Compiled Research on Police Use of Deadly Force

    Chapter 5

COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE

i

At both the Tennessee Advisory Committee 
open meeting and the Commission hearing, a 
broad cross section of the Memphis community 
was solicited for comment on the nature of police- 
community relations in Memphis. This process 
proved invaluable in terms of identifying problems 
and the extent of agreement as to the causes of 
those problems. In addition, much testimony was 
heard as to what the various community groups 
and leaders, representing diverse interests and con­
stituencies, perceive can and should be done to 
address the problems raised.

Memphis Branch of the NAACP
Maxine Smith, a native Memphian, school board 

member, and executive secretary of the NAACP in 
Memphis since 1962, spoke forcefully of her belief 
that police-community relations in Memphis, par­
ticularly from the viewpoint of the black commu­
nity, have historically been and continue to be 
“ very poor.” '

Citing the long and difficult struggles that black 
Memphians have undergone to obtain their civil 
rights, Ms. Smith stated that such change has 
come about only when elected officials and com­
munity leaders have been forced to react because 
of "extreme pressure.

We have attempted to appeal to the good 
sense, to the fair play...to the morality which 
we have found to be absent in most instances, 
and, unfortunately, the response has only been 
to crisis. '

Despite gains in other civil rights areas, Ms. 
Smith conceded a sense of frustration at the ina­
bility of the black community to affectuate change 
in the manner in which she perceives that blacks 
are discriminated against “ in the adminstration of 
justice” in Memphis. In identifying specific 
problem areas that particularly affect blacks, i.e., 
police misconduct, failure of internal and external 
controls of police misconduct,-' and employment 
discrimination within the Memphis Police Depart­
ment, Ms. Smith cited the resistence of elected of­

11121

ficials (particularly Mayor Chandler)-' and commu­
nity leaders " to solving those problems as the 
major obstacle encountered by the black commu­
nity:

It bewilders me that the burden of change 
falls on the shoulders of the black people and 
isolated white friends...we are the segment of 
the community who is least able to bear the 
burden financially, politically, or any other 
way.^

Referring to police misconduct as “ this curse 
that afflicts us,” “ Ms. Smith stated that since she 
has been with the NAACP in Memphis, “ there 
have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of cases 
filed by the NAACP charging police brutality.” ” 
She explained that the NAACP does not file every 
complaint received,"’ but rather attempts to deter­
mine those that have “ merit and validity.” "  Ms. 
Smith stated that in many cases the condition of 
the complainants has demonstrated “ physical 
evidence of physical abuse”  and that in some in­
stances there are great differences in size of the 
officers and the individual arrested and battered 
with the advantage being given to the arresting of­
ficer."*

Our job is not to try the person who comes 
into our office...but be the individuals guilty 
or innocent, there is something wrong, we feel 
very strongly, with an arresting officer who 
has to half kill an individual in order to arrest 
that individual.'-'

Ms. Smith emphasized that not all complaints 
received by the NAACP involved physical abuse:

The sanctity of the home is just completely 
ignored. Police just enter homes as if they 
owned them...without benefit of a warrant or 
anything else.

It would seem that...the law would dic­
tate...that abuse, verbal abuse, can be just as 
debilitating to the alleged victim as physical 
abuse.'-*

Too often we get people who are held for 72 
hours on suspicion and, you know, we are 
suspicious because we are black.'-'

31



Ms. Smith stated that charges such as 
“ disorderly conduct" and “ resisting arrest” are 
often used as a “ license" for a police officer to 
physically and verbally abuse a c it izen .N oting  
that blacks have a history of arrest out of propor­
tion to their presence in the Memphis population, 
Ms. Smith stated:

I an< not surprised at the number of arrests 
because our complaints reflect so often (that 
those] persons who are are arrested (are those 
persons who are] beaten, abused verbally.’ ’

Ms. Smith added that the charges are often 
dismissed at the subsequent judicial hearing.'"

