissatirfaction with tho ryrtem.
Individual citizonr who file complaint8 and u e not informed of
tho rorultr of an invortigation MY arruma tho complaint was

ignored.

Law onforcomant officarr who ara publicly and
83

unjustifiably charged, but quiatly and privately cleared, may
conclude that they and their fellow officers are subject to a
systam that allow8 citizens to wilfully file false complaints
without the prospect of consequence.

The absence of accurate and complete records and reports
also undermine8 the 8pility of responsible officials to identify
and take action to deal with individual and general problems in
their early otages.

Without complete information, it is

difficult for the law enforcement commander to recognize that a
particular officer may have a tendency to Ume excesrive force, or
that a particular citizen has a proclivity for filing false and
frivolous allegations.

With complete and accurate information,

law enforcement officialm can identify problrnu early and address
them with the appropriate discipline, training and procedural
review.

D.

Inadeuuate outside ovarsiuht of mriour cases

New Jerrey Statuter provide for a rtructure in which t h e
"appropriate authority," a civilian, is rorponmibïe for the
overall performance of a municipal police d e ~ a r t m e n t . ~In
~
addition, tho county prorocutor and tho Attorney General, by

virtu. of tho C r w n a l Jurtice Act of 1970, hava oversight over
municipaì law o n f o r c e ~ n t.57

Neverthohs8, tho public perception

i r that invertigationr of complaints involving tho use of force

aro handlod only within tho accared officar'r dopartment, w i t h no
56

pJ.J'.S.AL 4OAtl4-118.

57

p .J.S.A.

52:17B-97,

geu*
84

check8 or balances by other segments of the criminal justice
i

sy8tem* This perception can serve to undermine the public's
confidence in the impartiality of the ryrtem, or in other words,
its ability to police itrelf.

Procedures for oversight, review,

and when necessary, intervention into the investigatory process
by outside authoritigs will ensure the integrity of
investigations, and will also bolster the public's confidence in
the process.
RXC-TIONS

After extenrive review and disCuasion of Chapter 5 of the
Police M anaaemcnt XanuaL I "Internal Affairs Policy and
Procedurer," and the Attorney General's accompanying memoranda,
the Task Force concluder that implementing the policy and
procedurer for handling conplainta outlined in those documents
will do much to rmmedy the problem identified and outlined
above.

The Tark Force endor888 Chapter 5 and, with the

exceptions and additions notad below, incorporates it as a p a r t
of its final recopiwndatfonr to the Attorney General.

The Task

Forca recommend8 that each law enforcement agency be required to
adopt aad impleaant the following procdures.

A tinifom approach to dealing with allegations of excesaive

forca by law enforcement offfcerr is nocosruy t o maintain

confidmce in the rystm.

Providing uniforin gufdeïines for the

handling of comphfntr will oniuro eff.ctiv8 invoatigations
85

AS

well a8 fairness to both law enforcement officers and citizens.58
Wall-established, written policies and Procedures based on
statewide standards will eliminate the appearance of
arbitrariness.

Such procedures will fix the responsibility and

accountability for internal investigations with the appropriate
individual or unit,-8nd provide a level of consistency sufficient
to assure both the public and the police that tho procese is
thorough and fair.

The Task Forca therefore recommends that all

police agencies be required to adopt and implement uniform
policias and procedure.

for accepting and investigating excessive

force allegations conaistant with th8 modeia in Chapter 5,
"Internal Affair8 Policy and Procedures."
I[-.

All cititon raportr alleqhg police officer
u8conduct 8hould be 8ccopt.d and
appropriately recoräd.

A uniform and open procesa for receiving complaints from the

public is crucial to tho establirbment of a credible
investigatory rystem.

Recognizing thi8, the Tark Force

recommend8 that all citizan report8 aïìoging police misconduct
mumt bo accopted whon pr8r8nt.d

rogardi888 of the time of day or

day of tho we8k, and that no effort to nmk8 such a report should
b8 r8j.ct.d

b r a d on a lack of timolino88 in reporting or because

it ir U t i a l l y doomad unfounded.

ntrth8r, tho Task Force

recomanda that an appropriate record bo maintained for every
repott t&on of
58

Ci-m

u1

allogation of excessivo force.

Police Executive Rerearch Forum, police Autncv Bandlinq
Co,"A Model Policy Statement," 1981,

Foreword.
86

The Task Force recommends that police agencies be required

(-

to adopt and- implement the procedures for accepting complaints,

including anonymous reports, outlined in Chapter 5, 5 9 and to
a report form similar to the model form provided in Chapter
with the following qualification.

use
5,60

If the complainant's Social

Security number is requested ar part of the complaint form, t h e
complainant must be informed that disclosure is not mandatory,
and that the information may be used to verify the identity of
In addition, during the follow-up

the complainant . 6 1
investigation of

a

complaint, a trained internal affairs officer

ehould inform a complainant about the possible consequence of
making statements which the complainant does not believe to be
true
l

.
)[v.

i

A11 reporta involving the poaaibla um of
exceaaive force or the diacharge of a firereaulting in injury or death should be
thoroughly investigated and the appropriate
notificationa made.

~ n citizen
y
complaint or internal report involving criminal

misconduct, the surpacted use of excesaive force, or the
diacharge of a firearm rerulting in injury or death, must be
invertigated purruant to the agency'r internal affairs policy.
The Tark ?orce racommends that each agency be required to follow
the procedurer found in Chapter 5 for investigating there serious

5g

"Internal M f a i r r Policy and Procedures, " police
Chapt8r 5, 1991, pp. 10-13, 36-37.

60

fbid;

61

5 U.S.C.A.

t-

w,

at p 47.

S 552a note, "Privacy
87

Act of 1974."

incidents.62

As others have noted, incidents that fall into this

category require-uniform and thorough investigation because "the
integrity of a police department and its relationship to the
community is often measured by the professionalism and
impartiality which it brings to investigations of police uses of
force in general and deadly force in particular. n 6 3
The Task Force Adorses the provision of Chapter 5 that
calls for immediate notification of the county prosecutor in the
event of any allegation of criminal Muconduct by a police

officer, or whenever a firearms discharge rerults in injury or
The Task Force aluo endorses the provision of the
Attorney General that "...all
U80

investigations which involve the

of force by law enforcement officiala which have resulted in

death or serious bodily injury shall be immediately reported by
the County Prorecutor to the Division of Criminal Justice for

review, oversight, consultation, and participation as

.

necessary ~ 6 5

44

.

62

"Intarnal Affaira Policy and Procedurerr, a pp. 13-15, 4 1-

63 "Concapta and Irruar Paper," Da of Porca, International
Aaa&iation of Chiafa o f Polfco, F o b r u u y 1989, p.6.
64

"Internal Affaira Policy and Procedurem," pp. 13, 30.

65

Memorandum from Robert 3. Del Tufo to County
Proaecutora, Auguat 21, 1991.
88

Police ageacies 8hould adopt uniform
Stariddud8 to determine the status of an
officer’s duties pending the outcome of an
investigation. These standards should
include a presuaption in favor of
administrative reassignment in cases
involving uae of forca which result in death
or serious bodily injury.

XVI.

The Task Force debated at length the issue of what law
..
enforcement duties an officer should be allowed to perform d u r i n g

the pendency of an excessive force investigation. The status of
officers who are the subject of investigation is currently
governed by N . J . S . A .
and N.J.S.A.

4A:2-4.3,

1lA:2-13 to llA:2-22, f i J . J o A o C . 4A:2-l.l

to 40A:14-151.

40A:14-147

to

These statutes

and regulations address disciplinary actions, ruspensions and
terminations of civil service employees and non-civil service
municipal law enforcement officiah, but do not provide adequate
guidance as to when administrative reassignment or suspension i s
appropriate.
The Task Force endor8es conrideration of the factors listed
in Chapter 5 in determining the appropriate administrative s t a t u s

would require that at
of an officer under i n v e s t i g a t i ~ n . ~This
~
least one of the following condition8 be met before an officer is
suspended:
1.

The officer ir unfit for duty;

2.

The officer ir a hazard to any perron if permitted to

runain on the job;
3.

66

An h a d i a t o ruspenrion

i r necasrary to maintain

“Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures,“ p. Il.
89

safety, health, order or effective direction of public
senices; or
4..

The officer has been formally charged with a crime of
the first, second, or third degree, or a crime of the
fourth degree on the job or directly related to the
]Ob.

In addition to the factors lirted above, the Task Force
recommends adding the following presumption:

"In cases involving

the use of force which results in death or serious bodily injury,
there shall be a presumption in favor of administrative
rearrigment unlesr there ara significant reasons for imposing a
suspension, including but not limited to indictment, or other
rubrtantial evidence of guilt."
The Task Force recognizes that public rafety issues must be
balanced against the right of law enforcement officers not to be
subject to unnecerrary or unjustified surpcnrions from duty when
under investigation.

In addition, the Tark Force recognizes that

an inflexible rule governing the administrative rearsigment of
an officer under investigation would not be feasible for
department8 or agoncier of all r i z e r . 67

Deciding whether or not

to adnrinirtrativoly rearsign an officer under invrrtigation also
requirri conridoration of factors not exprerrly listed in Chapter
5, but rolavant to the officor'r fitnorr, the danger pored by the

officer'r presence and the need to 8U8p.nd in order to maintain

coPiDla
int Review Policy I international A880~iatlOn of
Chiefa of Police, January 1989, p. 2.
67

90

safety and effective public services.

Such factors include t h e

weight of the evidence against the officer, community reaction t o
the incident and the size of the department.

Until final

disposition of the investiqation or charge8, the appropriate
administrative status of an officer under investigation will turn
on all of these factors.

However, establishing a presumption in

favor of administrative reasrigment will ensure that officers
who may have used unjurtified force are removed from daily
contact with the community.

At the same t h e , such a policy will

protect officers from disparate treatment and unjustified
quspensions.

Implicit in the propored language ir the fact that

in mort instances the return of an indictment will be sufficient
grounds for suspending an officer pending final disposition of
the investigation.
lVï1.

R e p o r t s , boortigations and dispositions of
excessive force complaints should be subject
to specifid reporting and rocord h p i n q

requiraisnts
Mandatory reporting and record keeping is critical to the
maintenance of a credible investigatory system.

Accurate and

timely reporting o f use of force incidents is the essential first
step in tha procars of monitoring and controlling the misuse of
force.6*

Tha public perception that the current system does not

adequataly address allegationr involving the use of exccr8ive
force in h W onforc8ment cannot be ramediad unless accurate
records are maintained and appropriate infornation ir made
~

68

“Concapts and Issues Paper,” p. 6.
91

available to the public.

i

Therefore, the Task Force recommends

that (i) complaints alleging the us8 of excessive force, (ii) the
status of inveatigations of the excessive use of force or
discharge of a firearm, and (iii) the final disposition of a l l
investigations, be subject to mandatory reporting and record
keeping requirements:\
As stated previously, the Task Force endorses the reporting

requirements found in Chapter 5 and the accompanying documents
which provide for the reporting of specific allegations to the
county prosecutor and the Attorney General.

