Mike Horne

Project Analysis
3/24/15
For a great many years, the issue of heavy handed Law Enforcement tactics have been a rising
concern amongst many Americans who concern themselves with such political matters. But only in the
past decade, largely due to the popularity of social media and recent technological advances, have the
repercussions of this social policy become unavoidable for the average American. It seems as if every
day the media is full of stories which depict instances of police brutality and excessive force, SWAT
teams mistakenly executing search warrants for drugs on innocent homes, not to mention the plethora
of allegations against police officers who use their position of power to cover up serious actions of
criminal misconduct. Not to mention the multitude of amateur videos on social media which depict
police officers in questionable situations. With so many issues arising around Law Enforcement in
America, one question is crucial to ask: What is causing us to have such a problem with abuse of power
and corruption in Law Enforcement?
The answer to this question is multifaceted. In the broadest explanation, the issues we face
today with Law Enforcement are a direct result of our country's shift from Community Policing to
Militarized Policing. But to be more specific, the most focal point of the problem is the fact that with
our country move towards militarized policing we have eliminated any amount of transparency and
accountability that law enforcement officers once owed to the public. The erosion of transparency and
accountability is a necessity for protecting law enforcement officers from the legal ramifications for
damages caused by the heavy handed tactics often employed in American law enforcement agencies.
I.E: Paramilitary style drug raids on non-violent drug offenders, the use of lethal force as a first resort
in tense situations, unlawful searches and seizures, etc.
The erosion of transparency and accountability does not stem from one single source, on the
contrary there are a number of factors that greatly influence this situation. An obvious place to start this
discussion would be at the value placed in an officers testimony in court, even during cases where the

Mike Horne
Project Analysis
3/24/15
officer himself is on trial for criminal misconduct. The courts have always maintained that an officer's
testimony is inherently reliable and trustworthy until evidence proves otherwise. This fact alone is not
inherently troubling, in theory this is how our judicial system should be: your innocent until proven
guilty and so therefore your statement should be taken as fact until proven otherwise, regardless of your
status in society (civilian or government official.) Therefore, the problem does not lie within the fact
that officers can testify in their defense. But rather, the problem lies within how investigations are
handled prior to an officer testifying on behalf of their defense. To be specific, police are given extra
opportunities to establish their defense before an investigation begins that regular civilians are not
capable of receiving. Such as being given unofficial interviews with commanding officers prior to the
official interview where an incident report is filled out. This gives police a perfect opportunity to get
their story straight before making it official on paper.
Moreover, regulatory bodies such as the Internal Affairs routinely have an inherent bias towards
police in their investigations of criminal misconduct on behalf of officers. The term conflict of
interest couldn't describe the issue with Internal Affairs more accurately. The whole issue boils down
to this: As a police officer you are investigated by your colleagues, who often times have a personal
connection to the officer who is central to the investigation. The personal connection between Internal
Affairs officers and regular police officers routinely results in a biased investigation in favor of the
officer in question. In addition to this, Internal Affairs have often helped cover up instances of criminal
misconduct of police officers in order to prevent a costly law suit against the law enforcement agency
who was involved in the incident. These unfair investigatory practices already give police a huge
advantage over civilians and this is without considering the favorable bias of local district attorneys
who are responsible for prosecuting police officers.
The issue with this practice is that local district attorneys and police have very close working

Mike Horne
Project Analysis
3/24/15
relationships. Often times, a district attorney will rely on the testimony of a police officer in order to
secure a conviction for their case. Therefore, a district attorney might find it particularly difficult to
call up a police officer for their testimony in a criminal case one day and then turn around and
prosecute that same officer for criminal misconduct on the next day. This troubling legal flaw creates a
situation where the D.A has a perception of bias which might unfairly skew the states case in favor of
the officer. When coupled with the fact that many police officers already operate under qualified
immunity and you have a society where police are fully aware that they will rarely be held accountable
for their actions.
All of these issues contribute to the lack of accountability and transparency among law
enforcement. What's more is that all of these things are reflected in a statistic provided to us by a recent
study done by the Cato Institute. The think tank investigated the conviction rates of the general public
and compared those rates to those of police officers accused of the same crimes. The study focused on
the 75 largest counties in America between the years 2009 and 2010. The results showed that 66% of
all criminal cases against the general population resulted in the conviction of the accused. Meanwhile,
police officers accused of the exact same crimes were convicted at a rate of 33% (Elinson and
Palazzolo.) In other words, if you commit a crime as a police officer you are statistically half as likely
to be convicted when compared to a civilian who is accused of the exact same crime. This disparity is
not only very telling of the double standard at hand, but it is a fact which is very staggering.
The clear double standards within our judicial system has created an environment in which
police officers have every right to believe that they are completely above the law... Because in most
cases they are. This type of attitude is dangerous for three reasons. First, it is extremely damaging to
the relationship between the community and the police. When people feel that police officers are given
unchecked power and a clear unfair advantage over civilians within the judicial system it breeds