With regard to the recently appointed Police 
Director, E. Winslow Chapman, Ms. Smith stated 
a sense of “ gratification”  that Director Chapman 
“ has expressed a willingness" to resolve citizen 
complaints against department personnel. Noting 
the increased level of communication between her 
office and the police director, initiated by Director 
Chapman, Ms. Smith stated:

...the number of complaints and the condition 
of complainants have not lessened in number 
of severity.... (Director Chapmen’s attitude’; 
hasn’t trickled down to the policeman on the 
street who has the day=to-day contact with the 
citizen.'"

In order to have as many responsible officials 
notified of complaints received by the NAACP as 
possible, Ms. Smith stated that the complaints are 
referred to several different areas:' "̂

We direct [the complaints] not only to the 
head official of the police department...but to 
the mayor, members of the city council, to the 
media, to the FBI, to the Attorney General, to 
the civil service, the...Human Relations Com­
mission; and we arc practically ignored.

I see no real commitment on any part of the 
community, exclusive of the black community 
and some human relations groups, to really rid 
our city of the problem of police abuse....'-'

Ms. Smith said there is a “ lack of sensitivity to 
the needs and the desires of black people that is 
continuously exhibited by the police depart­
ment.’ "̂ '* Expressing ber belief that the department 
is unable to investigate itself even-handcdly,'-" Ms. 
Smith said that in the "vast majority’"* of com­
plaints investigated by the police department, “ no 
cause is found’"-' for disciplinary action. In

response to written requests for reports of the de­
partment’s findings in each complaint referred, 
Ms. Smith stated, “ the longest report is a one sen­
tence report— denying guilt on the part (tf the of­
ficer or officers involved” '-"' She characteri/etl the 
response of other city. State, and Federal agencies 
to which the NAACP has referred complaints as 
follows:

We have never had any response that in­
dicated that any real effort was being made to 
correct the condition or any admittance that 
any wrong had been committed.

Ms. Smith cited the disparity in the number of 
blacks in the department as a factor contributing 
significantly to the state of poor police-community 
relations in Memphis. Recalling efforts of the 
NAACP and other organizations over the past 
several years to improve black representation in 
the department,'-*" she said, in terms of employment 
opportunities for blacks, "(I]t has been our ex­
perience and our observation th;it the department 
has done no more than it has been forced to do.’"*"

Noting that the Memphis Police Department had 
no affirmative action plan for minority employ­
ment until the consent decree between the U.S. 
Department of Justice and the-city of Memphis,"" 
Ms. Smith stated that the department still had no 
blacks in policy making positions in the depart­
ment:

There was a consent decree en­
tered...community groups did negotiate and 
met for a long time (on the issue of minority 
employment (. However, to my knowledge, 
those who were most affected had nothing to 
do with the consent and the only thing that 
has come out of that has been an increase in 
the number of black patrolmen. I think that's 
fairly token in the whole scope of things."'

Ms. Smith cited the creation of the Afro Amer­
ican Police Association"* as "indicative that
something is amiss within the Department.’ ’""*

(T]hat group has come to our office because 
conditions were so miserable and so racially 
biased (against the black officers] who serve 
within the police department.'*

Ms. Smith said, "If the police department will 
not treat its own members fairly, certainly it will 
not treat the citizenry it serves fairly” "' Ms. 
Smith, citing a research study conducted by the

so

ty

N
o f

P.

fo

wl
fit
de
til

th

P'
III

F-;,
hi
P'
ni
I"
M

p i

P'
si
t i

1



sociology departments of Memphis State Universi­
ty and Lemoyne-Owens College”* at the time the 
NAACP undertook its study of the administration 
of justice,”  ̂ said there is a “ vast difference in the 
level of trust” between the black community and 
the white community with regard to the Memphis 
Police Department.'" “ |M|lack people," she said, 
“ generally don’t trust police officers" and are 
“ reluctant" to notify the department when law en­
forcement assistance is needed.'” Indicating that 
white Memphians,"’ particularly the more af­
fluent,-" are more disinterested than trusting of the 
department, Ms. Smith offered by way of explana­
tion that the problems “ don't reach them."'-