Further, the Task

Force recornends that, upon request, th8 complainant and the
officer should be informed of the status of an ongoing
investigation.

Upon final dirpo.ition,

the officer and the

complainant should be advised of the results and of the basis for
the disposition, to th8 8xtont possibh givon the necesrary
confidentiality of grand jury procoedingr and law enforcement
investigative reports.
The Task Forca also 8ndorses th8 provisions of Chapter 5
that roquire law mforcmment agencio8 to compile and make
-

available t o tho public an annual report rnmmrrizing, without
identifyiag individual8 involved, the typo8 of complaints
r e c e i v d and thoir dfsporitionr. 69

Th8 Task Porco recornends

that all law enforcomant agoncier bo r8quir.d to submit this
annual roport to the appropriate county prosocutor.

The county

prosecutor is alraady roquired by statut8 to submit an annual
69

"internal Affairs Poiicy and ~roceduros,"p . 36.
92

report to the Attorney General.
include in this ahnuaì report a

The county prosecutor s h o u l d
SUmmary Of

complaints on a countywide basis.

excessive use of force

This will ensure additional

general oversight of the investigatory process and permit the
identification of potential problema that should be addressed
through training or ather involvement by the prosecutor.
The confidentiality of investigation reports, disciplinary
proceedings, and grand

proceeding8 is important to the

privacy of officers investigated.

In addition, this

confidentiality ia esaential to ensure continued willingness of
individuals to provide critical information.

Therefore, the Task

Force endorses the provisions of Chapter 5 concerning the
confidentiality of such records.

In addition, the Task Force

recommends that these provisions be supplemented to explicitly
bar release of an officer's home address.

The Task Force a l s o

recommends that guidance be included to help police departments
determine the circumrtancer under which it is appropriate to
release other information, such ar the complainant's criminal
record, previous allegation8 against the officer, and previous
allegationr by the complainant.

Ibid., p. 46. Section F, paragraph 5, provides that all
dirciplbary hmringr r h all bo Cl08.d to the public unlesi the
defendant officer roquertr an open hearing. This provirion is in
accord with the provirion of the "Op.n Public Meetings Act" which
exceptr matterr of amplopant, evaluation of performance, and
dimciplining.of public officer8 from tha Act. See fl.J.S.A.
10:4-12(b)(8).
See alro
Serra V. Borouuh of Xountunrrd e,
196 H.J. SuDar. 6 , 9-13 (App. Div. 1984); (State Police care).
I

93

.

XVïII.

Uniform procadurea should be implemented to
provida for axtarnal ooer8ight and
intervention, when necessary, on certain
allegations of axceasive force.

In addition to internal investigations performed by
specially trained officers within the police department, the Task
Force recognizer thqt borne degree of oversight, and at times
intervention, into the investigatory process by outside
authoritiea is necessary to ensure the objectivity and integrity
of exceasive force investigations.

Uniform standards and

procedures for review by agencies outaide of the law enforcement
agency sustaining the complaint will ensure that the process is
neither consciourly or unconsciously affected by the
predisposition8 or bias88 of officialr who directly or indirectly
supervise the officer being investigated.

This will help ensure

the integrity of the process while enhancing public confidence in
law enforcement's ability to impartially and objectively
investigate the action8 on ita own.
As

previourly rtated, the Task Force recommends that

municipal polico officials or officials in other countywide law
enforcemant agancias ba r8quirad to notify the County Prorecutor
immediitaly upon roceipt of a complaint or report involving
either porrible criminal conduct on the part of an officer, or an
officor'r di8chugo of a firearm which rorultr in injury or
Tho Tark Porco a180 8ndorr.r

doath.'l

and the Att0rn.y

71

tho n88ur8s of Chapter 5

Gen8ral's memorandum of Augurt 21, 1991, which

Ibid., pp. 13, 25, 30, 4 2 .
94

specifically provide for intervention and oversight of s u c h
investigations by the County Prosecutor and the Division of
Criminal Justice, Department of Law and Public Safety,
When notified of incidents involving suspected criminal

conduct or the discharge of a firearm resulting in injury or
death, the Prosecutok; at his or her discretion, will either
assume responsibility for, or direct and supervise, or monitor
the progress of the investigation until the matter is brought to
final disposition.

Further, in instances involving the discharge

of a firearm or other use of force resulting in injury or death,
the County Prosecutor will immediately notify and consult with
the Division of Criminal Justice.

As deemed appropriate by the

Director, the Division of Criminal Justice should assist,
participate in, or asrume responsibility for the investigation
and disporition of the matter.
Grand jury conrideration of cases involving the possible use
of excessive force represents an independent community consensus

on whether the use of force war in fact justified under the
circumstances.

The Task Force endors88 the standard set by the

Attorney Goner81 for grand jury consideration of incidents which
may involve use of exceosive force.

Therefore it recommends that

"...a u t t e r which involves factors indicating the possible use

of . u n j o i t i f i d force by

8

law enforcamat officer which resulted

in death or serious bodily injury should ordinarily ba presented
to a grmd jury for review and dispodtion, especially in cases

9s

involving factual disputes
(

-

.

72

Providing for grand jury

consideration of these matters should foster public confidence in
the objectivity of the decision making process, as the ultimate
decision on whether to indict will be made independent of law
enforcement officials.

Establishing uniform requirements for

those conditions undgr which cases are to be presented should
alro reduce the apprehenrion and stigma law enforcement officers
arsociate with grand jury investiqationr, as the proceso will,
for the most part, be uniform and anticipated.
After researching and considering the option of establishing
additional civilian overright mechanirmr to enmure the integrity
of the invertiqative procemr, the Tark Force recommend8 overright
and intervention by the county prorecutors, the Division of
I

Criminal Justice, and grand juries ar outlined above.

The option

i

of establishing civilian review boards war debated at length.
The Task Force considered variour reporta, including:
Civil Libertier Union,

uL

American

h I "Police Brutality and its

Remedies" (April 1991); Intarnational Aarociation of Civilian
Overright of Law BnforC.rP.nt

(IACOLB), -naum

of

orrieht AaQgciea (1983); and New York
Civil t i k r t i o r Union, p o l i c e Abure : The Meed for C i v i u
~

v

e

r

~ yrd
o O
nvo-,

(1990).

Hwover, it war ultimately

agreed that it would ba inappropriate to rwoaimsnd civilian
review board8 without firrt attempting to addre88 the

72

Memorandum from Roòert J. Del Tufo to County
Promocutorr, Augurt 21, 1991.
96

inadequacies of the system through existing agencies which
currently possess the capacity and authority to take whatever
action might be appropriate.

In this regard? the Task Force also

considers it significant that each police agency in this State
is, under current law? subject to policy oversight by civilians
outside the police aqbncy and answerable directly to the
electorate or elected officials. 73
pionitorina imDlementatioq
The Task Force believes that its central concerns can be
remedied within the existing governmental structure by
implementing the standards and procedures outlined above.

The

proviaions mandating uniform procedures for accepting and
investigating allegationr of excessive forca, and the provisions
calling for intervention and overmight of investigations by
impartial bodies will ensur:.
fair and objective.

that the investigation process is

These provisions will ensure that officers

accused of using excemsiva force will be given a "fair shake" and
that their actions will bo given a full and bpartial review
based on the facts.

Of :.qual

importance, there provision8 will

enhance the public perception of the investigation procesr as an

73 8
.
8

H. J.S.AI

4OA: 14-118; g. J.S.A
52:17B-4 and 52:17B-7.
pumuant to PJ.J.S.& 4OAtll-il8, rules and
regulation# concarning tha g o v e r m n t of the police forca and the
dirciplina of it8 nrmbrrm must ba promulgatoá by the "appropriate
authority," and i f a chiaf o f police 18 emtabïirhed, the chief
mart ba made "diractly rorponribîe" to tha "appropriate
authority" raguding tho day-to-day operation8 of the police
force. Th8 "appropriata authority" is d e f i n d ar the mayor,
manager, or other appropriata executiva or aáæinirtrativa
officer, such a8 a full-time director of public safety.

Por -18,

97

i

impartial one, thus fostering confidence that the criminal
juitic.
propo8.d

rycrtem can adequately police itself.

Relying on the

levels of investigation and consultation by internal

affairs units, county prosecutors, the Division of Criminal
Justice, and grand juries will also ensure that investigations
are conducted by parions with both the expertise to do so in a
thorough manner and the authority to dircipline and prosecute in
inetances where the use of force is unjurtified.
In order to insure conscientious compliance with the
recommended measures, the Tark Force ruggeetr that the Attorney
General adopt a specific schedule for implementation of the
uniform policier and procedures for dealing with complaints of
excesrive forca.

The Ta8k Force further ruggerts that the

Attorney General conduct a review of the implementation process
according to that rchedule, and prepare a report of his findings.

If, after a review of the Attorney General'r findings, the Task
Force concluder that the recommendation8 contained herein have
not been ruccerrfully implemented, the Tark Force recommends that
the option of civilian review boarda be re-8valuated.
A proposed rchedule for compliance

ir shown below.

It is

a r r u m d that implementation will begin upon raleaee of the report

of tho Ta8k Porc..
ïnmodiat e ly

e

Each law enforcumnt agency rhall promptly
identify the officer(r) who have been
ralected to conduct internal invartigatione
98

and notify the county prosecutor of the

officer(s) chosen.

6 months

Each county prosecutor shall notify the
Attorney General that agencies within t h e i r

j<@rirdiction have complied with the selection
of an internal affairs officer.

The internal affaira training program to be
developed by the Attorney General shall be
completed.

1 year

Law enforcement agency internal affairs

officers shall be trained in the program
developed by the Attorney General.

Each County Prosecutor rhall report the
following to the Attorney General:

(1) whether each department has filed
complete and timely annual reports
summarizing the complaints filed and

t h e i r dinponitionr;
(2)

whether tha Proracutor or department
head, after evaluating the report#,
p.rceives any deficiencier in the
99

investigative process w h i c h s h o u l d be
addressed:
the total number and type of complaints

received in the county and the
dispositions thereof: and

a summary of any complaints from t h e
public, law enforcement officers or
other public officials concerning t h e
investigatory procesr.

The Attorney General rhall report to the
public a summary of tho information received
from the prorecutors.

