Law enforcement officers have a duty to intervene when they have an opportunity to prevent another officer from using unlawful force. That duty comes from multiple sources, including federal constitutional law, a new state statute, and, in some cases, agency policy. But what does the duty require in practice? Is verbal intervention enough, or must the officer attempt to intercede physically? What if the officer has competing obligations, such as keeping control of an unruly scene? And what should an officer do if he or she isn’t sure whether the amount of force another officer is using is appropriate? This post will address how officers and agencies might operationalize the duty to intervene. Background. As a matter of federal constitutional law, an officer’s duty to intervene has existed for decades. The leading case in this area is Byrd v. Brishke, 466 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1972). The plaintiff in that case sued several Chicago police officers for deprivation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they had assaulted and beaten him in a bar using nightsticks and fists. He further contended that the officers “call[ed] him . . . obscene[] and uncivil names and epithets,” which seems rather mild compared to being hit with a nightstick. Anyhow, the plaintiff couldn’t identify which officers he contended hit him and which were bystanders, so he alleged that the defendant officers were liable either for assaulting him or for failing to intervene and protect him from the officers who did. [...]
Faculty Coordinators
