Opinion ID: 2092690
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Police Guidelines and Regulations

Text: Officer McGriff filed a motion in limine to exclude any evidence relating to any alleged violations of police procedure preceding the arrest of Plaintiff, on the grounds that (1) such evidence was not probative on the issue of whether McGriff used unreasonable force, and (2) the evidence in question consisted of police guidelines, not commands or injunctions, and left a great deal of discretion in the officer. Essentially, the motion was based on lack of relevance. The documentary evidence sought to be excluded consisted of nine pages of single-spaced guidelines issued by the Baltimore City Police Department on the use of deadly force and 13 pages of single-spaced rules and regulations concerning a wide range of police conduct and behavior. Most of the rules and regulations, which cover the entire gamut of police conduct, from being courteous and fulfilling financial obligations, to saluting superior officers, to refraining from publicly criticizing public officials, to the circumstances when gambling, drinking, and smoking is not permitted, have no discernible relevance to any issue in the case. Even the guidelines on the use of deadly force include standards dealing with matters wholly inapposite to this caseguidelines on shooting at vehicles, shooting from vehicles, killing dangerous animals, and chasing suspects. The rules and regulations relating to firearms require police officers to be suitably armed when on duty and, although they place conditions on the use of firearms to prevent the escape of felons and prohibit their use to prevent the escape of misdemeanants, they expressly permit officers to use their firearms in self-defense. The guidelines dealing with deadly force that petitioner particularly stressed provide, in pertinent part, that officers may use deadly force only as a last resort, that they should try to avoid putting themselves in a situation where they have no option but to use deadly force, that they should [t]ry to use other less deadly means, and that they should [w]ait for [a] sufficient number of officers to handle situation[s] without undue force. Consistent with the rules and regulations, the guidelines expressly allow the use of firearms in self-defense and state that [t]he attacked officer is the person who has to evaluate the potential seriousness of the attack and determine an appropriate level of response, the only caveat being that [t]he evaluation and response must be reasonable from the perspective of a reasonable police officer similarly situated. McGriff argued that, in the context sought to be used by petitioner, these guidelines and regulations were irrelevant and misleading. He suggested that petitioner wanted the jury to determine that McGriff had violated some of those guidelines but urged that petitioner had offered no evidence that any were, in fact, violated. In that regard, he noted that all of the guidelines cited by petitioner were discretionary and left to the officers' determination on the scene as the events unfold. McGriff added that if the plaintiff could come in here and ... point to a hard and fast rule where you're supposed to do A, and you're not supposed to do B, C, or D, that's one thing. But when he comes in and brings in guidelines, which give a range of things that the police officers are allowed to do ... this is not a violation of a hard and fast rule. Noting the statement that deadly force should be used only as a last resort, petitioner urged that he be permitted to elicit from McGriff his acceptance of that proposition and that he doesn't just go in, like a cowboy, and shoot first and ask questions later. There was, of course, no evidence that McGriff did any such thing. Petitioner also said that he wanted to cross-examine McGriff about the admonition to wait for a sufficient number of officers to handle situations without undue force. At no time during the hearing, however, did petitioner suggest that he was prepared to offer any evidence (1) that additional back-up was immediately available, (2) how much back-up would have been reasonable in light of the officers' previous experience and what they had been told was the situation, (3) whether, given the prospect of there being a victim in the building, it would have been reasonable for the two officers to wait, or (4) how the situation in the kitchen would have played out any differently if additional officers had joined the search of the house. The court granted the motion on relevance grounds, noting that there were no allegations in the complaint that the suit was based on a violation of any police orders, regulations, or guidelines. Petitioner does not really suggest otherwise. None of the actions pled, and certainly none that were submitted to the jury, were based on the violation of any orders, regulations, or guidelines. Instead, at least as the argument unfolded in this Court, petitioner was seeking to use this material only as a basis for claiming that Officers McGriff and Catterton should not have entered the apartment in the first place, without some undefined additional back-up, or, once there, they should have turned on the kitchen lights. The excluded evidence was thus relevant, if at all, only in those regards.