100

LAW GOWIUIRSG TüB USB OF FORCE
Society has an interest in the vigorous enforcement of i t s
criminal laws. 7 4

These laws are intended "to forbid, prevent,

and condemn conduct that unjustifiably inflicts or threatens
serious harm to inditridual or public interests," and "to insure
the public safety by preventing the commission of offenses
through the deterrent influence of the sentences authorized, the
rehabilitation of those convicted, and their confinement when
required in the intererts of public protection. w 7 5
None of these purporer can be furthered unlers law
enforcement officer.

fulfill their duty "to be on the lookout f o r

infractions of the law and to use due diligence in di8covering
and reporting them, and in the proper case, arresting the
perpetrator and lodging and prosecuting a proper complaint. ,976

For this reason we train, a m , authorize and require law
enforcement of ficerr to u m rearonable force when necessary. 77

74

Note, Criminal Procedure
Search and Seizure
Law
Officer's Ume of m a d l y Force Aqainrt Nondangerous Fleeing Felon
Held Violative of Fourth Amendment
m n n e rree V. Garner, 471
U.S. 1 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 17 Soton 8
.1
L. ROV. 758, ( 1 9 8 7 ) .
-0

-0

-0

76

-to

v. Donovm, 132 pS.J.L.

77 SO. GI.br.i v. COnllOf,
187 1 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ("the right to make

319, 321 (Sup. Ct. 1945).

- uu,rse,m t

109 S. C t L 1865,
or invortigatory stop
necorrarily carrior with it the right to ure roma degree of
phymical cwrcion or t k a a t thoroof to offact it"); tata V.
m,
2 9 - ) i . J L 2 7 , 38 ( 1 9 5 9 ) (it ir tha
right,
indoed h i s duty, to u18 a11 force rearonably necersary to
OVO~COID. rerirtance').
-0

AIS

of fi cor'^

101

In tense and uncertain circumstances involving grave personal

(-

danger,78 we expect them to make split-second decisions so that

.

society.may remain secure 79
Society has an equally significant, countervailing interest
in seeing that the criminal law is not enforced so as t o cause
additional harm of thu very sort it is designed to prevent

--

harm to the individual and public interests that are implicated
when any person "unjustifiably" coerces, threatens, restrains,
injures or kills another. 8o Statutory and constitutional
provisions defining when and how much force may be used in law
enforcement distinguish "justifiable," appropriate and desirable,
law enforcement conduct, from "unjustifiable," inappropriate and

.

harmful , law enf orceunent conduct 81 These rules , together with
thore that define the extent of a law enforcement officer's duty
to act and the extent of a suspect's duty to submit, embody
difficult and critical public policy judgments.

They state

society's determination of the proper balance of its interests in
preventing crise, apprehending criminals, protecting the public

78

Cr.haai v. Connu,

U.S.

, 109

S. Ct. 1865, 1872

(1989)
79

&ate

*O

S88

V.

W

w

, 29 BOJ. 27, 36-41 (1959).

N,J,s.h, 2C:ll-3, 2Ctll-4, 2Ct12-1, 2C:12-3,

2C:13-2, 2C:13-3.
81

anend. XIV; Graham v.
Connorf -.
UIS, -.,
109 S. Ct. 1 8 ó m û 9 ) ; =nor see v.
-,
471
1, 105 $ e Ct. 1694 ( 1 9 8 5 ) .
S 8 8 rJ,J.S*A 2C:3-7;

U.S* C

102

. I

.

safety and preserving individual rights 82
Law enforcement officers must operate within the confines of
the rules implementing this delicate balance. "Every police
officer ha8 an inherent duty to obey the law and to enforce it.
[Both are] essential to the preservation of a free society."*3
Thus, while law ènforcement officer8 ar@ "armed and required
to act, m84

they are expected to

U88

only authorized force.85

Use

of force that exceeds the limits set by statutory or
constitutional rules, like neglect of duty, exposes officers to
both criminal and civil liability.86

And, while some individuals

may ask the question, "Doas society condone police brutality in
exchange for getting criminals off the rtreets? 8

off h e r s who

seek to perform their duties within the 1 w t s of their authority
are well aware that the law condemnr and sanctions any

82 Graham V. Connox ,-ILL-#
109 S. Ct. 1865, 1871
( l? 89 ) ; Tanne roe0 v. Garnex I 471 Y.S. 1, 9-13 (1985); State v.
Williams 29 g * J t 27, 36-41 (1959).
83

Stat.

04

State v * W

V.

Stovena, 203 p.J. SuDer
U

29

.

59, 65 (Law Div. 1984).

B * J t 27, 36 (1959).

05 Sa8 Gr.hrm Y . C
I U.S. -,
109 S. et.. 1865,
1871 (1989); -ta
v. Cohen, 32 &J. 1, 9 (1960).
86

S
..
ganarally ~r.brmv. c o ut - u I s . - ,
109 s . Ct.
1865, 1071 (1989); T.nnooro e v. Gar= 0 471 Y.S. 1, 105 $ e Ct.
1694, 1701 (1985); -0
v. CohQn, 32 g.J. 1, 9 (1960); State v.
29 B.J. 27, 36-43 (1959); #tata V. St. vena, 203 P.J.
59 (UW
Dio, 1984); ar V. Town8
of Pircatawgy, 236
&J. S
u 550 (App. Div. 4989); =Ata V ~ D o n O V ~132
,
B.J.L.
319 (SUP. Ct. 1945).

w,

87 Riclcar, Bahind tha Sflonc8~Dwa Socioty Condone Police
Bnrtality in Exch~gcrfoz G.tting C r b h a l a O f f the Street," ABA
Journal, July 1991 at 45.
103

nunreasonable" police conduct.
Given the importance of statutes governing the use of force
to both- law-abiding Officers and law-abiding citizens, the Task
Force studied and evaluated current law to determine whether
statutory reform was required.

Current law was measured against

three standards deemed essential to the adequacy of statutory law
addressing this critical issue.
A.

--

Claritv
Statutes defining when and how much
force is authorized must be clear and understandable.
To permit adequate training of officers who " a r e often
forced to make split-second judgments-in circumstances
that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving, n 8 8
statutes should clearly identify, not obfuscate, the
judgments they must make.

Because the public's respect for the law and its
officers is dependent upon the fairness of the law and
the lawfulnesr of the conduct of public
the
law governing the usa of force must be comprehensible
to the public.
B.

--

Consistencv with Conrtitutional Standards
Statutes
describing when and how much force m y be ured in
furtherance of law enforcement should be consistent
with constitutional rules.
Conristant rtandudr will avoid confusionf better
protect the rights of citizens and better protect
who supervisa and train them from
officars and tho
civil liability. !8

104

C.

i

. .

--

Tdabilitv Commensurate with CulDability
The
law should distinguish between officers who
intentiónally in jure or kill, without justification,
r death because they
and officers who cause injury o
believe, albeit unreasonably, that performance of their
duty or preservation of their life requires the use of
force
Because officers are under a legal compulsion to
enforce the law and perform this duty under difficult
circumstances requiring split-second judgments, the law
should provide some mitigation when an officer commits
a crime because of a culpable error in judgment.91

.

Current statutes do not clearly meet these standards, and the
Statutes defining the right and

Task Force recommends reform.

amount of force that may be used in law enforcement must be
clarified.

Inconsistencies between New Jersey statutes and

constitutional ruler describing authorized force should be
reconciled.

And, rtatuter should be revised to clearly provide

appropriate reductions in degree of criminal liability for an
officer who commits an offense becaure of a reckless or negligent
belief that circuinrtancer Jurtifying his conduct exist.
The rearonr for and the precise nature of the reform
suggerted in each area are explained more fully in the remainder

of thir chapter.

Draft statutes that would accomplirh these

roforms are includod ar an Appendix.
A*

C1.titv
C u r r e a t statutory rular describing the circumstances under

which lau enforcament officer8 are authorized to use force and
deidly force u o found in Chaptor 3 of Titlo 2C, Now Jersey's

Codo of Crfininal JUrtiCe, entitled General Principie8 of

91

See State v , W

i

w

29 ySeJ, 27 (1959).
105

Justification.

Conduct that would be criminal under other

circumstanceis, is "justifiable" and not punishable if it is
consistent with rules set forth in Chapter 3 0 9 2 Prior to the
adoption of the Code in 1979, the Legislature had never attempted
to set forth rules to guide the use of force: the rules had been
developed by the coutts alone on a case-by-case basis.93
While the Legislature's goal waa to "establish

..

standards both a8 to the right to use force and as to the amount
the statutes enacted are too

of force which may be used,
detailed and too complex.

As

one Commentator explains:

Unfortunately the law of justification is
complicated and thu8 the Code provisions are
complicated. Often one tranraction M Y involve
claims of justification under several sections
The detailed provisions of each justification
are alightly different and in situations where more
than one is applicable each must be consulted
separately. Finally, each section itself is
complicated. Mort include separate requirements
for the ure of force and deadly force and
exceptionr to and limitations on these
requirements. The total effect is much like that
of a tax code. A section should be read carefully
several timer before one assumes that anomalous
results are produced by it.95

..

..

The Task Force agrees with this asrerrment of the complexity
of the Code's jurtification defenses.

It doer not, however,

.

92

8.8, 8 . û o I floJ.S.A 2C:3-7 (use of force to effect an
arrest, pravent an escape, prevent the conmission of a crime).
93

u Rappt't of the New Jarrev

C r w a l Law Revirion
C o n m u r s m , Vol. 1 1 8 C o m n t a r y at 78-79 (1971) [hereinafter
cited ar C o d r r i o n Report].
*

.

94

,

note 20 at 79.

95

J. Cannel, New Jerray Code of Criminal Justice, Comment
to Chapter 3, at 124 (1992) [hereinafter Cannel].
106

concur with the implicit suggestion that defenses such as these,
which provide the rules governing when and how much force
officers may use, need be this complex.
The importance of the public interests served by vigorous

law

enforcement and injured by "unlawful" law enforcement demands
ruler that are claar'<bnough to be applied by officers who, when
confronted with danger, are "forced to make split-second
judgments

-- in circumstances that are tanre, uncertain, and

rapidly evolving. " 9 6

In such dangerous and volatile

circumstances, when there is "little t h e for detached
reflection, n97 no matter how thorough their training, we cannot
expect law enforcement officers to apply a body of law that is so
complex and intricate ar to warrant comparison to a tax
r!

Further, the law must be comprehenrible to the public.

When

the public perceiver a particular ure of force as excenaive or a
particular failure to act au dereliction of duty, the law must be
sufficiently clear to allow the public to distinguish between an
officer who should be punished and a law that should be

96

109 $ * Ct. 1865, 1872

(1989)e
g7

Soe 3 r m V. United St a t u 256 U e S , 335, 343 (1921)
(wh8re Justice Holmas criticizer tho conrpl8xiti8s of the retreat
male and notas that thar8 ir littla tfpair for datachad reflection
4t tho point o f a k n i f o ) .
~~

98

SO.

m a 8 8 8 0 V.

G

W

, 471

p.s,

1, 20 ( 1 9 8 5 )

(di8CUSdng the bportanca of clear standards); Cannel, at 124.
107

Accordingly, the Task Force examined the provisions of
Chapter. 3, judicial decisions and scholarly works with the goal
of eliminating unnecessary and confusing complexity without

significantly altering the standards expressed in current law.
1.

Detailed Reuuirements. PIxceDtions and L imitations That
Can Be Mor e Clearlv Stated as General Reauirements.