That is the kind of mentality that 1 think per­
vades most communities and I think they are 
as little concerned about the police as they 
arc their impression of black people and poor 
people, because there are many victims, white 
victims, who arc on the lower end of the 
economic pole, who too are victimized....-”'

Calling for increased communication between 
the black and white communities, Ms, Smith ex­
pressed the need for all components of the com­
munity to deal with problems inhibiting overall 
good police-community relations in Memphis. 
Emphasizing that it is neither equitable nor possi­
ble for the black community to solve all the 
problems, Ms. Smith stated that the total commu­
nity must make the commitment to resolve those 
problems, problems that ultimately affect every 
Memphis citizen.

Memphis Urban League
Herman Ewing, executive director of the Mem­

phis Urban League since 1969, was invited to ap­
pear before the Tennessee Advisory Committee to 
share his impressions o f police-community rela­
tions based upon his perspective and experience 
with the organization. Mr. Ewing described the 
Memphis Urban League:

...a community service organization that has 
dedicated itself to improving the quality of life 
of blacks and low-income people in the Mem­
phis community (with the) understanding that 
when the quality of life is imprt)ved for the 
low man on the totem pole, it is improved for 
the entire community."

The Memphis Urban League, affiliated with the 
National Urban League, Inc., is largely au­

tonomous in the conduct of local affairs, subject to 
policies and standards established for all affiliates 
by the national organization. It receives financial 
support from a variety of sources, including con­
tracts with local, .State, and federal (ioverment; 
contributions from the Memphis United Way; aiul 
private eontribiitioiis.Approximately 6t) percent 
of the Memphis Urban League's funding is depen­
dent upon public and private contributions from 
the Memphis community."'

Stating that, “ the general welfare and at­
mosphere of government towards the citizenry is 
an item of major concern for the Urban 
League,"'^ Mr. Ewing cited the defensive attitude 
of the “ leadership"'" in the community (which he 
said,“ permeates" the entire community as well as 
the Memphis Police Department-"' as the single 
factor contributing the most to what he termed, “ a 
bad situation up and down, just a bad situation."'" 
Mr. Ewing told the Tennessee Advisory Commit­
tee:

Now, it seems as though what government is 
saying is, “ We would rather have blacks out 
on the street corner and on the roof tops and 
marching in the streets rather than go in and 
sit down in a calm and deliberate manner 
[and] attempt to get to the heart of the 
problems that face our community," and 
[this]...represents a crisis in leadership."

Although he perceives the major problem to be 
the lack of positive civic leadership, Mr. Ewing 
said he did not wish to “ minimize"''' the police de­
partment's role:

[T]herc continues to be, not isolated, but very 
frequent cases where policemen exhibit, if not 
excessive force, just poor attitudes in general 
toward the general public.'"

Mr. Ewing stressed that incidents of police 
misconduct arc not perpetrated by the “ large 
majority" o f Memphis police officers, but, he said, 
"there is a substantial minority that continues to 
do things in their own way and encouraging new 
fecruits to pick up the old habits.” '"

Mr. Ewing stated his belief that another signifi­
cant factor contributing to the ongoing lack of 
Confidence of the black community in the depart­
ment is the “ mentality" of “ career officers who 
Were certainly very vigorous in enforcing the 
separate but equal doctrines of not many years ago 
(and] still are inlluenced by their training of those 
years...."-"

1 n { .1.1



\ J

Citing past conversations with Memphis police 
officers, Mr. Ewing stated that there is pressure 
put upon police recruits by certain veteran officers 
to “ become a part of an invisible system of doing 
things that is not a part of any formal, structured 
record in the police d e p a r tm e n t .M r .  Ewing 
stated that new officers are encouraged to “ say 
nothing” ' ’ when minor violations of departmental 
regulations by other officers arc observed. He 
added that this practice puts a recruit in “ a dif­
ficult position when it comes to survival Illus­
trating this dilemma from a police officers’ view­
point, Mr. Ewing stated;

If I am going to be a partner to this per­
son...do I stand up for what is right and run 
the risk of being unprotected, should 1 get in 
a potentially hostile situation, or do I go along 
with these minor infractions only to be forced 
to go along with a major infraction of the 
regulations simply because I have built a pat­
tern of going along with the minor infrac­
tions.

