Police accountability involves holding both individual police officers, as well as law enforcement agencies responsible for effectively delivering basic services of crime control and maintaining order, while treating individuals fairly and within the bounds of law. Police are expected to uphold laws, regarding due process, search and seizure, arrests, discrimination, as well as other laws relating to equal employment, sexual harassment, etc. Holding police accountable is important for maintaining the public's "faith in the system". Research has shown that the public prefers independent review of complaints against law enforcement, rather than relying on police departments to conduct internal investigations. There is a suggestion that such oversight would improve the public's view on the way in which police officers are held accountable.
United States
Special commissions, such as the Knapp Commission in New York City during the 1970s, have been used to bring about changes in law enforcement agencies. Civilian review boards (permanent external oversight agencies) have also been used as a means for improving police accountability. Civilian review boards tend to focus on individual complaints, rather than broader organizational issues that may result in long-term improvements.
The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act authorized the United States Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division to bring civil ("pattern or practice") suits against local law enforcement agencies, to reign in abuses and hold them accountable. As a result, numerous departments have entered into consent decrees or memoranda of understanding, requiring them to make organizational reforms. This approach shifts focus from individual officers to placing focus on police organizations.
Issues with accountability
In 1982, The United States Supreme Court introduced the doctrine of qualified immunity in Harlow v. Fitzgerald:
In 2001 with Saucier v. Katz and Pearson v. Callahan the US Supreme Court allowed courts to grant qualified immunity on the basis of clearly established law or lack of precedent, without the court having to subsequently clearly established the law.
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom addressed concerns of police accountability by enacting the Police Act in 1996. This act gave police authorities the responsibility to provide transparency regarding policing plans. In addition, they were given the task to monitor, collect and publish data regarding police performance, complaints and budgeting matters. Elected police and crime commissioners replaced police authorities responsibility for overseeing police forces beginning in 2012.
Discretion
The police professionalism approach introduced by August Vollmer and advocated by O.W. Wilson largely ignored issues of police accountability and how officers should handle situations involving discretion. In order to prevent the misuse of discretion, it is necessary to establish a Code of Ethics to serve as a guideline. It is impossible to foresee a provision for every possible scenario; instead codes of ethics are used to provide officers a tool that is flexible, open for interpretation and can be applied in various manners depending on the situation at hand.
Use of force
Use of force by police may involve firearms, as well as other means. Prior to the 1970s, there were generally no written policies or review procedures regarding use of force by law enforcement in the United States. In 1972, New York City Police Department Commissioner Patrick V. Murphy instituted a new policy that confined discretion in use of force to situations only where the officer's own life, or that of other people are in danger. This defense of life rule replaced the fleeing felon rule. The 1985 Supreme Court decision, Tennessee v. Garner ruled that police may only use deadly force to prevent escape when the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Since the NYPD instituted new policies on use of force, many other law enforcement agencies have followed suit, establishing a written policy that set guidelines as to when use of force is appropriate. Procedures may include requiring officers to file written reports following each incident. For incidents involving firearms or other use of deadly force, internal investigation and review is often required. A mechanism in place for administrative review of other use of force incidents may also be part of the policy.