Much of the complexity of current law is attributable to its
reliance on detailed and specific rules, each with numerous
exceptions and limitations, to describe the amount of and
circumstances under which force may be used in furtherance of law
enforcement.

Most of these rules can be subsumed in, and more

comprehensibly stated as general principles.

For the moot part,

the detailed rules and exceptions limit the use of force in two
ways :
1. The force used must be nccesrarv to protect person or
property from an unjustifiable threat or to accomplish a lawful
and
duty, such as effecting an arrest or preventing

2. The force used must be p a s o n u under the circumstances
-e a u c , deadly force ir permitted to avoid threats of death or
but not p e d t t e d t o avoid threats to
serious bodily h

property alone. l%fm

99

V. Bud ion Countv Board of Preeholderq
116 HaJ.
21, 26 (App. Div. 1971) (quoting
le ex r e l . Keenan v .
BcG-,
13 rll.2d S20, 1SO p.EL2d Ma,%
(1958))
loo S88 &J.S.&
2C:3-4aO, 2C:3-6~. , b. (1), 2C:3-7ao, b. ( 1 )
(a)..
101 See ~.J.s A. 2C:3-4bO(2); 2C:3-6b0(2),(3)(c), and d.;
2C:3-7b.(2); I88 al80 State V. Kallt 97 B.J. 178, 198 (1984);
Stat. v. Fa
45 H.JI 92-93 (1965); S t A t 9 V. Zellcrs, 7 N.J.L.
265, 293 (Sup. Ct. 1823); rea generally P. Robinron, Cr iminal Law
Pefenra# secs. 121, 131-13S, 141-142 (1984).

.

.

108

General standards such as these are more easily understood and
applied than the numerous specific rules, with accompanying
exceptions and qualifications, currently employed in Chapter 3.
For example, N.J.S.A.

2C:3-7 currently grants authority t o

use deadly force in arrest only when the arrest is for commission

or attempted commissibn of homicide, kidnaping, sexual assault,
sexual contact, arson, robbery, or burglary of a dwelling. 102

A

seriar of exceptions are then employed to luilit this authority to
inrtances where the perpetrator porcs an imminent threat of
deadly force to the officer or another, or the force is necessary
to prevent the crime, or the force is necerrary to prevent the
perpetrator's escape. 103
This complex approach seems roughly designed to authorize the
use of deadly force in arrert only when such extreme force is
necessary to accomplish the arrert of a ruspect who would pose a
substantial risk of serious bodily harm if not apprehended

.

immediately lo4
lo2 PJ.J.SeAL 2Ct3-7b*(2)(~).

N.J.S.A.

2C:3-7be(2) (d)(i)-(iii).

$04 SOO -on
RODO-,
nota 20 at 91 (explaining
that tha lirt of crimes includes those that either demonatrate
that the urostoo has ured force against a person or that
h e d i a t a apprahonrion is necessary). The list, however, both
e . a . , some
axcludar #op.crlwr that involvo usa of forco
fozms o f aggravatd arsault, &J.S&
2C:12-1
and includes
roma c r h r that may involvo no soriour thraat of bodily harm
demonstrating a n o d for h d i a t o approhanrion
j e % , some
forma of soltual contact, &J.S.AL 2C:14-3. Soo alro w s s e e V.
m,4S1 yes, 1, 14 (1983) (doscribing similar difficulties
gonoratad by ralying on tho dirtinction bottnan felonies and
misdameanorr to idantify fartancas in which doadly force ir
appropriate).

--

0-

-0

109

Similarly, N.J.S.A.

2C:3-7 currently prohibits any use of

force in arrest unless the officer "makes known the purpose of
the arrest, or reasonably believes that it is otherwise known by
or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be

arrested.

This specific rule and its exceptions are merely

exampler of the application of the requirement that force is not

',

authorized unless and until it is necessary

-- i.e.,

when a

demand to submit to arrest will suffice, the use of force is not
necemsary.
By setting forth this ringle illurtration of the application

of the requirement of "necessary" force, the statute obscures
rather than clarifies the straightfoward message that force is
not justified unlesr necessary at the time and in the amount

used.

The reality is that no detailed list, however

comprehensive, could adequately account for the variety of
factual situations that arise in individual cases and impact on
the baric decisions the officer must make
and how much force is necessary.

0-

is force necessary

Illustration; not only

complicate the matter but also may mislead by suggesting that
factors not idontifiad are irrelevant. 106

Tho conronaus of tho Task Force i r that general standards

lo6 ror oxuplo, tho rtatuto doos not direct an officer not
in uniforni to idontify hhself as an officer when doing SO will
avoid th8 n o d for using force. An officer focusing on the
prwiro r u h o sot forth in pr.J.S.rl, 2C:3-7, rather than the
genoral rulo'that force rhould ba u r d only when necessary, could
earily dotermino that identification ir irrelevant.
110

will provide better guidance than the current maze of detail

t

included in the provisions of Chapter 3 .

The following standards

are recommended:
Use of non-deadly force for law enforcement purposes
should be justified when immediately necessary and

"reasonable under the circumstances" to accomplishment
of the officer's lawful duty.
Use of "deadly force" for law enforcement purposes
should be justified when immediately necessary:
to effect arrest of a person who would pose a
substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any
person if apprehension were delayed; or

to prevent the commission of a crime involving a
substantial risk of immediate death or serious bodily
harm to any person.
These standards are generally consistent with but far more
comprehensible than those set forth in Chapter 3. lo7
Because law enforcement officers are also called upon to
defend themselves, others and property against u n e n t threat of
harm, the provisions of Chapter 3 governing use of force for
these purposes should be simplified in the manner discussed

To the extent
deadly force focooer on
the rumpact rather than
imp0880 & more r8tional

that the standard for permissible use of
the severity of the harm threatened by
tho crime the riumpect has committed, it
and understandable limitation than that
impor& bol current law. mrth8rPaor8, thfr rtandard is consistent
with that which law urforcaant offic8rr are obligated to follow
a8 a M t t 8 r O f COn8titUtiOnAl 1AWo S M -.88@0
v. Ga, 471
Y.S. 1 (1985). Tha rrtmdud for u88 o f non-doadly force is
roamwhat more rertrictive than curtont law in that it requires
that tho force ba both nocemrary and aroa8~nableundor the
circumtanco8
Thi8 re8triction, howver, i8 al80 conrirtent
with conrtitutional lidtations on th8 uma of non-deadly force.
See Graham V. Connog,
U.S.
109
Ct. 1865 ( 1 9 8 9 ) .

-

$ 0

111

Further, the statutes defining the defenses of self,

&ove.lo*

other8 and property should be combined in order to avoid the need
for confusing cross-references, exceptions, and overlap between

these defenses. log
2.

SDecific Policv Juduments That Cannot Be Stated In
General Standards.

Several provisionr of Chapter 3 have special significance that
cannot be adequately expressed by general standards limiting
justifiable force to necessary and reasonable force.

These

provisions promote specific public policy judgments concerning
the use of force.l1°

By either authorizing force that would

otherwise be prohibited as unnecessary or unreasonable, or
prohibiting force that would otherwire be authorized, these
provisionr significantly affect the amount of violence that will
be tolerated in furtherance of individual or public interests.
Examples of such public policy exceptions include the

following:

In order to prevent ercalation of the uae of force in
lo* See I . J . S . A I 2C:3-4 (use of force in self-protection),
2C:3-5 (use-of force for the protection of other perrons), 2C:3-6
(uae of force in defense of premises or personal property).

log The caplexities of the crorr-references are best
dwn0nmtzat.d by the fact that proper application of a-major
limitation on the use of force in relf-defense dependa on a
referebcn to a provimion fa the defonse of proprty that doem not
even U d 8 t . Sea H.J.S.A, 2C:3-4bm(1)(b)(ii), 2Ct3-6; see also
Stat. v. EoI 208 B.J.
Su480 (App. Div. 1986) (discussing
the significmcm of a cross-raference to the self-protection
justification included in the rtatute authorizing use of force
for tho protoction of third persons).
'lo
See generally 2 P. Robinron, Ct;aaFnai Law Daf enrc a
secs. 131(e), 142(f) (1984).
112

1

i

encounters with police officers,
current law does not
authorize the uae of force to resist an unlawful arrest unless
the officer-employs unlawful force. yS . J . S . A . 2C:3-4b.(l)(a).
In order to allow vigorous enforcement of the law,ll2
officers are authorized to use force to defend themselves even if
they could avoid patronal harm by failing to perform their duty.
N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4b0(2)(b)(ii).
In order to give.specia1 recognition to the right to be free
from attack in one'r dwelling,113 a person in a dwelling may use
deadly force against an intruder even if the intruder does not
threaten death or aeriour bodily harm. fl .J.S.A. 2C:3-4ca(2)(a).
It is important to recogni ze that exceptions such as these
can eaaily be altered to encourage or discourage the uae of force
in the protection of individual and rocietal interests.
For example , to further reduce the number of forceful

encounters with police officers, this State could, as others have
auggeated,l14 authorize the uae of force to reriat an unlawful
arreet only if the force employed by the officer threatens death
or aerious bodily injury.

Or, if the public were willing to

sacrifice vigorous enforcement of the criminal law in order to
avoid forceful encounterr between citizens and the police, the
__

111 see State V.
57 BeJ. 1'51, 155058 (1970);
Model Penal Code Sec. 3.04, Coment 19 (Tent. Draft No. 8, 1956).

see w a r i o n RODO-,
note 2 0 at 87. in state
#.J, 27 (1939), the Supreme Court explained the
rule aa "foundd in rearon and public utility, for few men would
quietly aubndt to arrest if in every case of rerirtance the party
empoworod to arrest was obliged to desist and leave the business
undone..
Id. at 39 (quoting u o c k v. Statq , 65 f l * J . L t 557, 572
(E. L A. 1900)).
V.

w

112

u , 29

This ir the obviour intent of .i#nd,wnts to p.J .S.A.
2 C t 3 - 4 and 2Cs3-6 adopted in Chapter 120 of the Laws of 1987.

11'
Model Penal Cod8 8.C.
3.04.
The draft 8tatUt88
included in the Appendix clarify, but do not significantly alter,
the current rule.
113

law could absolve officers of the duty to arrest persons who
resist or could direct officers not to pursue suspects.115
Alternatively, if the public is unwilling to relieve officers of
the duty to pursue persons who do not comply with lawful orders
but is nonetheless interested in limiting dangerous chases and
encounters,

the law could be revised to impose strict

sanctions for non-compliance with orders to halt li7
While the Task Force has not attempted to resolve these
difficult questions of public policy, it must emphasize that such
judgments are now included in the provisions of Chapter 3 and in
laws defining the obligations of citizens and public officers.
The judgments incorporated in there laws play a significant role
in determining when and the amount of force that will be employed
in encounters between citizens and police officers.
The Task Force recommends that the Attorney General consider
whether it is appropriate to solicit public opinion on these

115 See State v. Williamt 1 29 PJ.J* 27, 38-39 (1959)
(cautioning against adoption o f a rulo that would encourage
officers to default in thair duty to capture).
There ir evidence that investigatory stops by police
officers on straet patrol ara M affmctive tool in reducing
c r h . SnDfx,
art Invasti t o m Detentions In Search and
w
g
, 1985=L.J.
849, ü W - 5 3 ~(1985)
~
Experience
indicatm, howaver, that such stops, on occasion, lead to flight
and putroit.

