CJ 520 SNHU Mod 7 Changes in Criminal Justice Agency Analysis Memorandum To successfully complete this assignment, view the Module Seven Policy Analysis Memorandum Guidelines and Rubric document.
You will need the following resources to complete this task:
Memorandum Template
Sample Policy Memorandum
Policy Memo Writing Tips (Optional)
attached below is the template that is needed as well as other materials and rubric CJ 520 Sample Policy Memorandum
Note: The headings below are ones typically seen in a legal policy memorandum. Keep in mind,
however, that different professions—and companies within these professions—may use different
headings or formats for their memorandums.
MEMORANDUM
TO: District Judge of the Third Circuit
FROM: Assistant Prosecutor
RE: Graham v. Connor Case – Judging Use of Force Issues
DATE: January 1, 2016
Issue Presented
When one of our police officers is involved in a use of force incident, what perspective should be
used in judging the reasonableness of that officer’s use of force?
Short Answer
When judging reasonableness, in the application of force, the perspective to be used is that of a
reasonable objective officer standing in the shoes of the officer at the time the application of
force is used. That officer is additionally briefed to disregard 20/20 hindsight.
Statement of Facts
The case of Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), is the applicable precedent and rule of law
applicable to these situations. In Graham, supra, an officer made a traffic stop on an individual
who was diabetic. As a result of low sugar, Graham was attempting to buy orange juice. He was
driven to a convenience store by Berry, pulling in expeditiously. Graham ran into the
convenience store and rapidly exited after seeing the line was too long. Berry and Graham then
swiftly pulled out of the convenience store parking lot. Based on the aforementioned events,
Officer Connor, observed this behavior and was troubled by the situation. Connor believed some
type of crime or a robbery may have occurred in the convenience store. The officer conducted an
investigative stop to determine whether or not criminal activity had taken place. Graham was
incoherent and refused to comply with officer requests, running around the vehicle as a result of
low insulin. Due to his behavior, Graham was subsequently handcuffed and detained while
officers were conducting a preliminary investigation. The officers at the time had no idea that
Graham was diabetic. Graham was not charged with a crime but sustained injuries while being
handcuffed. Graham brought suit against the officers for a violation of his civil rights under 42
U.S.C § 1983, for excessive use of force and violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free
from unreasonable search and seizure. Graham contended that the officers disregarded the fact
that he was diabetic. Id at 392-394.
Discussion
As a result of recent use of force issues across the country, there has been intense media scrutiny
placed on law enforcement. As grand juries have convened, in both Ferguson and New York City,
there has been unparalleled attention and protests as to why these officers have not been indicted.
This is a result of the public having a general misunderstanding and misconception of how the
law is applied. It is paramount that the general public understand the context when judging the
reasonableness of incidents involving the use of force. A complete and thorough understanding
of the law is critical when analyzing these incidents. Grand juries are instructed on the law when
reaching their conclusions. This, in fact, is the dispositive reason as to why these grand juries
have refused to indict these officers. When judging reasonableness, in the application of force,
grand juries are advised that they must stand in the shoes of the officer at the time the application
of force is used. They are additionally briefed to disregard 20/20 hindsight based on the
aforementioned Graham standard. That judgment should be based on the “objective
reasonableness” standard outlined in Graham. Police officers often have a fraction of a second to
make a life and death decision. After the fact, that decision, may in fact, be wrong. However, the
incident cannot be judged with hindsight. Under Graham, we must stand in the shoes of the
officer at the time the force is being applied to determine its reasonableness. The realization that
a gun is in fact a toy after the application of deadly force is a perfect illustration of this point.
However, using the Graham analysis, was the officers’ application of deadly force “objectively
reasonable?”
Conclusion
In reaching its conclusion, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the officers stating
in a pertinent part:
All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force—deadly or not—in
the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of a free citizen are properly
analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, rather than
under a substantive due process standard. Graham at 392-399.