Mike Horne
Project Analysis
3/24/15
mistrust and animosity. To be frank, people stop seeing police as public servants who are there to keep
the peace and more so as an occupying force within their community who are their to exercise their
power as they see fit. Second, the attitude of being above the law serves to create a breeding ground for
excessive misappropriate use of force. Naturally, if prosecution for criminal misconduct is rare amongst
law enforcement then there is no deterrent for overzealous officers who's natural tendency is to resort to
violence or force to solve tense situations. Third, and in conjunction with the second point, in the event
that excessive use of force leads to the death of a civilian, the advantageous situation of the police (in
regards to their investigatory powers) makes it extremely easy for a cover up to be staged.
So with all of these problems the main question is this, what can we do to solve these issues? As
stated in my initial proposal, I believe that first and foremost we must require the use of body cameras
for all police officers who patrol our streets. Body cameras would provide us with exact video evidence
of any issue involving excessive or lethal force, thereby rendering investigations to be less less reliant
on officer testimony to paint a clear picture of the event or distort the reality of the situation. In
addition to this, a Cambridge University led study published by The Journal of Quantitative
Criminology in late 2014 showed that body worn cameras on police officers reduced the use of force by
50 percent in a comparison to the year prior. Furthermore, civilian complaints of excessive use of force
declined by 90 percent when compared to the previous year (Ziv) I think the numbers speak for
themselves and the numbers say that body cameras work.
The one major issue that law enforcement and state governments have with body camera
programs is their high cost. In truth, the cameras themselves are relatively inexpensive. Taser
International, the leader of the market for police body cameras, charge between $399 to $599 per
camera. But when you consider that the average GoPro camera costs upwards of $500, that number is
not too shocking. The real cost comes with data storage for all of the videos generated by police

Mike Horne
Project Analysis
3/24/15
officers on patrol. A review of the body camera program implementation in Duluth, Minnesota sheds
some light onto the cost of data storage. According to the city's police chief Duluth received 84
cameras, one for every cop in the city, and their charging ports for under $5,000 from Taser
International. The three year data plan, however, cost the city $78,000 (Bakst and Foley.)
At first glance, one might ask how the police department could find the money to fund these
programs? There is one extremely simple solution and for all the debate that has raged over the issue I
have failed to see it even mentioned in passing... Use the funds seized by police under civil asset
forfeiture laws. Through the federal Equitable Sharing Act, local police agencies are allowed to seize
property and cash connected to an individual's criminal activities. Once the property is seized, 80
percent is given back to the local agency that made the initial seizure and 20 percent is given to the
federal government which puts the money into a nation wide law enforcement trust fund called the
Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Fund. According to the Department of Justice, the total amount
contributed to the fund by all 50 states in 2014 was nearly 4.5 billion dollars (US Dep. Of Justice via
Justice.gov.) 4.5 billion dollars in civil asset seizures that are being used to purchase military grade
weaponry and vehicles all the while police agencies are demanding to know how the comparatively
modest cost of body cameras will be paid for by the police and tax payers. I think the answer is quite
clear: The money is there. Stop using it to purchase weapons of war and start using it rebuild the
mistrustful relationship between the community and the police.
Aside from the issue of body cameras there is still the question of how we plan to handle the
issues with Internal Affairs, the practice of allowing police to investigate themselves and the use of
local District Attorneys to prosecute local police. The central problem of all of these things can be
summed up in three words: Conflict of interest. As such, it should be the goal of any proposed solution
to eliminate conflicts of interest regarding investigations and prosecutions of police officers. Therefore,

Mike Horne
Project Analysis
3/24/15
it would be my suggestion to disband Internal Affairs, prohibit police agencies to investigate
themselves and instead create a Federal regulatory agency which conducts investigations of police
misconduct. In my opinion it would make perfect sense to have that body headed by the Department of
Justice. Perhaps the creation of a new body would be unnecessary as we could task the responsibility of
investigating police with an already existing agency, such as the FBI. But whatever is done, we must
not allow Internal Affairs and police agencies to undermine the integrity of criminal investigations with
their inherent bias of police officers.
Insofar as a solution to the district attorney problem, some legal experts have suggested that the
state government strip district attorneys of their power to prosecute police officers and instead hand
that power over to special federal prosecutors. Federal prosecutors rarely, if ever, consult with local
police for testimony in their cases. As a result, the personal relationship between local police and
federal prosecutors is almost completely non-existent. Therefore, the issue of a perceived bias from a
close working relationship would not carry over with the Federal Prosecutor as it does in the case of
most district attorneys. Even Reverend Al Sharpton has come out in support of this idea as of late last
year when he publicly called for the institution of this policy as a result of the grand jury proceedings
involving the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner (Cassell.)
Although all of these solutions might seem like a far cry from what is attainable in reality, the
truth is that these kinds of reform are a very real possibility. However, grassroots organization- the
ultimate incarnation of the public will- is absolutely necessary if we wish to achieve real reform.
Naturally this means that this kind of movement will need the strength of numbers, something which is
attainable through the use of rhetoric. If the social movements of the 1960's taught us anything it is that
the successful application of rhetoric can move people to action in great numbers. I believe that the
application of rhetoric in this instance can spur people to join the cause for law enforcement reform,

Mike Horne
Project Analysis
3/24/15
just as it did for the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 60's.
The initial key to swelling the ranks of like minded police reformists is undoubtedly the
spreading of information such as what has been presented in this analysis. There are many channels by
which this information can be spread; speeches, formal presentations at institutions of higher education,
blog posts, viral videos... The specific channel chosen is not as important as is the end goal of the
successful education of the general public. Once the public is saturated with this kind of information,
like minded individuals will begin to seek out others who share the same ideological beliefs. This
would hopefully swell the ranks of grassroots organizations seeking to achieve reform through protest
and other means of local political action. Then and only then will we see the will of the people making
an impact on the law enforcement accountability policies in our society.