.

As tho Suproma Court recently notad, "Street pursuits
alwayr place tha public at some risk, and compliance with police
orders to stop should tharafora be 8ncouragad." California V .
Bodari,
u,s,- I
111 $. Ct. 1547, 1551 (1991). The New
Jarray Lagi#latura has moved toward this approach in increasing
penalties for flight by auto following a signal to stop. See
N.J.S,A. 2C:29-2 (offensa of resisting arrest and eluding).

-

114

precise issues by requesting legislative hearings, by submitting

i

public questions to the voters or by some other means.
3.

.

Clarification of the Rules Definina AmroDriate Force
AccomDlished bv Distinauishinu Justified Conduct From
Conduct That the Actor Raasonablv Believes is
Justified.

The provisions of Chapter 3 currently define the
\

circumstances under which a person may use force in terms of the
actor's "reasonable belief."

The frequent repetition of the

"reasonable belief" language adds complexity to the statutory
provisions and raises difficult questions of statutory
construction. 11*

Thus, in order to more clearly state the rules

describing appropriate use of force, the Task Force recommends
treating the issue of "reasonable belief" in a separate, single
statutory provision.
There is an additional, and perhaps more important, benefit

to be derived from distinguishing force that is in fact
consistent with the rules from force that an officer reasonably,
but mistakenly, believer is justified.

In the first instance the

conduct i r proper under the law, and it ir proper for a l l persona
in similar situations in the future to uße force.

In the second

inrtance the une of force war an underrtandable, reasonable
mirtake, and, whilo the person who made the reasonable mirtake
rhould not bo puninhed, force rhould not be ured under similar
circunutanc8r in the future.

By providing separate defenses

'*

--

ta v. H o m I 208 E . J . S u w r . 480, 485- 88
s881 ).Ut,
(Appa Div. 1986) ( d e t s n i n g the proper application of the
rearonable b8li.f
requirement in a care involving defenre of
another perron).
115

a

justification defense for proper conduct and an excuse defense
i

for a person who makes a reasonable mistake

-- the law reserves

the lahel "justified" for conduct that is proper.l19

As a

reuult, the public and officers alike will be able to distinguish
a use of force that ia approved from a use of force that is not.

When an officer, because of a readonable mistake, shoots an
unarmed person, all will understand that the law does not
authorize Buch conduct.

B. Consistency with Constitutional Standard 8
In a 1985 decision rendered in the case of Tennessee v.
Garneg I 120 the United States Supreme Court declared the demise of
a common law rule permitting the use of deadly force whenever
Balancing the

necessary to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon.

"nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth
Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental
interests alleged to justify the intrurion, n121 the Court
concluded that the use of deadly force is not sufficiently
productive as a moans of effective law enforcement or as a means

of bringing an offender to justice, to justify taking the life of
the 0ff8nder.l~~ On this basis, the Court held that it wad

constitutionally unreasonable to employ deadly force to apprehend
808
88C80 24,

120

gonotally 1 P. Robinson,

.

I

W

I

25, 2 7 ( 0 ) , 32(c),(d).
-88.

v.

471

1 (198s).

121 T.nn.rr.0
v.
471 U.S. 1, 8 (1085) (quoting
m t e d Statam v. P l a , 462 p.S, 696, 703 (1983)).
122 Tennesaea v. G

m

471 U.S. 1, 9-11 (1985)

116

-

a felon who poses no threat of serious physical harm.123
E

The

Court also held, however, that it would be constitutionally
reasonable to use deadly force when necessary to prevent the
escape of a suspect, if there is probable cause to believe

--

either because the suspect has threatened the officer with a
weapon or committed a . c r h e involving the infliction or threatened
,

infliction of serious bodily h a m

-- that failure to effectuate

the suspect's immediate arrest would pose a threat of serious
physical harm to the officer or 0ther8.l~~
As discussed above,

N.J.S.A.

2C:3-7 authorizes the use of

deadly force to effect an arreet on a different basis.

Rather

than stating a general rule concerning the danger posed by t h e
muspect, the statute lists crimes

-- homicide, kidnaping, sexual

assault, sexual contact, robbery, arson, burglary of a dwelling
I'

or an attempt to commit any of those c r b r

-- and authorizes the

use of deadly force if necessary to prevent the escape of a
person who has committed an enumerated crime. 12s
While section 2C:3-7 is a more rearonable version of the
common law rule invalidatad in

w,by

focusing on the crime

coirimitt8d rather than tha danger posed by the suspect it
nonethalass p d t s the usa of deadly force in some cases in

123

m e 8 8 @ 8 V. G

124

w 8 # S 8 8 V.

125 P.J.S.Ar

w I 4 7 1 U.S.

1, 11 -12 ( 1 9 8 5 )

471 yes. 1, 11 -12 ( 1 9 8 5 )

2Ct3-7b. (2)(c)-(d)(iii)
117

which Garner would not.126

Conversely, by limiting the use of

deadly force in arrest to a specific list of crimes, section
2C:3-7

prohibits deadly force in some cases where Garney: would

permit it.127

Thus, under current law, officers are required to

follow inconsistent rules.
Although these inconsistencier have been reconciled in
guidelines issued by the Attorney General, the Task Force
nonetheless recommends amending statutory law to conform with the
G a m e € standard.

The current inconsistency creates an

intolerable level of confurion where clear guidance is needed.
More importantly, an officer who has acted in accordance with
constitutional limitations should not be subject to punishment
for a crime under the law8 of this State, and the laws of this
State should not authorize use of force that is inconsistent with

126

For example, under Garnez, the use of deadly force to
prevent the escape of a person who had committed burglary of a
dwelling would not be deemed reasonable unless there was probable
cause to believe that the suspect had inflicted or threatened t o
inflict serioum bodily h a m during th8 course of or flight from
the co~rdssionof the offense. Tonne msee v. Garne€, 471 U.S. 1,
23-24 (1985). Other c r h r enumerated in g.J.S.&
2C:3-7be(2)(c),
m y or may not ba committed in a ~ n n e rthat satisfies the Garner
rtandud. For utample, 801~.conduct prohibited ar rexual assault
and czfrin.1
rexuaï contact involve no threat or infliction of
seriou. phy8iCAl h m . ..S P.J.S.A. 2C:l4-2, 2C:14-3.
an officer would be jurtified
lZ7 ?or ex.itple, under
in uring deadly force if necessary to apprehend a person who had

inf1ict.d reriour bodily injury. See m o r r e e v. Garner , 471
Y.S, 1, 11 (1965). Under N8w Jer8ey law the crima could be
aggravAted assault or attempted murder. See H.3.S.A. 2C:ll-3,
ZC:S-l, ZC:l?-lb.(l).
A8 aggravated asrault i8 not one of the
c r h a listed in 2C:3-7, the statute amem8 to require the officer
to determine, at r h k of criminal liability, whether there is
reason to believe that the crime is attempted murder.
118

the constitutional rights of its citizens. 12*

Finally, as

direusred in- section A . above, general standards of the sort s e t
forth in. Garner provide clearer and more meaningful guidance than
the detailed rules set forth in section 2C:3-7.
For the same reasons, the Task Force reconmiends amendment
of N.J.S.A.

2C:3-3 an'p 2C:3-7 to incorporate constitutional

restrictions on the use of non-deadly force.

In 1989, in Graham

v. Connor, 129 the Supreme Court held that any force used in

arrest, deadly or non-deadly, violator the Fourth Amendment unless
the force employed is rearonable under the circumstances liO
It is important to stress that mending New Jersey's
statutory law to incorporate the constitutional restriction8 on
the use of force will not make every violation of a
constitutional right a crime.

As discusred above, an officer who

reasonably believes that circumstance.

jurtifying the use of

force exist has a complete defense to any form of criminal
liability.

A belief

ir rearonable unlerr the actor i a reckless

12* LAW enforcement officiala training or directing officers
to adhore t o Code standard# that allow force prohibited under
G a r n u and
ar well ar the municipalitier and counties that
employ the officiala, rirk civil liability bared on "deliberate
indiffe~once"to the right8 and safety of the public evidenced by
inadoquate tr8iniag. See, j . u . , Davi8 v. Maron Countv , 927 E,2d
1473 (9th Cir. 1991), 98rt.
p
JIoS,
112 9. Ct. 275
(1991)e

-,

-

129

130
(1989)

Graham

V.

Graham v.

- JJ.S*
Connor, - Y.S.
Connor,

119

109 S * Ct. 1865 (1989).
109

s.

Cte 1865, 1871-72

or negligent in holding the belief.131 For purposes of the
criminal law, negligence requires a "gross deviation from the
standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the
actor s situation. ~ 1 3 2
1

In contrast, civil liability for excesrive force will attach
unlesrr the officer

LI

.

conduct is objectively reasonable 133

Thus ,

by eliminating inconsirtencies between rtatutory and
conrtitutional males defining when and how much force is
authorized, the Legislature can provide officers with consistent
guidance on appropriate force without improperly equating
standards for criminal and civil liability.

A reasonable belief is one that ir neither recklessly
nor negligently held.
* J . S * A . 2C:1-14j.

132

NeJeSeA. 2C:2-2b*(4).

133 See Grabam v. Connor!
U.S.
, 109 S . Ct. 1865,
that is,
1872 (1989). An officer'r "obtectivq 'good faith'
whether he could roaronably have believed that the force used did
not violate the Fourth Amendment
may br rolmvant to" a defense
of qualified haunity in a civil action for a violation of Fourth
Amandment, 42 Y . S . C . & rec. 1983. Ipt at 1873, 11.12 (1989)
(doclining t o addrerr the exact scope of the qualified h u n i t y
defenre in axcer~iveforca caser). The iama standards of
liability and qualified iiPwinity would likely apply in an action
filed U0d.r th. bt.V Jer8.y T o r t C 1 . h Act. Se8
V. Torn ahir>
9fPirc.t.w.vt
236 B e J . S u w r 550, 553-54 (App. Div. ,1989)
(aquatAa9 r t m d u d r of liability and qualified h n i t y under 42
y.S.C.&
8 . c . 1983 md th. Now Jersey Tort C l a b Act in a care
of prmtri.1
allaging .xcorrivo w e of forca in rertr.int
u v a # v. Marcar Coupf;y, 217 H.J. -S
614, 621-23
detain..);
(App. Div. 1987) (equating standard8 of liability and general
qualified hamunity under 42 y . S X ,A. sec. 1983 and the New Jersey
Tort Claim8 Act); 8.8 a i r 0 m k V. Citv of -N
, 109 B.J, 173,
186-87 (1988)-(dircusrfng qualified h n i t y AI a defenre to a
rec. 1983 alleging inrufficiency of
claim under 42 p.S.C&
probable cause for arrest).
0-

--

.