This “objective reasonableness” must be applied while “standing in the shoes of the officer” at
the time the incident takes place. The Supreme Court recognized that officers have to make splitsecond decisions in the course of executing their duties. The benefit of 20/20 hindsight must be
disregarded when judging “objective reasonableness”. Id at 399. Obviously, had the officers
known that Graham was diabetic, they would have taken different action. However, this
information was revealed after the incident took place.
Recommendations
The general public has a general misunderstanding and misconception of how the law is applied
in use of force situations. It is paramount that the general public understand the context, when
judging the reasonableness of incidents involving the use of force, before judging the incident. A
complete and thorough understanding of the law is critical when analyzing these incidents. The
understanding of this approach is the dispositive reason as to why grand juries have refused to
indict many officers. It is imperative that our agency deals with this negative public perception
with an informational campaign on the Graham standard. This information should be
disseminated proactively before another incident becomes the lightning rod of controversy and
reactionary public perception. It is also important that our officers be trained in the proper use of
force, the use of force continuum, and from what perspective their actions are going to be
judged. If these strategies are followed, there should be better public awareness of the situation,
better trained officers, and a thoughtful/mindful approach to the application of force.
Reference
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Issue Presented
Short Answer
Statement of Facts
Discussion
Conclusion
Recommendations
References
CJ 520 Module Seven Policy Analysis Memorandum Guidelines and Rubric
Overview: Building on the discussion of criminal justice policy-makers in Module Six, for this assignment due in Module Seven, you will write a brief, 1-page
memorandum to your supervisor regarding the need to make changes to a departmental policy in your criminal justice agency. You will also describe how these
changes will affect the different actors involved in the policy-making process. This memorandum will help inform policy recommendations that you will be
making in your Milestone Three assignment and in your final project, because you will be outlining changes to a departmental policy based on the public policy
issue you have previously identified.
Consider the following scenario: Your supervisor needs to be convinced of the need to make changes to a departmental policy in your agency and how these
changes will affect the different actors involved in the policy-making process.
Prompt: Use the Memorandum Template to complete the assignment. In your brief, 1-page memorandum, address the following critical elements as they are
reflected in the Sample Policy Memorandum. These critical elements appear as headings in that document as follows:
1. Issue Presented: In a brief one-sentence question, summarize the importance of making changes to your selected departmental policy in your criminal
justice agency and how these changes will affect the different actors involved in the policy-making process.
2. Short Answer: Provide a short answer that summarizes the conclusion of the memorandum.
3. Statement of Facts: Describe how implementing these departmental policy changes will result in more effective policy-making.
4. Discussion: Briefly discuss at least one recent example of a departmental policy (from law enforcement, the courts, or corrections) that has effectively
been revised to take into consideration the various policy actors involved.
5. Conclusion: Provide a conclusion based on the research you have done and the details you have gathered.
6. Recommendations:
a) Explain how the changes you are recommending to your departmental policy will affect other policy actors, including those in the other
branches of the criminal justice system.
b) Identify resistance to the recommended changes from other policy actors who may find the changes lead to potential conflicts with their own
policies or agendas.
c) In making your recommendations, include elements to your policy that, although not ideal for your department, will avoid conflicts with other
policy actors and make a smoother delivery of criminal justice services in relation to the issue.
Reference your textbook or other course readings to support your submission.
For assistance in writing this memorandum, please review the Sample Policy Memorandum as well as the optional article Policy Memo Writing Tips.
Rubric
Guidelines for Submission: This policy analysis memorandum assignment should follow these formatting guidelines: minimum 1 page in length (excluding title
and reference pages), single spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and citations in APA style. Cite your sources within the text of your
paper and on the reference page. Please use the Memorandum Template to complete this activity.
Refer to the Criminal Justice Library Tips for assistance in finding and citing outside sources.
