By The New York State Bar Association

"Hate crimes . . . leave deep scars not only on the victims, but on our larger community. They weaken the sense that we are one people with common values and a common future. They tear us apart when we should be moving closer together. They are acts of violence against America itself. . . ." President Clinton made the foregoing speech 16 years ago. Today, the situation has only worsened with antisemitic hate crimes spiking on the heels of years of increased anti-Asian hate crimes. In October 2023, the FBI released data that shows hate crimes in the U.S. at their highest since data collection began in 1991. The Anti-Defamation League reported 2,000 antisemitic incidents in the U.S. through July 2023 and a 337% uptick in incidents after Hamas' October 7th attack on Israel. Similarly, from 2020–21, anti-Asian hate crimes spiked 339%. Almost daily, the headlines are filled with stories like the gunfire in front of an Albany synagogue in December 2023. Despite these dire statistics and reports, bar associations have not systematically studied this problem, a void which led NYSBA President Richard Lewis to convene this task force to examine the problem of hate crimes with a focus on those directed at the Asian American and Jewish communities. As President Lewis stated: “Antisemitic and anti-Asian bias in America is overt and disturbing, and it is increasing exponentially…We have launched this task force because we are at a crossroads, and left unchecked, we can only expect that crimes against these two vulnerable groups will continue to spiral out of control.” The task force has been grappling with the scourge of hate crimes, which present a clear and present danger to many, but most strikingly to New Yorkers. The members of our task force worked hard to put these recommendations together in the last several months. We held dozens of meetings, scoured the available literature, and met with prominent officials in the law enforcement and educational sectors. The dedication and talent of the task force has enabled us to put together the concrete recommendations contained in this report. Like bar associations, society as a whole has devoted insufficient attention to hate crimes despite the gravity of the problem. As a result, the statutory framework governing hate crimes contains gaps in the definition of hate crimes and in the coverage of the hate crime statute – deficiencies that are addressed in our report. Equally problematic are the mechanisms for reporting hate crimes, including the lack of a requirement that law enforcement in New York report hate crimes to a central state authority.

Our report follows the commendable work of the 2020 NYSBA task force on Domestic Terrorism and Hate Crimes. This groundbreaking report was focused on federal laws addressing acts of domestic terrorism.3 Not long after its publication, the wave of hate crimes against Asian Americans and the spike in antisemitic hate crimes ensued, necessitating our task force and this report. This report begins with analyses of antisemitic and anti-Asian hate crimes, including the history of antisemitism and anti-Asian hate – two forms of bias that have deep and disturbing roots. Far from a new phenomenon, antisemitism is as old as civilization itself. And anti-Asian hate crimes in the U.S. span the history of our country. See pages 9-10 below. Our report focuses on the recent waves of hate crimes ignited by exogenous catalysts: the COVID-19 pandemic in the case of anti-Asian hate crimes and the Hamas attacks of October 2023 in the case of antisemitic hate crimes. Our report addresses the disturbing increases in the rates of hate crimes during these recent troubled times.

Albany: The Bar Association 2024. 47p.

By Somjen Frazer, Richard Saenz, Andrew Aleman, and Laura Laderman

OUR VOICE IS OUR POWER: In 2022, Lambda Legal, in partnership with Black and Pink National, launched the Protected and Served? community survey. With this project, we aimed to learn more about the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) people and people living with HIV with the criminal legal system, to assess these communities’ levels of trust in government institutions, and to create a new resource for community members, advocates, policymakers, and researchers for LGBTQ+ and HIV liberation.

This report describes the findings of Protected and Served?. In addition to asking structured questions that provide a quantitative (numerical) account of the participants’ experiences, the survey also asked for qualitative data (open-ended questions); these answers were analyzed systematically, and the qualitative findings are included throughout the report.1 Protected and Served? focuses on the widespread harm caused to LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV by the criminal legal system, including the adult carceral system, immigration system, juvenile systems, the courts, and schools. The report also examines intersectional disparities within these impacted groups of people.

Lambda Delta, 2022. 82p.

By Maine Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

The Maine Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights submits this report regarding indigent legal services in Maine. The Committee submits this report as part of its responsibility to study and report on civil rights issues in the state. The contents of this report are primarily based on testimony the Committee heard during public meetings held via video-conference on October 20, 2022; November 15, 2022; and December 15, 2022. The Committee also includes related testimony submitted in writing during the relevant period of public comment.