Mr. Ewing emphasized that the image of the 
Memphis Police Department in the black commu­
nity has hindered the efforts of the Urban League 
in recruiting blacks to the department.™

(Ojne o f  the problems is that to be a recruiter 
for the police department, such as the Urban 
League or any other institution, you almost 
have to become an advocate of the police de­
partment and it becomes very difficult to say 
to a young person who perhaps could pursue 
a career in law enforcement with the Mem­
phis Police Department that we recommend 
this to you.”'

An aggravating factor to the incidents of police 
misconduct, Mr. Ewing stated, is the “ obvious lack 
of strict disciplinary action against police officers 
who commit offenses against minorities.” "̂  Citing 
the nonresponsiveness of the department’s internal 
affairs bureau (lAB), in both the investigation and 
public reporting of police misconduct,™ Mr. Ewing 
said there is no adequate forum, either internal or 
external, for coping with police misconduct. In the 
opinion of Mr. Ewing, neither the lAB, the civil 
service commission,™ nor the courts have been 
able to effectively mete out the disciplinary action 
required.™ Nothing the “ obvious” ineffectiveness 
of the department’s efforts to police itself, Mr. 
Ewing stated;

Internal coverups or internal failure to in­
vestigate fully I instances of police miscon­
duct] to the complete satisfaction of the en­
tire community makes any police department 
attempt to project an image of good will hard 
to swallow.™

Mr. Ewing indicated that resort to a criminal 
court of law has proved ineffective because of 
both the evidentiary burden required for convic­
tion and a basic “ insensitivity of the courts to 
citizens’ complaints of abuse.’ ’"’  With regard to 
the civil service commission, he cited the "few in­
stances" in which the commission has upheld de­
partmental disciplinary action as indicative of the 
commission’s ineffectiveness in dealing with the 
problem.""

Based upon his perspective from day-to-day con­
tacts with black and economically disadvantaged 
Memphians, Mr, Ewing outlined several problem 
areas that need to he addressed to improve the 
poor state of police-community relations in Mem­
phis. He offered several recommendations, notably 
an increase in police training in handling “ minority 
community relations.’’""

Beyond specific recommendations, Mr. Ewing 
emphasized that the primary ingredient necessary 
for solving the pervasive police-community rela­
tions problems in Memphis is an informed and 
positive commitment of the leadership of Memphis 
to deal with the problems. He stated that the 
problem will only be resolved;

...when the leadership of this city...can step 
forward and say, “ Yes, these are our 
problems,”  Not just a general admission that 
we have got problems—that is an out—but, 
“ these are our problems. We invite leadership 
of all communities, of all groups to assemble 
with us to project some solutions which we 
will implement to resolve these problems," 
Until we do that, we are not going to get 
anywhere.’ "

American Civil Liberties Union of 
Tennessee (ACLU/T)

During the course of both the Tennessee Ad­
visory Committee’s open meeting and the Commis­
sion’s hearing, testimony was heard from ACLU/T 
officers and cooperating attorneys regarding po­
lice-community relations in Memphis,

Chan Kendrick, executive director of the Ten­
nessee affiliatate of the National American Civil

34

i

K K - M



Liberties Union, Inc., provitled testimony on the 
ACLU/I involvement in poliee-comimmity rela­
tions. Philip Arnold and Uruee Kramer, who are 
members of the ACLU/T, spoke of their ex­
perience in litigating eases that involved police 
misconduct.^'