120

-

. .

E

C. -na1

L iabilitv Commensurate with CulDabilitv

Under current law, an officer who purposely or knowingly
causes death because he mistakenly believes that the use of
deadly force is necessary either to protect the life of an
innocent citizen, or to effect the arrest of person who has j u s t

.

committed a homicide, or to preserve his own life from a threat
encountered in the line of duty, has a complete defense if h i s
mistake is r e a ~ o n a b 1 e . l ~ If
~ the officer’s belief is reckless or
even negligent, however, the officer is liable for murder.l35
Recognizing “the possible consequences [of this rule] to
public safety officers," the Supreme Court recently commended the
“iarue to the consideration of the L e g i r l a t ~ r e . ” ~The
~ ~ Task
Force has considered there consequences and recommends reform,
A8

discussed above, officers, unlike private citizens who are free

to turn away, are under a legal conpulaion to act and must make
split-second decirionr in circumstance8 that are tense and
fraught with danger,

An officer acting in furtherance of his

lawful duties who believer, albeit unreasonably, that the

134

The law anforcoment and self-defenre jurtificationa are
available to a parron who rearonably but mirtakenly believes that
thû U 8 8 O f fore8 f8 necerrary, Ys o J * S * A * 2C:3-4, 2C:3-7,
135 Thi8 a 8 8 U ê 8 a purporeful or knowing homicide, N. J.S . A ,
2Cr3-1%. If th8 a h t a k e n actor i 8 only aware o f a subrtantial
rirk that hi8 conduct will cause death, then the actor is
reckler8 a8 to killing and reckless ~ n r ï a u g h t e ri 8 the crime.
SO.
2Ct2-2, 2C:ll-4.
In either Cale, there i8 no
defaaro or mitigation available to an actor who unreasonably
bdi8tt.8
th* forca h. U808 i 8 jurtified. Sa8 State V. B w e n 8, 108
PJeJr 622 ( 1 9 8 7 ) .

136

State

V.

Boweng ,

108

P.J.
12 1

622, 634-35 (1987).

c i r c w t a n c e s justify his conduct is simply not as blameworthy as
an officer who kill8 or injures without such a belief.
Prior to the adoption of the Code of Criminal Justice in
1979, such officers were not subject to punishment for murder,

Officers who killed because of a "good-faith but mistaken
estimate of [their] right and duty to do

SO"

or "an erroneous

1,

decirion as to the need to kill" were guilty of manslaughter not

.

murder 137
The explanation for this rule of mitigation was as follows:
Police officers are not volunteers. They are armed
and required to act to enforce the law. They may
err in their judgment and exceed their authority in
the sense that they misjudge the need for extreme
measures or their right to resort to them. Yet,
where the purpose is to comply with duty, it would
be unroaronable to impose t h e measure of criininal
rerponribfïity applicable to the citizen whose
involvamnt do88 not originate in a legal
compulsion to act and who is free to turn away.

.'.
We r e m r n to the proposition that the offense
of an officer so motivated ir in essence a culpable
error of judgment made in the stress of an
encounter he did not invite.138
As the S u p r e m Court har recently noted, the Legislature'r intent

and purpose in eliminating a mitigation of this sort for law

stat8 v*'W-,
29 P . J r 27, 36, 38-39 (1959). The
c o m o n h W ritigation war moro l i b r a 1 than the one proposed here.
kr. offfcot vho um& moro force than necesrary war completely
excurod from lirbility un1088 th8 fore8 war 80 excerrive a8 to
r8veal "an utt8r dirrogud of th8 rights of tho offender." Id. at
42. An officer who killd due to u80 of oxcorrive force of that
natur8 rocofved a d t i g a t i o n to mrrnrlaughter.
13'

138

V.

nil-

I

29

N A , 27,
122

36, 43 (1959).

enforcement officers are far from clear. 139
The LcgislatÚre did retain the analogous common law r u l e of
passion/provocation, which provides a much broader mitigation for
private citizens who unnecessarily kill when provoked

--

for

example, by physical confrontation, threat of violence or present
or part attack agairht themselves, relatives or close friends.140
in comparison, 141 it seems quite unjust

-- especially since the

only offense in thir State punishing a perron who negligently
injures another io simple assault

-- to deny a mitigation to an

officer who believes, albeit reckltasly or negligently, that
circumstances encountered in the performance of his duties

139

see State

V. BOWens,

108 p . J . 622, 630, 634-35.

I4O

Sec, J.Q.,
State v. Pitte, 116 p.J. 580, 604-06 (1989)
(victim's inruïting remarkr, exchange of pU8he8 and shoves, and
victh'r announcement that he war going to get his gun deemed
adequate provocation); State v. Covlq 119 p1.3. 194, 225-26
(1990) (avidenc8 that defendant after heated argument with the
victim, killad tha Victim in an effort to protact hi8 lover, the
victim'r wife, war rufficiant to ertabïirh "adequate provocation"
in a case where dafandant rmpeatadly rhot v i c t h ; evidence that
victim had for A long pariod of tima rubjected his wife to abuse
war almo indapadantly adquate); State V O Bl8hOS 225 P.J.
super. S96, 605 (App. Div. 19û8) (evidonca that defendant who
stabbad a victim attar entering a brawl in which no one else wae
a r w d but i n which him nephew war baing victimized war rufficient
to ertablirh adaquat8 provocation); soa ganerally State v.
117 B e J L 402, 414 (1990) (lirting caures deemed to be
sufficiontly provocativa).

.

w,

14'
S8e -8
v. W
U 29
27, 42-43 ( 1 9 5 9 )
(oxplaining the rule providing a mitigation for an officer who
urea wanton excarriva forca in the prforiaince o f hi8 dutier as
r8q~ir.d by tha " f a i r analogy" and " p u i t y of conriderations"
betweon ruch an officar an¿ a private c i t i t a n who act8 under
provocation).
123

require the use of justified force. 142
Accordingly, the Taak Force propores a mitigation under which
a

law enforcement officer who ha8 made a negligent mistake would

have a complete defense to any c r h e other than one that required
negligence as to any element
with a deadly weapon.

-0

for example, negligent injury

An officer whose miatake was reckless

would have a complete defense to any crime other than one
requiring rccklersncss or negligence as to any element

-- for

example, negligent injury with a deadly weapon or reckless

.

manslaughter 143
142

i

While it would be defeniible to extend thir mitigation
for mistake to private citizens, ar the Supreme Court did under
pre-Code law in State V. Powell, 84 NoJ. 305 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , recent
decirions on provocation/pasrion manrlaughtor indicate that this
ir not neccrrary. Although an honert but unrearonable belief in
the need to use justified force doer not in itself provide a
mitigation, State V. Pitti , 116 H.J. 580, 604-05 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , a
defendant who ir provoked by battery or threat8 of rerious harm
will receive a mitigation based on parrion/provocation. See,
-8
State v. Co
, 119 pS.J. 191, 224-26 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ; State V.
pitta, 116 p.J. a%05-06;
State V. B
U 225 P.J. SUDOr 596,
604 (App. Div. 1 9 8 8 ) . Givon thoro judicial decirioni on
provocation, if tho Logirïature war8 to provido a mirtaken
jurtification dafonro for civilianr it would bo necorrary to
ravir. tho law of provocation to avoid inconrirtoncy and overlap.
Such a revirion ir far beyond tho rcopa of tho ChArtg8 given to
thir Tark Porca. Furthor, a rignificant majority of the members
of tho Tark Porco boliovo that privato citizanr, who unlike
officar8 u a undat no logal CompuhiOn to u88 forca, have less
naad for mitigation b8.d
on mirtaken uro of force, State V .
29 pS.J, 27, 36 ( 1 9 5 9 ) . Howover, thrao membors of the
Tank Fosca do not 8 h ~ thir
8
view.

.

m,

143 Tha approach ir riallax to that 8dvurc.d in the Model
Panal Coda and initially proposed by tho N e w Joraoy Criminal Law
Ravirion Conœ~inirfon. Saa Model Panal Coda m o c . 3.09(2);

rion R m ,
note 20 at 82-83, 94-95.
Saveral
jurirdictionr hava followad tho Modal Panal Codo on thir point.
Sa.,
..Q., Ark. Coda Jim. mec. 5 - 2 - 6 1 4 ( 1 ) ; 0.1. Code Ann. tit.
11, 8.C.
470(a); Hawaii Rev. Stat. roc. 7 0 3 - 3 1 0 ( 1 ) ; Ky. Rev.
Stat. Ann. sec. 503.120; He. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17A, rec.
124

This narrow mitigation for officers who believe, albeit
unreasonably, that they are required to act in the performance of
their duties is important to ensure that they, like private
citizens, are punished for
culpability. 144

a

crime that is consistent with their

Further, the mitigation is necessary to properly

diatinguirh among officers

.

Current law improperly equates the

eeriousness of a crime committed by an officer who makes a grave
error in judgment with the seriousness of the crime committed by
an officer who kills or injures without a belief in the need to
inflict serious injury.

While both deserve punishment, they do

not dererve the rame punishment.

Laws defining when and how much force may be used in law
enforcement, together with those that define the extent of a law

lO(3); Neb. Rev. Stat. mec. 28-1414(2); N.D. Cent. Code sec.
12.1-OS-08; Guam Crim. L Corr. Code rec. 7.96(b). Others provide

a mitigation from murder to manrlaughter. Sae, g . u . , Ill. Ann.
Stat. ch. 38, para. 9 - 2 ; 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. sec. 2503(b).
Otharr provida A r p c i a l nirrnrïaughter offanre that applies to
p r r o n r who unnocarrarily kill while rerirting unjustified
aggrerrion. Sa., ) . u . , F ~ A .Stat. Ann. rac. 728.11; Miss. Code
Ann. roc. 97-3-31; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, roc. 711(3); Wis.
Stat. Ann. 8.c. 940.0S0

U4 If thara ir concern that thir mitigation will be too
earily hvokod, it could ba addressed, ar it ir elsewhere in the
Coda, by requiring 4 dafandant to artabïirh hi8 ontitlenient. See,
2Ct2-8d. (intoxication defense w r t bo artablirhed by clear
and convincing ovidanco); 2C:2-12b0 (antrapmnt dafenre must be
artablirhad by a propondorance of tha ovidanca). The burden of
proving thir mitigation, which doar not nogative an element of
tho offanro, could bo rhfftad to tha defendant. See patters on v .
Bow Yo& 432 p.S. 197 (1977). By p u i t y of conriderationr,
howover, i f difondantr aro r8quir.d to aatablfrh thir mitigation,
then it would r o a appropriate to require dafandantr to establish
tho groundr for a mftigation based on parrion/provocation.
125

enforcement officer's duty to act and the extent of a suspect's
duty to rubmit, embody difficult and critical public policy
judgments.