This report begins with a brief background of the issues to be considered by the Committee. It then presents primary findings as they emerged from this testimony, as well as recommendations for addressing areas of civil rights concerns. This report is intended to focus on civil rights concerns regarding the right to legal defense for indigent persons. While additional important topics may have surfaced throughout the Committee’s inquiry, those matters that are outside the scope of this specific civil rights mandate are left for another discussion.

Washington, DC: USCCR, 2023. 32p.

By Massachusetts Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

January 3, 2024

The Massachusetts State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights undertook an investigation of this practice that included analysis of individual and aggregated cases, findings from independent researchers, testimony from non-governmental experts in non-profit organizations, and elected officials with a wide range of experience within the system of civil asset forfeiture in the state. We found that there are serious flaws at all levels of civil asset forfeiture practices and procedures.

In addition, we conducted a systematic analysis of a geographically weighted sample of cases of civil asset forfeiture filed across all 11 counties in Massachusetts between January 2019 and June 2022. We reviewed all documents available from the Massachusetts Trial Court website to ascertain the timeline between seizure and forfeiture filing, types of property seized, and the circumstances leading up to the seizure and forfeiture filing. We noted the location of the seizure, the county in which the forfeiture was filed, and any demographic or other characteristics of the individuals from whom property was seized. Given the amount of documents involved, we completed a review of a total of 45 cases during this time period.

Washington, DC: USCCR, 2023. 18p.

By: Kristen DeVall, Christina Lanier, and Lindsay J. Baker

The monograph has continued the long-standing tradition of providing a detailed profile of the treatment court field within the United States. Especially noteworthy is that the data enable the authors to monitor trends and highlight similarities and differences in the findings over time. The monograph also provides a summary of the most recent scholarly literature on treatment courts. Summaries of the extant literature for each type of treatment court include an overview of the history and structure, best practice standards, guiding principles, effectiveness and cost-benefit findings, and directions for future research.

Wilmington, NC: National Drug Court Resource Center 2022. 36p.

By Ian K. Belton and Mandeep K. Dhami

Personal mitigating factors (PMFs) such as good character, remorse and addressing addiction help sentencers evaluate an offender’s past, present and future behavior. We analyzed data from the 2011–2014 Crown Court Sentencing Surveys in England and Wales to examine the relationship between these PMFs and custodial sentences passed on assault and burglary offenses, controlling for other sentencing relevant factors. Beyond revealing the distribution and co-occurrence of the three PMFs, it was found that good character, remorse and addressing addiction all had a significant mitigating effect. The effects of addressing addiction were the strongest of the three across both offense types, while good character had a stronger effect on burglary than assault. In addition, some mitigating factors appear to be underweighted when they occur together. We consider the implications of these findings for sentencing policy and practice.

J Empir Leg Stud. 2024;1–32.

By Clare Anderson & Martin Halliwell

This article considers the intersecting geographical, social, medical and political frameworks necessary to construct an understanding of mental health in Guyanese prisons, historically and in the present day. Taking an interdisciplinary approach to integrate archives, modern records and interviews, it looks first at colonial and independent state management of mental health impacts with respect to sentencing, incarceration and rehabilitation. It moves on to reflect on recent efforts to provide co-ordinated policies and practices at national level to tackle more effectively moderate to severe mental health conditions. Here it shows that, as in the colonial period, prisoners and prison officials are typically neglected. Overall, our appreciation of the importance of what we term the coloniality of incarceration and public health enables us to deepen an understanding of the development and ongoing significance of approaches to mental ill health in the modern state, following Guyana's independence from colonial rule in 1966.

United States, The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice. 2022, 19pg

