U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

UNREASONABLE RISK CONFRONTATION: A FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION

NCJ Number
144718
Journal
Law and Order Volume: 41 Issue: 8 Dated: (August 1993) Pages: 84-89
Author(s)
R F Allard Jr
Date Published
1993
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article examines whether or not police personnel have a constitutional right to sue their police administration/supervisor under 42 U.S. Code 1983 if the deliberate indifference to training and/or equipment leads to the proximate result of their injury.
Abstract
Inadequate training, supervision, and discipline with approximate causal connection between the inadequate training and the harm sustained creates a foreseeable risk of harm. An officer who confronts an unreasonable risk lacking training, support, and/or equipment is self-imposing a "zone of danger," creating a foreseeable excessive risk of harm to both the citizen and to the officer himself/herself. Case law indicates that liability can be imposed on a municipality when a "deliberate indifference" exhibited by a pattern of inadequate training is shown. An officer's deficient training may be the substantial factor in creating a causal link between training deficiencies and risk/harm to others. A particular officer's unsatisfactory training cannot alone suffice to attach 1983 liability, however, nor can a plaintiff prevail merely by proving that the accident/injury could have been avoided had the officer received enhanced training. If, however, the training and supervision was outrageous and inadequate, a jury is authorized to infer the existence of inadequate training and supervision policies solely from a single incident.