They state society's determination of the proper

balance of its interests in preventing crime, apprehending
criminals, protecting the public safety and preserving individual
rights.

Given the w o r t a n c e of statutes governing the use of

force, to both law-abiding officerr and law-abiding citizens, the
Task Force recommends the following reform.
A.

Clarity
Current statutory rules governing when and how much
force may be used by law enforcement officers are too
complex and technical to be applied, as they must be,
under tenre, uncertain and rapidly-evolving
circumstances. Current detailed ruler and exceptions
ahould bo replaced with general comprahenrible
standards of the rort met forth in Appondix A.
Current rtatutory ruler defina appropriate force in
t e m a of the officer's reasonable belief. This causes
confusion between conduct that ir conrirtent with the
rules and conduct that an officer reasonably, but
mistakenly, believes is conrimtant with the rules.
Issuer of appropriate force and reasonable belief should
be reparated to anrure that both the public and other
officerr understand the distinction between conduct that
ir justified and appropriate and conduct that, although
inappropriate, i s excur8d due to rearonable mirtake.

i

Current law includes ieparate defensa8 for self-defense,
defense of others and defense of proprty. To eliminate
confuaing crorr-references and to avoid unnecearary
roptition there defenre8 rhould ba combined.

E.

CY

with C o n r t r t u w St-

Statutory provirions describing when and how much force
u y bo u r d in furth8rance o f law enforcemont are
inconsistmt with controlling conrtitutional rtandards.
In order to enrura that N8w Jerrey law noithar
authorizes forca that violator tha conrtitutional rights
of it8 citizen8 nor pUni8h.8
it8 officer8 for the use of
force that ir con8titutionally prmirribìe, rtatutory
law should be revised to conform with conrtitutional
126

-

standards.
C.

-al

*

Liabilitv Commensurate with CuïDabilitv

.

Current law does not distinguish between officers who
injure or kill, without justification, and officers who
cause injury or death because they believe, albeit
unreasonably, that performance of their duty or
preservation of their life requires the use of force.
In recognition of the fact that officers are under a
legal compulBion to enforce the law and perform this
duty under difficult circumstances requiring
split-second judgments, statutes should be revised to
provide for appropriate reductions in degree of criminal
liability when an officer c o d t s an offense because of
a recklesr or negligent belief that circumrtances
justifying his conduct exist. An analogous mitigation,
passion/provocation, is provided for private citizens.
D.

Public Policv Judments
noted above, the proper formulation of the laws we
have reviewed involves difficult quartions of public
policy concerning the proper balance of the intererte in
preventing crime, apprehending criminals, protecting t,he
public safety and preserving individual right8. For
this reason the Task Force recommends that the Attorne!Y
General consider soliciting additional public opinion on
the following issues:

As

l

i

1. Should the right to urne force to resist an

unlawful arrest be limited to instances where the force
employed threatens serious bodily injury.
2. Should law enforcement officers be absolved of
the duty to arrest person8 who resist or flee.
3. Should the law be revired to i m ~ o s estrict
sanctions for non-compliance with orders to halt or
submit to arrest.

Eo
A. i n tha part, the Attorney General should revise

idalinas governing the uso of force to reflect changes
th8 law.

E
Po

Training program should be xoviied, as they have been
in the past, to keep pace with changes in the law.
127

APPENDIX A

i

Chapter 3 . -CIRWREULT. PRIXIPUS OF JUSTIFICATION
.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELEVANT TO USE OF FORCE
BY L A W ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

Section
2C:3-1

J u a t i f i c a ~ o nand Excuse A f f innative Defenses : C i v i l
Remedies Unaffected: L i a b i l i t y f o r Causing Circumstances
J u s t i f y i n g o r Excusing Conduct.

2C :3-3

Execution of Public Duty.

2c :3-4

Urre of Force i n Dtfenrre of S e l f , Others o r Property

(Combinem 2C:3-4,

2C:3-5 and 2C:3-6).

2C :3-7

U 8 e of Force i n Law Enforcement.

2C :3-9

Mistaken Use of Force.

2C:i-11

Definitionrr.

128

2C:3-1.

Justification and Excuse A f f h t i v e Defenses; Civil
Causing Defense Conditions.

das UMffwted; Liability for

a. The justification and excuse defenses provided in this
chapter-are affirmative defenses.
b. A justification or excuse defense under this chapter does
not abolish o r impair any remedy available in a civil action
based upon the a m e conduct.

c. Notwithstandin9 the provisions of this chapter, a person
is liable for an offense if, acting with the culpability required
for the c o ~ ~ d s r i oof
n that offense, he causes conditions that
would otherwise constitute a defense to the offense.
2C.3-3.

Execution of Public Duty.

a. Except as provided in sub8ections b. and C. of this
section, conduct is justified when it is reasonable under the
circumstances and ismediately necer8ary to accomplish a duty or
function required or authorized by:
(1) The law defining the duties or functions of a public
officer or the assistance to be rendered to such officer in the
performance of hi8 duties;
(2) The law governing the execution of legal process;
( 3 ) The judgment or order of a competent court or tribunal;

(4) The law governing the armed services or the lawful
conduct of war; or

(5) Any other provision of law hposing a public duty.

b. The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this
section unless exprersly authorized by law.
c. The othar sections of thir chapter govern the use of
forca upon or t a v u d the person of another for any of the
purpora8 dealt w i t h in such sections.
2Ct3-4 On

(Râpl-

of Forca Fn Dofanse of S e l f , Another or Property.

f0ri.r 2Ct3-4, 2Ct3-5 .od 2Ct3-6)

a. An actor's w e of force, other than deadly force, against
another person is justified when:
(l)(a)The parson is uring or i8 about to use unjustified
forca against- the actor or a third parson; or

129

i'

(b) The perion, by unjustifiably entering, remaining on,
damaging or taking, is or is about to interfere with property or
premirem that are in the posaession or under the control of t h e
actor or a person on whose behalf he acts; and
( 2 ) 'The force the actor employs is reasonable in relation to,
and immsdiately necessary to protect against, the bodily harm or
interference with property or premises threatened.

b. An actor's use of deadly force against another person is
Justified when:
(1) The peraon is uring or ia about to uae unjustified force
againrt the actor or a third person; and
(2) The use of deadly force is immediately necessary to
protect the actor or the third person against
( a ) death or serious bodily harm, or

( b ) a threat of bodily harm from a person who has
unlawfully entered and who unlawfully remains in a dwelling.
C. S p e c i a l Rules. ( 1 ) The ure of deadly force by an actor
other than a public officer uring lawful force in the performance
of his dutier ir not aimmediately necerrary" if:

(a) The actor can avoid all risk of bodily harm to himself
and the third perron by
(i) complying with a demand to abrtain from action he
has no legal duty to take,

(ii) rurrendering personal property or premires to a
person acting under an honest claim of right the person has made
known to the actor, or
(iii) retreating, unlerr he i r in his dwelling or the
dwalling of th8 third person and the thrrat is pored by a person
who ir not A cohabitant; or

(b) The third porron would b. rquirad to comply, surrender
or ret-t
pursuant to rubsaction c.(l)(a) if he were defending
hinuelf, a d the actor ha8 not attempted to cause the third
parroa to do 80.
(2) Except ar providad in paragraph (1) of this rubrection,
no perron i8 r8quir.d to avoid harm thr8atrn.d by unjurtified
conduct by refraining from lawful conduct or the performance of a
legal duty or by taking action he ha8 no legal duty to take.

130

2Ct3-7.

üre of Forca in L a w Bnforcciant.

(CEAHGBS NOT SHOWN)

a. A law enforcement officer's uae of force, other than
deadly force, against another person i8 justified if the force
employqd is reasonable under the circumstances and immediately
n e c a s m q to the lawful performance o f a duty, including but not
limited to conducting an investigation or search, effecting an
arrest of the person, preventing the person's eacape from the
custody of an officer or a detention facility, preventing the
perron's codsrrion of an offense, or bringing under control an
unlawful or dangeroùs situation in which the person is involved.
(2) A law enforcement officer's use of deadly force against
another person is justified when immediately necessary
(a) to effect a lawful arrest, if the person againat whom
the force ia employed would pose a substantial risk of death or
serious bodily harm to any person if apprehension were delayed;
( b ) to prevent the c o d a a i o n of a crime, if the peraon
against whom the force is employed ir about to c o d t a crime
involving a substantial risk of inmediate death or serious bodily
harm to any person, or
(c) to prevent the parson's escapa from a facility or
institution for confinement of perrons who have been charged with
or convicted of a crime.
b. A private citizen's use of force, othar than deadly force,
against another person Ás justified if the force employed is
reasonable under the circumstance and htediately necessary t o
effect a lawful citizen's arrest of the person.
2Ct3-9.

Bxcurr or Hitigation for nirtakmn -lief

a. -re
for Rusonable nirt.lts. if
not jurtified, but he rearonably balieves
justifying his conduct under thir chapter
excused and ha8 a complete defense to any

(m)

an actor's conduct is
that circumstances
exist, the actor is
offense.

b. IUtfwtfoai for U B X W 8 O o l b l e #h+.)u.
(1) If th8 conduct of a public officer acting in the
of hfr dutiar ir not jurtifid, but the officer
perfo-e
reckloaaly balievmr that circumstancer justifying his conduct
under t h i 8 chapter exist, the officer ir excused from liability
for m y offenre other than an offenre roquirfng recklessness or
negligence ar to m y elamont.
(2) If the conduct of a public officer acting in the
porfornunce of hir duties ir not jurtified, but the officer
negligently believer that circumtances justifying his conduct
under this chapter exist, the officer ir axcurad from liability
131

i

for any offense other than an offense requiring negligence as to
any element.
2C:3-l10

De*finitiona. (SWSTANTUU =SION:

Changes Not Shawn)

In t u 8 chapter, unlese a different meanhg plainly is
required:
a. Conduct is "unjustified" and an actor acts "unjustifiablyiq
if hia conduct, including confinement or poasesaion, satisfies
the objective elementg of an offense and is not justified under
the provisions of this chapter. The terms do not include the
conduct of a law enforcement officer effecting an unlawful
arrest, unless the officer employa more force than necessary to
affect the arrest.

b. "Deadly force" means force that causes death or serious
bodily harm o r creates a substantial risk of causing death.
c. "Dwelling" meana any building or structure, though movable
or temporary, or a portion thereof, which is for the time being
the person's home or place of lodging.
d . "Serious bodily harm" means bodily harm which creates a
substantial riak of death or which causes serioua, permanent
disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of
any bodily member or organ or which results from an aggravated
raxual or sexual assault involving the use or threatened use of
force or a deadly weapon.

e. "Bodily h a m " means physical pain, or temporary
disfigurement, or impairment of physical condition, or the harm
of confinement, restraint, sexual assault or sexual contact.
f . The term "force" shall have its ordinary meaning and ahall
include all conduct involving or throateninq bodily or serious
bodily h a m . Phrares ruch ar use of force 'against another
person" and-"againrt the actor of a third person" shall include
force directed at property or premises when that force also
involves or threatens bodily or serious bodily harm.