By Paul Heaton

Today we know much more about the effects of pretrial detention than we did even five years ago. Multiple empirical studies have emerged that shed new light on the far-reaching impacts of bail decisions made at the earliest stages of the criminal adjudication process.1 This new evidence calls into question longstanding approaches to managing pretrial risk that provide limited due process protection and emphasize cash bail. Making appropriate decisions about who to release pretrial and under what conditions requires an understanding of the impacts of particular bail requirements. For example, for a given defendant, how would their risk of failure to appear (“FTA”) or future criminal activity change if they were subjected to condition A (which might include preventative detention) versus condition B (which might include an alternative to detention, such as text message reminders of scheduled court appearances)? Armed with such information, decisionmakers could appropriately balance society’s dual interest in preserving public safety and holding the accused accountable with defendants’ liberty interests. However, until recently, the actual evidence necessary to analyze the trade-off described above has been virtually nonexistent, leading judges and magistrates to rely on a combination of personal experience (possibly including conscious or unconscious bias), heuristics, and local norms in formulating their bail decisions. One reason it has been so difficult to develop good evidence of the effects of pretrial detention is because the bail system, when operating as intended, sorts defendants in a manner that limits the value of the outcome data it produces for demonstrating whether and how bail conditions matter. In general,  because bail conditions are typically assigned based on perceived defendant risk, if we observe elevated violation rates for defendants with condition A versus condition B, it is difficult to determine empirically whether this reflects an adverse causal effect of condition A or simply the fact that those assigned condition A were different from those assigned condition B to begin with. For example, proponents of cash bail often cite low FTA rates among those released with assistance from commercial bonding agents and argue from such statistics that private bondsmen are a necessary component of the system to manage nonappearance risk.2 However, comparing FTA rates for those with and without commercial sureties is misleading. To maximize profits, commercial operations have an incentive to accept only clients who are at low risk of nonappearance in the same way that an auto insurer would make money by identifying and then insuring only the safest drivers.3 Thus, low FTA rates might simply reflect defendant sorting and tell policymakers little about commercial sureties’ effectiveness. The new generation of pretrial detention studies addresses this difficulty and provides a much stronger footing on which to base legal decisions and criminal justice policy. Recent studies improve upon past work in at least three respects. First, they make use of large administrative datasets, typically involving the near universe of criminal offenses within a particular jurisdiction, allowing researchers to describe the functioning of the criminal justice system as a whole rather than generalizing from a few specific incidents or cases. Second, they carefully consider the problem of differentiating correlation from causation, making use of natural experiments to measure the causal effects of detention and resolving the sorting problem described above. Finally, they consider a broader range of outcomes, focusing not just on the resolution of the case at hand, but on long-term ramifications, such as future criminal activity, earnings, and unemployment. The takeaway from this new generation of studies is that pretrial detention has substantial downstream effects on both the operation of the criminal justice system and on defendants themselves, causally increasing the likelihood of a conviction, the severity of the sentence, and, in some jurisdictions, defendants’ likelihood of future contact with the criminal justice system. Detention also reduces future employment and access to social safety nets. This growing evidence of pretrial detention’s high costs should give impetus to reform efforts that increase due process protections to ensure detention is limited to only those situations where it is truly necessary and identify alternatives to detention that can better promote court appearance and public safety.   

United States, North Carolina Law Review. 2020, 11pg

By Miloš Resimić   

Undercover integrity testing involves simulating an event that places an employee, without their knowledge, in a monitored situation with an opportunity for unethical decision-making. It has been used as an integrity measure by law enforcement agencies, customs administrations, and public administration more widely. This Helpdesk Answer assesses its effectiveness, finding it can both detect and deter corrupt behaviour. The Answer also considers operational implications of the measure, including potential legal issues.

Berlin:  U4 Helpdesk Answer. U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre and Transparency International , 2023. 18p.

By Elise White, Basaime Spate, Javonte Alexander, and Rachel Swaner

Our study of more than 100 young gun-carriers in Crown Heights, Brooklyn identifies fear—for their own lives and for their loved ones—as the overwhelming factor behind their decision to carry. In-depth interviews were conducted by researchers with personal connections to the young people’s social networks, opening up levels of trust and honesty rarely found in prior research.

Predominantly young Black men, ages 15 to 24, these gun-carriers talked about experiencing, witnessing, and being threatened with violence at shocking rates. Very few had access to long-term, stable jobs, with most relying on the underground economy to make ends meet. Afraid and distrustful of police, and with few other means to ensure their safety, many young people turned to gun-carrying for self-preservation. For most youth, fear for their own lives and the lives of their families outweighed concerns about going to jail.

The study identifies four types of young gun-carriers in Brooklyn:

• Those who carry for protection due to generalized fear, and are ambivalent about using guns

• Those who carry for image, to intimidate or impress others

• Those who carry defensively as part of street hustles that expose them to danger

• Shooters, who are willing to go on the offensive

These findings highlight the need to meet young gun-carriers where they are, recognizing gangs, crews, and street networks as the main sources of identity, loyalty, and decision-making for many young people. Our recommendations point the way towards a collaborative approach to safety—one that offers an alternative to law enforcement, creates spaces for healing, and respects young gun-carriers’ allegiance to their street networks.