I he ACLU/I ollice loctiteil in Memphis is one 
ot 46 affiliate chapters nationwide and currently 
has approximately 550 members who support its 
function of ACLU: to protect anti defend the civil 
liberties of individuals and groups whose legal 
rights are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the 
Constitution. The ACLU/T provides guidance and 
legal counseling, and often legal representation as 
well, to individuals and groups seeking to secure 
their civil rights. The majority of ACLU/T efforts 
have been in Memphis and the immediate areas.

fhe three ACLU/T representatives, reflecting 
the opinions of other private and public service or­
ganization representatives, said they consider the 
matter of police misconduct against Memphis re­
sidents to be, “ perhaps the top priority issue"^" of 
their organization. The ACLU/T routinely receives 
complaints o f  police misconduct in the course of 
its operations. Mr. Kendrick said:

...during the past year [from April 1976 to 
April 1977] we received about 175 com­
plaints of police misconduct. A lot of those 
were beatings, harrassment, breaking into 
someone s home or car...field interrogation, 
that sort of thing. Most of our complaints 
range in that area.'^

Mr. Kendrick testified that the ACLU/T screens 
out those cases believed to be without merit and 
routinely refers the remainder to the Memphis Po­
lice Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau”  As ob­
served by other persons who have received com­
plaints of police misconduct, Mr. Arnold said that 
some complainants arrive at the ACLU/T office 
bearing evidence (e.g., “ scars, or stitches or what­
ever” ) of physical abuse.”

Mr. Kendrick reflected the testimony of others 
in commenting upon the nonresponsivencss and 
futility of referring complaints to the lAB. He 
stated that approximately 100 of the 175 com­
plaints received during the last year had been 
referred to the lAB, with the complainants rect îv- 
ing, if anything, only a form letter in response to 
their complaints.^’

In adtiition, Mr. Kendrick stated that he writes 
tlii'cclly to the lAB in an attempt tt) ascertain the 
dispostion of the eomphunts th;it the ACLU/ f has 
referred;

My letters to the Intern;il Affaris |Burc;iu| 
have not been answered. 1 will write a fol­
lowup letter alter I send a complaint to the 
department ;ind 1 will never hear from them 
one way or the other.”*

Mr. Kendrick ;dso responileil to Director Chap­
man’s announcement that he wanted complaints of 
police misconduct to be brought directly to his at­
tention. Htiving done so on several occasions, Mr. 
Kendrick said that as (T July 15, 1977, his office- 
had not received any correspondence from the 
director in response to the complaints referred to 
him.” ’

Mr. Kramer, testifying about the reluctance of 
many persons to file a complaint of police miscon­
duct with the lAB, said that retaliation by police 
officers against certain persons who have filed 
complaints was a factor causing the reluctance. He 
cited a specific incident where officers had fol­
lowed one of his clients repeatedly after she had 
filed a complaint with the lAB, which had “ a 
chilling effect upon her filing a suit.” ’*"

Of the complaints received by the ACLU/T ap­
proximately two-thirds involved complaintmts who 
had criminal charges brought against them, such as 
resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, assault and 
battery on a police officer, and interfering with a 
police officer."'

It has often happened in a situation...where 
the police would stop someone and question 
that person. It ends up often with the person 
being physically assaulted and then, of course, 
charged with resisting arrest and assault and 
battery on an officer.’*’

In an effort to determine the validity of these 
kinds of charges, the ACLU/T has monitored the 
disposition of those charges through the judicial 
process.**' The monitoring activity was from April 
1976 through April 1977 and included approxi­
mately 100 complaints of police misconduct filed 
with the ACLU/T where the complainant was 
charged with one or more o f  these kinds of 
criminal charges.

Mr. Kendrick stated that between 25-30 percent 
were ultimately dismissed, the vast majority before

35

102̂ ^



the charges were brought to trial."'* Typically in 
such instances, Mr. Kendrick stated, the arresting 
officer will not appear to testify in support of the 
charges, which are therefore dismissed."^

Mr. Arnold citing both his involvement with 
ACLU/T and his experience in private practice, 
stated his opinion that police officers will 
frequently use their arrest powers in an effort to 
justify physical abuse against citizens;"" He 
described one case:"^

A person was arrested for disregarding a red 
light and a couple of other traffic offenses and 
then assault and battery on the police officer 
and resisting arrest.

