States and Localities Can and Must Lead on Police Reform
From Defense appropriations and infrastructure spending to another Coronavirus stimulus package, Congress has a lot on its plate. And now, the House is taking a look at police reform after Senate Democrats blocked Senate Republican efforts led by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) to increase financial accountability and reporting requirements for police departments. But as is often the case with House bills in this Congress, resulting legislation reflects narrow partisan priorities and is likely to die in the Senate. The truth is, comprehensive police reform is unlikely to get done at the federal level. Yet, the need for system reforms is dire, which is why states and localities must quickly take the lead in protecting their citizens. Below, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) explores case studies of states and localities taking matters into their own hands and fighting for justice and accountability.
Colorado implements host of changes
Under the steady hand of Governor Jared Polis (D), Colorado has led the way in police reform. Less than a month after the untimely demise of George Floyd, lawmakers and the governor passed a comprehensive package (on Juneteenth) that:
· Introduced personal liability for officers for up to $25,000 for civil rights violations;
· Eliminated chokeholds;
· Prohibited shooting at fleeing suspects;
· Required all law enforcement officers to wear body cameras by 2023 (with video available to public); and,
· Mandated that police officers report wrongdoing committed by fellow officers.
Not all of the changes implemented in Colorado are perfect. For example, there is also a requirement that police officers must report a suspects’ race, gender, and ethnicity post-interaction. These mandates could conceivably result in a headache for officers without meaningfully changing behavior. But, in the grand scheme of things, measures such as introducing personal liability for wrongdoing will go a long way toward holding officers accountable for their actions. Currently, officers can rest easy knowing that any and all settlements for crimes committed against suspects will be paid by taxpayers. That must change, and Colorado’s approach marks the start of an effort to reverse course.
Iowa gets rid of the bad apples
On June 12, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds (R) showed the country that police reform is not just an issue for Democratic governors and states. The bill she signed that day (House File 2647) had been introduced, debated and unanimously passed at breakneck pace in the Iowa Legislature just one day earlier. The bill bars officers from police employment in the state if they have a previous felony conviction, and/or were previously fired for misconduct. The law also forbids employment to officers who were on the cusp of being fired for misconduct but left their job pre-punishment.
The new law also sets the stage for regular de-escalation and anti-bias training for law enforcement and emboldens the state attorney general to pursue criminal cases for officers whose actions resulted in someone’s death. Additionally, chokeholds are banned. Similar to other state reforms, it’ll take time to tell if these reforms are successful. Considerable research is needed to determine if de-escalation training will in fact deter tragic situations. But pragmatic state action is surely preferable to continued federal inaction.
San Diego gets groovy with community-oriented policing
Ah, the Seventies — a time of high afros, disco music, elevator shoes, and…police reform. As was the case across the country, San Diego, California, had to grapple with a deeply dysfunctional relationship between law enforcement and minority groups. Fortunately, the San Diego Police Department sought to research these issues and evaluate potential alternatives to the failed status-quo.
They helped craft a new system, known as community-oriented policing (COP), which, according to a U.S. Department of Justice study, “required patrol officers to become knowledgeable about their beats through ‘beat-profiling’ activities, in which officers studied the topographics, demographics, and call histories of their beats. Officers were also expected to develop ‘tailored patrol’ strategies to address the types of crime and citizen concerns revealed by their profiling activities.”
All of a sudden, police were tasked with developing meaningful relationships with the communities that they were policing and expanding social ties with community leaders instead of previous policies such as random patrols. Through the 1980s and 1990s, this approach gave way to “problem-oriented policing” which sought to prevent crime by developing meaningful interactions with residents rather than just responding to crime. Police developed ties to community service officers (such as Sheila Kinney), encouraging them to talk to residents and stake out areas to get to the bottom of illegal operations such as car towing and abandonment schemes.
Unfortunately, because of the militarization of the police and an emphasis on surveillance rather than community collaboration, this approach has taken a backseat in San Diego over the past two decades. Let’s hope that the current debate on police reform spurs San Diego to reembrace its community policing roots.
Clearly, it won’t be easy to change the way that policing is done in America. But reforms must be made, and states and localities — not the federal government — are the most promising agents of change.