New York: Center for Justice Innovation, 2023. 72p.

By The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)

  Ten years ago, the U.S. Department of Justice’s COPS Office approached PERF with an exciting opportunity—to develop guidelines for the police use of body-worn cameras. Body cameras were a brand-new technology at the time, and we quickly found that while many departments were interested in developing a body camera program, very few had done so. And the few agencies that had adopted body cameras often lacked a written policy governing their use. Police leaders told us that a big reason why they were hesitant to adopt body cameras was that there was little guidance on how to navigate the many challenges that come with implementing a camera program. So in September 2013, PERF brought together more than 200 police chiefs, sheriffs, and other experts for an in-depth discussion of the many complex issues body cameras raise. Participants shared their experiences with body cameras, their concerns with what this technology meant for the future of policing, and their questions about how to deploy body cameras in a way that strengthens police transparency and accountability—without infringing on people’s privacy or damaging community policing efforts. We then used these discussions as the basis for the 2014 PERF/COPS Office report, “Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned,” which provided the first set of comprehensive guidelines for implementing a body camera program. 1 Much has changed in the ten years since that first convening. For one thing, the police use of body cameras has skyrocketed. In 2020, almost 4 in 5 (79 percent) local police officers worked in departments that used BWCs, and all departments serving 1 million or more residents reported using them.2 Sheriffs’ offices had similar increases in their use of BWCs, with more than two-thirds (68 percent) of sheriffs’ offices having BWCs in 2020.3 Even federal law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, have adopted this technology. And with high-profile police use-of-force incidents and in-custody deaths leading to demands for greater police accountability, the public has come to want—and expect—police officers to wear cameras. We also have more research now about the impacts of body cameras. For example, as discussed on page 57 of this report, studies have consistently found that body cameras are associated with re ductions in complaints against officers, though it is still not clear whether this is because officers with cameras behave better or because people file fewer frivolous complaints if they know there is video footage of an event. Research has also shown that the impact of body cameras on police use of force is promising, especially when the camera program is well-implemented. However, even with ten years’ worth of research and real-world experience, many questions about body cameras remain. That’s why PERF decided to revisit this critical topic and hold a second meeting, “Body-Worn Cameras a Decade Later: What We Know,” on June 29, 2023 in Washington, DC. Once again, we gathered roughly 200 police leaders, researchers, and other experts to talk about their experiences with body cameras. These fascinating discussions revealed both the benefits and challenges of body cameras, and how this technology is shaping policing. For example, participants told us about innovative ways they are using body cameras to improve officer and agency performance. I often talk about the importance of “Monday-morning quarterbacking” and how after-action reviews of critical incidents should become part of the DNA of policing. At the conference, many police officials said body cameras can play a large role in these efforts by allowing departments to review footage of incidents to assess policies, procedures, and resources. In this way, body cameras can help build an organizational culture of constructive criticism, self-awareness, and ongoing learning and improvement. We also heard from researchers that strong implementation and fidelity to policy play a key part in the effectiveness of a body camera program. This is especially true when it comes to camera activation. If officers are not turning their body cameras on when they are supposed to, the cameras will be rendered useless. Participants discussed how advances in technology, such as automatic camera activation through sidearms, biometrics, dash cameras, lights and sirens, and computer-aided dispatch, can be used to promote compliance.    

Washington, DC:  Police Executive Research Forum, 2023. 64p.

By The Ontario Human Rights Commission

From Impact to Action makes the finding that Black people are subjected to systemic racial discrimination, racial profiling, and anti-Black racism by the TPS and the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB). The finding is supported by evidence gathered throughout the inquiry, including data analysis and consultations with Black communities. This finding confirms the need for change to challenge longstanding practices, which perpetuate anti-Black racism in Toronto policing.

The final report describes the results of consultation with Black communities and policing stakeholders and identifies gaps in TPS and TPSB policies and procedures including stops and searches, charges and arrests, use of force, anti-racism initiatives and monitoring, and accountability mechanisms.

“I am grateful to the many Black communities, individuals, police officers and experts who provided input to make this report and its recommendations comprehensive,”
said Patricia DeGuire, OHRC’s Chief Commissioner. “Their openness and diligence were essential in delivering the final report and evidence-based practices which, if followed, will enable a cultural transformation within TPS.”

