Decision_Making_Case_Study

Decision Making Case Study Citizens expect law enforcement officers to uphold the law and to help provide a safe and secure environment. Unfortunately, there are occasions when the public believes that law enforcement and the criminal justice system have failed to live up to their standards. Some citizens believe law enforcement officers are those posing the problem that includes unnecessary threats, overuse of power, hasty decision making, and the abuse of power and authority. In the issues of abuse of authority, law enforcement officers are involved in vehicle pursuits which have ended in a deadly pursuit. Unauthorized or overuse of weapons is another factor that persists because the safety of the public is at risk. In this paper, the case of Racin’ Ray’s Wild Day will be discussed, and the factors revolving the case with Deputy Ripley will be addressed. The central issue in the case study involves law enforcement officers using excessive force during a criminal pursuit. Law enforcement officers in the Pineville County Sheriff’s department have been involved in several vehicle pursuits in the past year alone. In one such incident, a 14-year-old was killed during a police pursuit. The 14-year-old was joyriding in his parent’s car when the pursuit happened. The Pineville County Sheriff’s department is under investigation and is facing a lawsuit. The law enforcement officers involved in the pursuit are facing criminal charges. Because of the public outcry, the department administrators are implementing new policies involving pursuit. The new policy states that a supervisor must cancel any pursuit that does not involve a violent felony crime or other circumstances that may involve a deadly pursuit that may lead to a potential liability. New policies and regulations were implemented that will help to prevent such accidents from happening again. The new policy prohibits the firing of warning unless the circumstance warrants. The law enforcement officers have been informed of the new policy changes. In the case study involving Deputy Raymond Ray Ripley, Deputy Ripley has been not been following police protocol, and unknown to his supervisor, has been taking his dog out on unauthorized law enforcement runs and doing building checks that he has not been authorized to do. Not only does Deputy Ripley conduct police runs that he is not authorized to do, he also keeps a Taser Stun device in the trunk of his car that he has not been trained to use. Ripley has had little regard to the new policies and regulations implemented in the department. In one incident, a Deputy failed to be in compliance with the new policy. The case involved Deputy Ripley. Deputy Ripley was providing extra patrol as a result of reports on vandalism and theft in one area of a neighborhood. Deputy Ripley was not authorized by his supervisor to patrol the area. In addition, Deputy Ripley had his dog with him during the watch. Ripley believed that no one should have been in the area he was patrolling around 8:00p.m. Businesses within that area were closed. During the patrolling of the buildings, Deputy Ripley noticed a parked car and he notices that the brake lights flashed on and off. Private vehicles are not normally parked in this area so this catches Deputy Ripley’s attention. Deputy Ripley contacts dispatch and lets them know he is in need of backup in case of burglary, theft, or vandalism. Once the driver sees a call is made, the car speeds off, Ripley opens up his car door and lets his dog out. Ripley fires a warning shot into the ground as the speeding car comes his way, the car veers off and heads in another direction. Although the car heads into another direction, Deputy Ripley takes out his Taser device (which he does not supposed to have, and has not been trained to use) and strikes the moving vehicle. The shift commander has heard the dispatch calls made by Deputy Ripley. The use-of-force policy was not compliant with the new policy stating that “a supervisor [should] cancel any pursuit that does not involve a violent felony crime or other circumstances that would justify the danger and potential liability” according to Peak, K. (2010). Although a car was seen in the area, it does not mean the driver of the car was doing anything illegal. In addition, “A separate policy prohibits the firing of warning shots unless “circumstances warrant.” Although the vehicle was headed in Ripley’s way, the deputy did not have to let his dog out of the, and nor did he have the right to use a Taser device on the car. If Ripley’s unnecessary pursuit led to the vehicle crashing and death of the driver, the Pineville County Sheriff’s Department would have an additional lawsuit against the department, the supervisor in charge, and Deputy Ripley. The lieutenant should end Ripley’s pursuit because protocol was not followed. Although Ripley contacted dispatch, Ripley never had the authority to do the building checks. Deputy Ripley should have not had his dog in the car with him, and the dog should not have been let out of the car to chase the suspect, and Ripley does not have the authority to carry or use a Taser device he was never trained to use. In addition, the driver of the car was not caught vandalizing or stealing according to Peak, K. (2010). Deputy Ripley should not have been in the area of the building, so he was not authorized to work. If Ripley was not given the authority to work, he was off-duty and should not have been in the area. If Ripley was given authority by his supervisor to patrol the area, Deputy Ripley had the right to fire his gun as a warning because the car was speeding in his direction. Deputy Ripley did not have the right to use the Taser device or the dog. If Ripley was given the authority to patrol the area and his dog was a police dog, Ripley would be following protocol. Because the driver of the car was still in the car and not running, the dog was not needed. The Taser device did not have to be used on a moving vehicle. The warning shots were justifiable because the car was speeding in his direction. The Internal Affair Unit would state that the deputy was at fault with them because the driver of the car was not asked to get out of the car. The Deputy did not wait for backup, and the separate policy prohibits the firing of warning shots unless “circumstances warrant.” In addition, he is also using weapons that he does not have the authority to use (Peak, 2010). Additional polices are needed against officers patrolling after hours unless authorized. The use of dogs is prohibited unless the dogs are police dogs. In addition, the use or access to unregistered or unauthorized weapons is prohibited, and if a law enforcement officer is caught using any unauthorized weapons, disciplinary actions will be given. In conclusion, police officers are responsible for upholding justice and should follow rules and regulations. Law enforcement officers must act as model citizens and abide by the law at all times. When new policies are put in place, lawsuit charges will be dismissed because protocol was followed. Policies and procedures are implemented to safeguard against lawsuits and disciplinary actions. REFERENCES Peak, K. (2010). Justice administration: police, courts, and corrections management (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson/Prentice Hall.