This person was subdued by the police officer 
with an old shock absorber. He was hit over 
the head with an old shock absorber and 
beaten into unconsciousness and then, of 
course, he was charged with resisting arrest 
and battery....

The city court judge did sustain one of the 
traffic charges—disregarding a red light—and, 
of course, the other charges were dismissed.""

All three ACLU/T representatives stated their 
belief that the substantial majority of police 
misconduct affects blacks in particular, but is also 
visited upon other persons “ of low-economic 
standing.”"" Mr. Arnold discussed a practice that 
has particular impact upon the black community, 
the statistics for which were developed pursuant to 
an ACLU-supported lawsuit"*’ against the Memphis 
Police Department—the use of deadly force;

Now whether or not we deal with the 
propriety of the issue of deadly force — we 
looked at its application and we found that 5 8 
percent of the persons arrested in the city of 
Memphis arc black; but of those persons 
against whom deadly force was employed, that 
is who the police shot at, 87 percent were 
black.

We got a statistician to testify and his analysis 
was that there was only one chance in ten 
thousand mathematical probablity, that race 
was not the factor in these disparate 
statistics."'

Mr. Kendrick, in addressing possible solutions to 
ongoing police-community relations problents in 
Memphis, said that change in police practices and 
community attitudes through voluntary community 
action will not be significant without provisions for

mandatory change as well. Citing limited resources 
and other problems in litigating change, he en­
dorsed the recommendation of A.C. Wharton of 
the Memphis and Shelby County Legal Services 
Association of Federal funding for litigation to 
combat police misconduct."'^ With regard to the 
Memphis Police Department's ability to effectively 
combat police misconduct by its officers, Mr. Ken­
drick stated;

We have talked for a long time in this com­
munity about police investigating police. It is 
not going to work. It hasn’t worked, and it 
will not work in the future. What we need is 
an independent agency to investigate police 
complaints.""

Memphis and Shelby County 
Legal Services Association

A.C. Wharton appeared before both the Tennes­
see Advisory Committee and the Commission to 
address those police-community relations concerns 
upon which he has developed an informed opinion 
as executive director of the Memphis and Shelby 
County Legal Service Association since 1973.

The function of the legal services association, 
established in 1971, is to provide legal representa­
tion to indigent clients in a variety of civil matters. 
It docs not handle criminal matters and can litigate 
only those civil matters that are not likely to 
generate a possible legal fee — a limitation designed 
to avoid invading the province of private attor­
neys.

The association is funded largely through the 
Legal Services Corporation, a private, nonprofit 
organization created ;ind funded by Congress to 
provide legal assistance to the poor in civil mat­
ters."" It also receives a small portion of its funds 
from local sources.

Mr. Wharton said that his organization receives 
nUmefous complaints of police misconduct. In 
commenting upon the extent of such complaints, 
Mr. Wharton stated;

The frequency is extremely high, and 1 have 
worked in various cities throughout the 
country. I have not worked with the police de­
partments, but 1 have filed lawsuits against a 
number of police departments, and 1 would 
say that Memphis luis one of the highest rates 
of reports of police miscomluct of any city in 
the United Stated."'"

ty
th.
mi
mi
in
fill

re 
in 
M 
f .
M
fs
n.

ti

It
a
11

3 b



Mr. Wharton indicated at the Tennessee Adviso­
ry Committee open meeting his impression that 
the black and poor residents of the Memphis com­
munity, i.e, those most directly affected by police 
misconduct and poor police-community relations 
in general, have been continually frustrated by the 
failures of past attempts to improve the situation;

...I have been into the community; 1 know the 
impatience that the citizens are holding there,
I know that they are hungry for some clear 
and decisive action on this problem. '̂*

Mr. Wharton said the. association had routinely 
referred persons who complained of police 
misconduct to the internal affairs bureau of the 
Memphis Police Department and to State and 
Federal law enforcement officials." In addition, 
Mr. Wharton said, because of the likelihood of a 
fee generating from a civil action, some complai­
nants have been referred to private attorneys.""