The OHRC’s recommendations include:

• purging the TPS database of photographs, fingerprints or other biometric information from charges that do not result in convictions

• requiring supervisory approval and/or equity audits of charges

• revising policies and procedures to clearly set out circumstances where unnecessary force should not be used 

• expanding the collection, analysis and reporting of race-based data on stop, searches, charges, arrests and use of force

• providing greater transparency on officer discipline

• taking proactive investigative steps following tribunal or court decisions that contain findings of racial profiling, racial discrimination or violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

• integrating scenario-based training on anti-Black racism into other training programs with effective evaluation

• developing a distinct policy or procedure on racial profiling

• supporting calls to expand civilian-led mental health crisis response services

The OHRC acknowledges the positive steps the TPS and TPSB have taken to address anti-Black racism and discrimination in policing since the start of the inquiry. The Commission is committed to continued engagement with the TPS and TPSB to work towards implementing the recommendations through legally binding and specific actions.

Toronto: The Commission, 2023. 

By Los Angeles City Controller

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Air Support Division (ASD) operates the largest municipal airborne law enforcement unit in the country, with 17 helicopters and more than 90 employees. The program was initially shaped during the 1970s, when Los Angeles was experiencing an especially high rate of violence and homicides. The stated mission of ASD is to “enhance officer and public safety, reduce the incidence of crime and thus reduce the fear of crime” by supporting the operations of ground-based officers and specialized units of the LAPD through aerial patrols and special flights. While there are situations, such as vehicle pursuits, kidnappings, and violent crime response, where helicopters can provide critical support and increase the likelihood of apprehending suspects, there is a lack of empirical evidence that demonstrates a clear link between helicopter patrols and crime reduction. However, there has been limited public discussion about whether the size of the division and deployment strategy are aligned with the current needs of the City. This report examines the LAPD’s use of helicopters from fiscal year (FY) 2018 through FY 2022, and explores whether the department has justified the need for the current size and scope of the air support program. It offers recommendations for reducing inefficiencies, improving data collection and management, and boosting transparency and performance monitoring. This information is intended to help the public, LAPD, and policymakers make informed decisions about the City’s investment in police air support operations.

Los Angeles: Office of the City Controller, 2023.   65p.

Benjamin W. Fisher,  Anthony Petrosino,  Hannah Sutherland,  Sarah Guckenburg,  Trevor Fronius,  Ivan Benitez,  Kevin Earl

Background

School-based law enforcement (SBLE) has become a common intervention. Although SBLE is meant to make schools safer, critics suggest it may not accomplish this purpose, and may have unintended negative consequences such as increasing students’ exclusionary discipline or contact with the criminal justice system. There may also be secondary effects related to perceptions of the school or student learning.

Objectives

The purpose of this review is to synthesize the literature evaluating the use of SBLE, including outcomes related to (a) crime and behavior problems; (b) perceptions of safety; and (c) learning.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search to identify studies that examined outcomes associated with SBLE use. Eligible studies used experimental or quasi-experimental designs; included samples of students, teachers/staff, schools, or school districts; reported on a policing strategy focused on crime prevention or school safety that did not involve officers teaching a curriculum; included a measure that reflects crime and behavior problems, perceptions of safety, or learning; and were in a primary or secondary school. Following a multi-stage screening process to identify studies eligible for inclusion, we estimated a series of meta-analytic models with robust variance estimation to calculate weighted mean effect sizes for each of three main categories of outcomes and commonly occurring subsets of these categories. We examined heterogeneity in these estimates across features of the primary studies’ design.

Results

The search and screening process yielded 1002 effect sizes from 32 reports. There were no true experiments, and the quasi-experiments ranged from strictly correlational to permitting stronger causal inferences. SBLE use was associated with greater crime and behavior problems in studies that used schools as the unit of analysis. Within this category, SBLE use was associated with increased exclusionary discipline among studies that used both schools (g = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.02, 0.27]) and students (g = 0.003, 95% CI [0.002, 0.003]) as the unit of analysis. SBLE use was not associated with any measures of crime or violence in schools. SBLE use was associated with greater feelings of safety among studies that used schools as the unit of analysis (g = 0.18, 95% CI [0.13, 0.24]), although this estimate was based on only seven effect sizes from two correlational studies. All the other models, including those examining learning outcomes, yielded null results. None of the moderators tested showed meaningful relationships, indicating the findings were consistent across a variety of study design features.