132

APPENDIX B
SELECTED BIBLIWRAPBY
JtepOrtm

d AdMniatrative Materials

(UI

American Civil Libertiea Union, On the Line: Police Brutalitv and
Its Remedies (April 1991).
Christopher, W. , Argqdllea, J.A. , RcDort of the IndeDendent
commr'srion on the Lor Anaeles Police DeDartment (1991).
Department of California Highway Patrol Report, Citizens'
Comblaint Inveatiuationq (July 1989).

.

International A88ociation of Chief8 of PoliCe, -a
Policv (January 1989)

int Review

International A880~iatiOn of Chiefs of Police, Use of Force:
ConceDt a and Isruer PaDex (February 1989).
International Aarociation of Chief8 of Police, prol'eCt Rû8DOn re:
Enternational Arr-iation o f Chrefr of Poìrce ResDond8 to the
ce Bru talitv Irruq (October 1991)

.

New Jer88y Attorney General Robert J. Del Tufo Letter to County
Prosecutors regarding Investigation of Citizen Complaints
(AUgU8t 21, 1991).
New Jarley Department of Law and Public Safety, Divi8ion of
Criminal Jurtice, "Internal Affairs Policy and Procedure,
ual: C u t e r 5 (1991).

'I

Now Jarrey Departmnt of Law and Public Safety, Division of
Criminal Jurtico, Police Training C d r r i o n , Baric COurre
f o r Police Officora (1990)

.

Now Jet8.y
Departmant of L a w and Public Safoty, Dividon of
Cririnrl Jurtice, -8
Incident Invertiaation StanQgsd 0
(1988)

-

Now J o z ~ f fD o p u t n n t of L a w and Public Safety, Division of
w -cation
a
Cr-1
Jurtico, u u a l P
for Now JeLaw

-e

New Jorrey Dap.rtrP.nt of L a w and Public Safoty, yre of Porce
cy for L a w w o r c e w n t t Seloct Porfororince Policier
(1991).

.

133

New York Civil Liberties Union, Police Abure: The Need for
i

Civilian Inved tiffation and ûversiuht (June 1990).
New York State C o d a s i o n on Criminal Justice and the Use of
Force, Report to the Governor (1987).
Report from Citizens' Conunittee Against Police Brutality in the
City of Pateraon to Mayor Paacrell e t al. (October 3 , 1990).
Report of Teaneck Townrhip Council Subcommittee on the Form and
Function of a Ci*lian Complaint Review Board (November 26,
1990)

Temtbony of New Jersey Attorney General Robert J. Del Tufo
before the United Stater COandd.on on Civil Rights (April 8,
1991)

.

United States Department of Jurtice, Bureau of Jurtice
Assistance, preventina Law Enforcement Stress: The
Oruanrza
'
t'ron e s Rol* (1990)

.

ks and Periodicalq
Bennett, L.A., The U n t a m ed Potential of Psvcholoaica
J!b8rea8ment~,The Police Chief Magazine (February i990).
Clede, B., New level8 of lothal force , L a w and Order (1990).
Condrrion of Accreditation for Law Bnforcuwnt Agencies, Inc.,
Standards for Law Enforcement Aaenc ia@ (1988).

Dix, G. E., -at

Invertiaatorv Detentionr in Search and
Seizuro Law, 1985 Duke L.J. 849 (1985).

Fischer, E:, New m k DqDel finds abure of force bv ~ 0ice
1 not
. t e u , Crinrfnal JU8tiCe Nowrïetter 18(11) (1987).

wil

Firher, W. S., et al,
L i u i t v of New Jersev Police
9ffic-r t An Ov0nri.y , Criminal JU8ticO Quutorly
lO(45) (?all 1989).
Preyormath, W. R.,
692 (1987).

Excerr ive Porcq , 1987 Duke L.J.

Police Powor to- K
Fyfe, J . J., -a
C r h i n a ï Law Bullotin 18(528) (1982).
Gallup, A.M.,

fscal LaW ?

& m r i w rav w l i c o brutautv f r m e n t
Gallup Poll NOW8 S e m i c e 55(42b)(1991).

w,

- but not

P.adlv ? ~ g c e tWhat we know , Journal of Police
Scienca and Adminiatration lo( 2) (1982)

Gellor, W.A.,

.

134

Gellcr, W.A., pol ice and dead l v f o r c e : A look a t t h e e m D i r i c a l
t e r a t u. r-q , In F.A. E l l i s t o n h M. Fe l d b e r g ( e d s . ) , Moral
1 8 8 U e B r n P o l i c e Work (1987).
H a l l , J.- C., Pol ice Use of Deadlv Force t o Arre s t : 9
Const i t u t i o n a l Stand& , F.B.I. Law Enforcement B u l l e t i n
( J u l y 1988).

K i r k , Behind t h e S i l e n c e : Does Societv Condone Police B r u t a l i t y
Ln Exchanue f o r G e t t i n u C r i m i n a l 8 o f f t h e S t r e e t , ABA J o u r n a l
( J u l y 1991 a t 45).

-

.

a

Kulowiec, D. J., F o u rt h Amendma n t
Detemunana t h e Reasonable
5en-h
of a Term StoQ, J o u r n a l of C r i mi n a l Law and
Criminology, Supreme C o u r t Review 7 6 ( 1 0 0 3 ) (1985).

-

Maguirc, K., Flanagan, T . J . , e t a l . , Sourcebook of C r i m i n a l
Justice Statistics
199O , The Hindlang C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e
R e s e a r c h C e n t e r (1991).
N i c o l e t t i , J., w
C h i e f (1990)

.

, .

u f o r De e r c a l a t i o n of F o r c e , The Police

-.

.

F o u r t h -ent
1 C l a b s of
Note, C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law
i
v
e
Force
in
S
e
r
z
r
n
a
Free
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
Analyz
ed Under
E=-r
i e c t i v e Rearonabìene88 S t a n d a r d
e88ec v. Ga r ner, 2 0
S e t o n Hall L. Rev. 5 6 7 (1990).

..

-

Note , -na1
Law
The R i a h t t o Run: Deadly Force and t h e
F l e e i n u F e l o q I 11 So. Illinois Univ. L.J. 171 ( 1 9 8 6 ) .

-t v o
Note, N
u
a
m Storm
weqbite * 846 F.2d 8 3 4 I 6 2 Temple L a w Revi-

. .

rted S t a t e s v .

0

-

439 (1989).

a
s
Seizure
L a w Offi c e r ' r Use
Procedyre
Deadly Force Au-t
Nond-our
P l e d n u Fe l o n He14
V i o l a t i ve of Fourth m a n t , 17 Seton Ball L. Rev. 758
(1987)

Note,

0

.

Noto,

nh.n

P O U C O u80 BXCO8iive Force: Chooripu
d of Li.bility i n J U 8 t i C 8 V. D
'u

L a w R e v i e w 735 (1988).
R8i8.t

A O J O ,

b

w

V

TRA1QS-&ction 5 ( 8 ) ( 1 9 6 8 ) .

* Qarrworm

Suit081 M. R., u80 of ?orco1 Te-80
The P o l i c e Chief (ûctobor 1991).
Scharf, P.# The B

St. J o h n ' s

t o bia m a e s t i o n a I
V.

Garnor Raviewed,

u tho B u m ( 1 9 8 3 ) .

135

a Conot i t u t i o n a l

, 62

*

.

Stephen8, D. w., police Aue ncv Handlinu of Citizen
m t s : A M o del Policv Statement police Executive
Re8earch Forum (September 1981).
Terriil! R. J. , ternat ive perce~tions of Indenendence in
Civilian Ovegiuht, Journal of Police Science and
Administration 17(2) (1990).
Thompson, G.J. & Stroud, M.J., Verbal Judo. Redircctinu Behaviors
with Word8 (1984)

'.

Walker, S., and Bumphua, V e t Civilian Re.view
. of the Police: A
Bational su*ev of the 5 0 Laruert Crtrea, University of
Nebraska at Omaha, Department of Criminal Justice (April
1991)

.

Bon8 iunore V. Citv of New Y o r k , 521 P.SUDD. 394 (S.D. N . Y .
aff'd, 6 8 3 F.24 635 (2d Cir. 1982).
l l o c k v. State, 65 P.J.L.

1981),

5S7 (E. i A. 1900).

Canton v. Barr il, 489 y e s . 381, 109 S e c t L1197 (1989).
!

Davi8 v. Mason Countv, 927 L 2 d 1473 (9th Cir. 1991).

am

V.

ConnoZ:I

-

u,c.

109 sect. 1865 (1989)

-I

BaveI v. Hudson Countv Board of Prcehol(App. Div. 1971).
ven v. Mercer COuntx

, 116

N.J.Suner.

21

217 J4oJ.SUDer. 614 (App. Div. 1987).

Id v. Bnrnog 496 POS-

at 99 (dtationß omitted) (D. N . J .

1980). -

62 N,J, 105, g e e . d e w , 414 Y.S.

.

822 (1973).

b
109
,
H.JL 173 (1988)
ar v. ~owns&
1989 )

w

of Pirc..ta wav, 236 N.J.Sypcrr.

r v. District of Co

,

489 v . k % 5 ,

, 850

L 2 d 708 (D.C. Cir. 1988),
Sectt 1339, 103 L.Ed.2d 8 0 8

109

(1989)
136

550 (App. Div.

-

ter80n v. N e w Yor$

i

432 U.S.

197 (1977).

poìicqglgn'zt Benevolent A88ociation v . Townuhic, of Washinqton,
L 2 d 133 (3d Cir. 1988), -cert. denied,
U.S.
, 109
S.Ct* 1637 (1989).
State v. Bowens, 108 N . J . 622 (1987).
S t a t e v. Cohen, 32 3.J. 1 (1960).

S t a t e v. C o v l e ,

119

3.J.

194 (1990).

S t a t e v. Donovan, 132 N.J.L.

319 (Sup. C t . 1945).

S t a t e v. Hoime8, 208 N.J.SuDer.
S t a t e v. M u l v i h u

57

N o J .

480 (App. Div. 1986).

151 (1970).

S t a t e v. Powell, 84 Y.J. 305 (1980).
S t a t e v. Stevenq, 203 P.J.SuDer.
S t a t e v. Wiuama I 29 N . J .

Termebiee

V.

Garneg

59 (Law Div. 1984).

27 (1959).

471 U e S o 1, 105 S.Ct* 1694, 85 Jt.Ed.2d 7

(1985)

-!

Xeaoer

V.

Backenrack Water C o . , 615 F.SUDD. 1087 (D.C.N.J.

1985)

137

850