Because o f  limited staff resources and jurisdic­
tional restraints, he said, the everyday function of 
the legal services association has been in such 
areas as landlord-tenant, family, and consumer 
matters. In the past, therefore, staff had not con­
centrated on combating the problem of police 
misconduct.*"* Recently, however, recognizing the 
severity of the problem and the unwillingness or 
inability of either the 1AB-, State and Federal law 
enforcement officials, the private bar, or city offi­
cials to address the problem, Mr. Wharton said the 
legal services association has initiated efforts 
within its Jursidiction to combat police miscon­
duct;

I will say that as we move into these areas 
that these lawsuits ( based upon citizens com­
plaints) will be prosecuted with the same 
vigor that we have prosecuted lawsuits 
against...other public authorities.

And while we hold no false impressions as to 
what the Federal courts here are going to do 
for us, I do think that if the police department 
comes to know that each time they crack a 
skull or do something illegally, they arc going 
to have to answer for it in court whether they 
prevail or not; I think that might serve as a 
deterrent.""’

Asked to comment on the nature o f  the respon­
ses from the lAB, Mr. Wharton stated;

Well, the only response we got is once we 
sent [a person] over and the police officer fs)

filed suit against [her), that’s the most direct 
response we liave received.'*”

The suit,'" filed in early October 1976 
(immediately prior to the Tennessee Advisory 
Committee’s open meeting), was a libel and 
slander action against the person who complained 
of police misconduct to the lAB, filed by the po­
lice officers named in the complaint. Mr. Wharton, 
during the open meeting, expressed his exaspera­
tion. both as a concerned citizen and as a person 
who had referred complainants to the lAB;

...how in the world can anyone in light of this 
particular lawsuit now advise an individual to 
go to the Internal Affairs Bureau and file a 
complaint when that individual knows that he 
or she. whether they prevail on that complaint 
or not, fis) subject to being sued, |is| subject 
to being put to the cost of defending a 
lawsuit'.’ "’ *

Subsequently, the association defended the com­
plainant with Mr. Wharton personally handling the 
case. Mr. Wharton based his defense on a citizen’s 
right to complain about legitimate allegations of 
police misconduct without fear of retaliation."” 
The suit against his client was dismissed on Janua­
ry 25, 1 977.

Mr. Wharton said he had previously informed 
individuals that their complaints of police miscon­
duct would be held in confidence by the lAB, 
based upon his understanding of the lAB 
process."’** The lAB, however, as required by the 
Memphis Police Association’s bargaining agree­
ment with the city of Memphis, must provide the 
accused police officer with a copy of the complai­
nant’s signed affidavit against the officer prior to 
any questioning by lAB."” Presumably, this was 
the manner in which the officers gained the infor­
mation needed to initiate the unsuccessful lawsuit.

Mr. Wharton expressed his opinion that the 
lawsuit filed by the police officers against the com­
plainant was an intentional device to put the entire 
community on notice that citizens who had eom- 
plaints about police misconduct could expect a 
lawsuit if they filed those complaints with the 
Memphis Police Department."’"

Citing his experience and knowledge of internal 
investigation divisions in other cities in general and 
the lAB in particular, Mr. Wharton said he 
thought the idea of police departments policing 
police is inherently unworkable."’** He said he

102 / .17



m

thought that proposals to make the lAB responsi­
ble either to a local arm of the judiciary or to the 
law enforcement committee of the city council'"’ 
might be workable devices to make the process ef­
fective. but because there had not been any seri­
ous effort by responsible olTicials to initiate such 
action that “ from an extremely practical stand­
point, I don’t think anything local is going to 
work.” ' "

Mr. Wharton said that complaints of police 
misconduct, specifically physical abuse by police 
officers at the Memphis city jail, has resulted in 
the legal services association, with cooperating 
ACLU Attorney Phillip Arnold, filing suit against 
city officials;"'^

[Ojur contentions are basically that 
there...exists exists a pattern of police miscon­
duct, police brutality, within the city jail. We 
arc asking the Federal court to order a 
number of corrections to remedy that situa­
tion.'"'