Authors’ Conclusions

This study's findings provide no evidence that there is a safety-promoting component of SBLE, and support the criticism that SBLE criminalizes students and schools. Although we found no evidence of differences across methodological features, risk of bias in the primary studies limits our confidence in making causal inferences. To the extent that the findings are causal, schools that invest in strategies to improve safety will likely benefit from divesting from SBLE and instead investing in evidence-based strategies for enhancing school safety. Schools that continue to use SBLE should ensure that their model has no harmful effects and is providing safety benefits.

Campbell Systematic Reviews, Volume19, Issue4

December 2023

By Edward Maguire and Megan Oakley
Police responses to recent street protest events in Ferguson, Charlottesville, and Hong Kong are merely the best known examples of incidents in which police respond to peaceful gatherings as if they were riots or fail to prevent a violent development at a stage where it could have been avoided. Policing Protests–Lessons from the Occupy Movement, Ferguson & Beyond: A Guide for Police is a clear and authoritative summary of research on policing practices that either facilitate peaceful protests and other public order events or violate basic rights, engender resentment and in some cases injury among peaceful protesters, and often result in lawsuits costing cities substantial settlements. Written by respected policing scholars Edward Maguire and Megan Oakley, it has been distributed to nearly 1,000 police agencies in the U.S. and abroad. HFG is pleased to make it available for download.

New York: Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, 2020. 84p.

By  Derek A. Neal and  Armin Rick

Between 1975 and 2008, the US incarceration rate increased by roughly 400 percent. Trends in crime rates, arrest rates per crime committed, conviction rates per arrest, and expected time-served in prison given conviction all influence trends in incarceration rates. Available data do not allow researchers to precisely measure the contribution of each of these factors to the US prison boom. However, increases in expected prison time-served among those arrested for many different offenses were the most important drivers of rising incarceration rates. We argue that changes in policies that govern sentencing and parole are the likely drivers of these increases. We also discuss potential reforms that may reduce expected time-served among convicted offenders while minimizing harm to public safety.

Working Paper No. 2023-150

Chicago: University Chicago, Beck Friedman Institute for Economics, 29 Pages Posted: 1 Dec 2023

By  Ben Bradford, Krisztian Posch, Arabella Kyprianides,  Jyoti Belur, et al.

Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) were introduced into UK policing in 2003 and were initially made available for use only by authorised firearms officers. The CED adopted by the UK is manufactured by AXON and referred to as Taser. The College of Police describes CEDs as follows. “A CED is a less lethal weapon system designed to temporarily incapacitate a subject through use of an electrical current that temporarily interferes with the body’s neuromuscular system and produces a sensation of intense pain. It is one of a number of tactical options available when dealing with an incident with the potential for conflict. CEDs will not be routinely used to police public order or public safety events, but may be used as an option to respond to circumstances within the operation. The use of CED ranges from the physical presence of a drawn device through to the application of electrical discharge to a subject. Even before a CED is drawn, the mere visibility of an overtly carried holstered device may serve a deterrent value”. 1 In 2008, Taser was made available to non-firearms trained police, who could be equipped and deploy with the device after becoming a Specially Trained Officer (STO). This transition was particularly important because it meant that, in most cases, the strict command and control protocols supervising Taser use within firearms operations no longer applied. Rather, individual STOs made decisions to deploy the weapon in the context of routine operations. Moreover, training for Taser moved from the specialist arena of extended firearms training into a shorter, usually three-day, training programme. In 2019, access to Taser was extended to Student Officers and, in 2022, it was expanded again to Special Constables. To retain their qualification, STOs in England and Wales are required to undertake a minimum of six hours refresher training every twelve months, typically delivered over one day. Whilst, under certain circumstances, Taser is effective tactically, its use carries a range of risks, both individually and organisationally. Home Office figures show that in 2017/18, when new use of force recording rules came into force, there were just under 17,000 uses of Taser; by 2021/22 this had grown to over 34,000. As the use of CED increases so too does the possibility of incidents occurring that pose a threat of harm to citizens, as well as individual and cumulative threats to police legitimacy. This is particularly true with regard to its deployment involving people from ethnic minority communities. For example, Home Office statistics for 2021/22 showed that Black .... people were approximately five times more likely than White people to have Taser used against them. The extent and nature of ethnic disproportionality in police use of Taser is measured and understood primarily via these Home Office statistics. According to the Voice newspaper a review of Taser cases between 2015-20 by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) found that 60% of Black people were subjected to Taser use for up to five seconds longer in comparison to just 29% of White people, people with mental health issues were also more likely to be subjected to multiple and prolonged discharges and a total of 16 people have died where the use of Tasering has been a factor following the inquests into their deaths. 2 Moreover, within England and Wales there have been several high-profile incidents where individuals of Black heritage have died following police use of Taser. These patterns of policing are a significant challenge for the police. As the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Taser and Less Lethal Weapons, Chief Constable Lucy D’Orsi has said: “Police officers across the UK do an exceptional job under immense pressure, but these statistics cannot be ignored. The impact of this disproportionality on communities is far-reaching and it is important that we do as much as we can to understand the underlying reasons”. 3 1.2. This report describes a programme of research, funded by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and the London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC), which aimed to explore the potential causes of these ethnic and racial disparities in the police use of Taser.    

