The Courts and Training

A lot of what we, I mean you (I’m retired now), do as working cops is governed by case law. While policies have an internal impact, how our actions are viewed by the legal system – civil and criminal – is heavily influenced by previous rulings from the state and federal courts, including the Supreme Courts at both levels.

Most are familiar with decisions relating to Fourth Amendment issues—detentions, searches, and use of force—as well as Fifth Amendment considerations relating to interviews, questioning, and interrogations.

But what about training? Have the courts addressed training considerations and what our profession must do? They have, and we need to refresh ourselves on those cases every so often.

Sadly, all too frequently, I will read comments from a newer instructor who is not familiar with these rulings.

This article will discuss five cases—three that address specific training concerns, one that touches on budgetary issues, and the last on changes in the environment.

Night Time

Popow v City of Margate, 476 F.Supp. 1237 (DNJ 1979) is a Circuit Court case involving the nighttime foot pursuit of a kidnapping suspect into a residential neighborhood. A resident heard a commotion caused by this event and came outside to see what was happening. That resident was unintentionally, mistakenly shot and killed by officers.

When his family filed a lawsuit, discovery showed that they only shot twice a year (there are still departments that shoot only once). Additionally, there was no training on moving targets, low-light encounters, or downrange issues in residential areas. There were also no event reviews (movies) or scenario/simulation training. The department’s use of deadly force policy was not regularly reviewed.

The Court ruled that agencies need to train on moving targets, low-light or adverse-light shooting, residential area issues, and simulation/scenario training that includes decision-making and the practical application of deadly force.

Tuttle

Oklahoma City v Tuttle, 471 US 808 (1985) is a United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling on whether or not a single shooting was evidence of the city being grossly negligent or deliberately indifferent in training or supervising its police force on shooting.

The case involved a reported armed robbery of a bar. A newer officer responded and entered the bar alone. He attempted to detain a subject, who kept pulling away. That subject fled, and the officer found him outside, attempting to pull something from his boot. Only after the officer was shot and killed, the object coming out of the boot was determined to be a “toy” gun, a replica firearm.

The ruling noted there had been “official decisions concerning the following matters: whether to permit rookie police officers to patrol alone; what rules should govern whether a police officer should wait for backup units before entering a felony-in-progress situation; how much time and emphasis to be placed on training in such matters as how to approach felony-in-progress situations, when to use firearms, and when to shoot to kill.”

SCOTUS Says

In its ruling on Tuttle, SCOTUS wrote that for law enforcement firearms training to be valid, it must incorporate the following:

1. Stress
2. Decision making
3. Attitude
4. Knowledge
5. Skill
6. Shoot-Don’t-Shoot
7. Moving targets
8. Officer required to move (shooting on the move)
9. Low light or adverse light shooting
10. In-service training
11. Shotgun training (I guess today that would be a long gun).

Zuchel

The decision in Zuchel v City of Denver 997 F.2d 720 (10thCircuit, 1993) addresses the need for “live-fire shoot and don’t shoot judgment training.” Following a disturbance between several people, Zuchel was reportedly armed with a knife during an August 1985 encounter. Zuchel had been arguing with some teenagers. They told officers that Zuchel had a knife. When Zuchel turned towards them with a pair of fingernail clippers, he was shot and killed.

At the time, the department’s deadly force training was only a movie and a lecture. After determining the training was inadequate, the jury found for Zuchel’s family.

Funding?

Can your agency delay training because of monetary or budget issues? Not according to McClelland v. Facteau, 1979 Supreme Court, 610 F 2d 693. In this case, SCOTUS ruled that insufficient funding does not excuse poor (inadequate) training.

Qualification versus training?

I have yet to come across a single ruling that addressed the need to qualify. Every ruling has addressed the need for agencies to train their officers. Train.

Continuing Education

Instructors need to keep up with case law. A few months ago, the 9th Circuit issued a ruling in a case that stemmed from a high-risk stop after a mistake of fact regarding a stolen car. Along with other Constitutional issues, the case discusses the muzzling of the subjects by the officers. Look at the recent ruling in Hasmik Chinaryan vs the Los Angeles Police Department, et al., 21-56237 (9th Circuit, 2024) dated August 14, 2024. Please read both the majority opinion and the dissent.

Our training should be based on the Three Rs  – realism, recency, and relevance. It should recreate the environments we work in and the challenges that officers face. Covering the material once in the academy is insufficient, so there should be greater frequency.

Final Thought

What does that training need to cover? Go back and look at what each of those rulings specifically points out. Your officers and the organization should be good if you address those issues in training.

RESOURCES

“Federal Case Law as a Guide for Training,” Ipmba.org 1/21/15

Popow v. Margate

Oklahoma City v. Tuttle | 471 U.S. 808 (1985) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

McClelland v Facteau

Failure to Train

The importance of police ‘shoot or don’t shoot’ judgment training