Critical Elements
Issue Presented
Exemplary (100%)
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
question is a succinct and clear
summary
Proficient (90%)
Summarizes the importance of
making changes to a selected
departmental policy and how
these changes will affect the
different actors involved in the
policy-making process
Short Answer
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
short answer is a succinct and
clear summary of the
conclusion
Provides a short answer that
summarizes the conclusion of
the memorandum
Statement of Facts
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
provides clear and specific
examples
Describes how implementing
departmental policy changes
will result in more effective
policy-making
Discussion
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
example discussed includes
accurate and relevant detail
Provides a discussion of a
recent example of a
departmental policy (from law
enforcement, the courts, or
corrections) that has effectively
been revised to take into
consideration the various policy
actors involved
Needs Improvement (70%)
Summarizes the importance of
making changes to a selected
departmental policy , but does
not summarize how these
changes will affect the different
actors involved in the policymaking process
Provides a short answer that
summarizes the conclusion of
the memorandum, but
summary lacks detail or
contains inaccuracies
Describes how implementing
departmental policy changes
will result in more effective
policy-making, but description
lacks detail or contains
inaccuracies
Provides a discussion of a
recent example of a
departmental policy (from law
enforcement, the courts, or
corrections) that has been
revised to take into
consideration the various policy
actors involved, but provided
example has not been revised
effectively
Not Evident (0%)
Does not summarize the
importance of making changes
to a selected departmental
policy and how these changes
will affect the different actors
involved in the policy-making
process
Does not provide a short
answer that summarizes the
conclusion of the
memorandum
Value
5
5
Does not describe how
implementing departmental
policy changes will result in
more effective policy-making
10
Does not provide a discussion
of at least one recent example
of a departmental policy (from
law enforcement, the courts, or
corrections) that has effectively
been revised to take into
consideration the various policy
actors involved
15
Conclusion
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
conclusion is succinct and clear
Provides a conclusion based on
research done and details
gathered
Recommendations:
Changes and the
Effects on Other
Policy Actors
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
explanation is clear, relevant,
and detailed
Explains how the
recommended changes will
affect other policy actors,
including those in the other
branches of the criminal justice
system
Recommendations:
Resistance
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
identification is clear, relevant,
and detailed
Identifies resistance to the
recommended changes from
other policy actors who may
find the changes lead to
potential conflicts with their
own policies or agendas
Recommendations:
Elements to Avoid
Conflict
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
elements included are specific
and relevant to the policy and
policy actors involved
Articulation of
Response
Submission is free of errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, and
organization and is presented in
a professional and easy-to-read
format
Includes elements to the policy
that will avoid conflicts with
other policy actors and make
smoother delivery of criminal
justice services in relation to
the issue
Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
Provides a conclusion based on
research done and details
gathered, but conclusion
contains inaccuracies
Explains how the
recommended changes will
affect other policy actors, but
does not include those in the
other branches of the criminal
justice system, OR explanation
lacks detail or contains
inaccuracies
Identifies resistance to the
recommended changes from
other policy actors who may
find the changes lead to
potential conflicts with their
own policies or agendas, but
discussion of areas of
resistance identified lack detail
or contain inaccuracies
Includes elements to the policy,
but they will not avoid conflicts
with other policy actors and
make smoother delivery of
criminal justice services in
relation to the issue
Submission has major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that negatively impact
readability and articulation of
main ideas
Does not provide a conclusion
based on research done and
details gathered
15
Does not explain how the
recommended changes will
affect other policy actors,
including those in the other
branches of the criminal justice
system
15
Does not identify resistance to
the recommended changes
from other policy actors who
may find the changes lead to
potential conflicts with their
own policies or agendas
15
Does not include elements to
the policy that will avoid
conflicts with other policy
actors and make smoother
delivery of criminal justice
services in relation to the issue
Submission has critical errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that prevent understanding of
ideas
15
Total
5
100%
Purchase answer to see full
attachment