2023. 212p.

London: University College London, 2022. 212p.

By Meressa Kahsu Dessu, Dawit Yohannes and Charles T Hunt

Most contemporary multidimensional peace operations prioritise the protection of civilians (PoC) as one of their primary mandates. This is expected as current conflicts and crises are increasingly marked by high civilian casualties, emanating not least from the deliberate targeting of civilians and the blurred distinction between combatants and non-combatants. As a key element of multidimensional peace operations, the United Nations (UN) Police have assumed diverse roles in implementing the mandate of such missions. Key decision-making entities such as the UN Security Council (UNSC) have increasingly acknowledged such roles. This can be illustrated by the UNSC’s resolution that recognises the police’s ‘invaluable contribution to peacekeeping, post-conflict peacebuilding, security, the rule of law, and the creation of a basis for development.’1 However, the evolving roles of the police have not matched with studies on its effectiveness in mandate implementation, particularly in PoC. 

 This monograph contributes to debates around the role and effectiveness of policing in PoC based on the lessons from the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS). The study combines two overarching debates: the effectiveness of peace operations and the role of policing in PoC. While the mission was established in 2011, this monograph pays particular attention since 2014, following the prioritisation of the PoC mandate. The analysis broadly focuses on the effectiveness of different structures of mission headquarters and Field Offices, with a special emphasis on policing at PoC Sites. As one of its key findings, the study recognises the mixed record of the UNMISS police in fulfilling the mission’s PoC mandate. The police component played key roles in supporting the mission to prevent protection challenges from worsening in the face of recurrent crime, violence and conflicts  

Monograph 211. Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, 2023.   66p.

By United States Government Accountability Office;  Gretta L. Goodwin, et.

Law enforcement may use facial recognition services provided by commercial and nonprofit entities to help solve crimes. For example, these services allow users to quickly search through billions of photos to help identify an unknown suspect in a crime scene photo. GAO was asked to review federal law enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology. This report examines, among other issues, the extent to which selected DHS and DOJ law enforcement agencies used facial recognition services to support criminal investigations; required staff to take training on facial recognition technology to use such services; and developed policies and guidance specific to facial recognition technology to help protect civil rights and civil liberties. GAO selected seven law enforcement agencies within DHS and DOJ based on various factors, including the number of facial recognition technology systems used. GAO reviewed documents, such as training requirements and policies for using facial recognition services. GAO also analyzed training records and interviewed agency officials. What GAO Recommends GAO is making 10 recommendations, including that FBI implement a training requirement and clarify the status of its training requirement to stakeholders. GAO also recommends that DOJ develop a plan to issue a facial recognition technology policy addressing safeguards for civil rights and civil liberties. Agencies concurred with all 10 recommendations.  
Washington, DC: GAO, 2023. 76p.

By Daragh Murray

Retrospective facial recognition (RFR) marks a step change in police surveillance capability that has received surprisingly little attention to-date. As the legal issues surrounding RFR are uncertain, and as legal challenge is likely, this article makes four key contributions. First, the surveillance capability made possible by RFR is set out. Second, human rights harms associated with RFR are examined, highlighting the ‘chilling effects’ of surveillance, and raising the possibility of compound human rights harm. Third, the assumption that the common law, coupled with police forces’ policy framework, may satisfy the ‘in accordance with the law’ test is challenged, and existing policy frameworks are evaluated. Fourth, the ‘necessity’ test is unpacked to better understand how evidence in favour of a RFR deployment could be presented, and how associated harm may be identified. This section asks whether the necessity test, as currently approached, is adequate in light of the emergence of RFR.

Modern Law Review, Dec. 2023.