Citing several practical and legal considcra- 
tions"'* that currently restrict the extent and 
degree of litigation to combat police misconduct, 
as well as the failure of local officials to combat 
the problem, Mr. Wharton recommended that the 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; (1 ) recommend 
to Congress that a program be instituted to pro­
vide grants and contracts to independent private 
organizations for the specific purpose of filing 
lawsuits against law enforcement officials accused 
of police misconduct,"' and (2) recommend that 
the U.S. Department of Justice institute criminal 
proceedings against police officers whose actions 
indicate violation of federally guaranteed constitu­
tional rights.'"*

Public Defender Offices
Both Memphis and Shelby County governments 

maintain public defender offices that have the 
responsibility, if not the adequate means, to pro­
vide constitutionally guaranteed legal representa­
tion to those charged with a criminal offense who 
cannot afford the services of a private attorney.

Separately authorized, financed, and maintained, 
the Shelby County office (established in 1917) 
basically handles felony cases,"’  while the relative­
ly new (established in 1974) city office is 
restricted to defense of misdemeanor charges in 
municipal court.'"*

Shelby County Public Defender Edward G. 
Thompson has been with the office since 1964 and 
director of the program since 1974. The county 
public defender's staff consists of 13 full-time at­
torneys, 1 3 part-time attorneys, supported by 8 in­
vestigators and several graduate student social 
workers.

Nancy Sorak has been head of the city’s public 
defender program since 1975. She is a city em­
ployee and the program is funded entirely from 
the city budget. The office staff consists of four at­
torneys who maintain a*’ ’ tremcndous caseload’ ’ "" 
without benefit of investigative assistants.

Both Mr. Thompson and Ms. Sorak were sub- 
penaed to appear before the Commission on May 
9. Their impressions and opinions were particu­
larly relevant to the Commission’s inquiry into po­
lice-community relations in Memphis, because 
being public defenders and local government em­
ployees, their testimony afforded a unique per­
spective and insight into police-community rela­
tions. With regard to the extent of physical abuse, 
both stated that demonstrative and factual 
evidence of unwarranted physical abuse by police 
officers has been . continually observed by them 
and their respective staffs.'’ "

Mr. Thompson stated that the attorneys and in­
vestigators in his office frequently receive 
“ significant” complaints of physical abuse during 
the course of their representation of indigent 
clients. “ Almost daily we get a complaint about 
being shoved, or the handcuffs too tight,” he said. 
He distinguished these types of complaints from 
those he termed “ significant” (turning a police 
dog On a suspect after the suspect has been in cus­
tody, or placing a telephone book on a suspect’s 
head, with the book being hit by an officer using 
a police baton, for the purpose of obtaining a con- 
fessioh. Significant complaints, he said, are 
received several times a week.'’’ '

Ms. Sorak speaking for herself and her staff, 
stated:

We have observed what we feel, all of us feel, 
are instances of abuse by the police depart­
ment that were not necessarily brought to our 
attention by our clients. In very bad situations, 
of course, looking at him...you can see that he 
has been subjected to some abuse and some 
questioning will determine that it did not hap­
pen at the time he was arrested or for (the 
reason] he was arrested.'”

As
repr>
vice
nant-
Meiu
fe iis i

duel
tify,
char;

M 
ing I 
such 
this

h
lad
the
hav
“ tri

N
reU
cal
the
He
Soi
feu

<
bo
fro
m.
Th
Cl
A-
re
ag

38

1028



As discussed earlier in this chapter, several 
representatives of various public and private ser­
vice organizations, as well as individual complai­
nants themselves,alleged that a pattern exists of 
Memphis police officers charging a citizen with of­
fenses such as “ resisting arrest," "ilisorderly con­
duct,” or “ interfering with a police olTicer” to jus­
tify, often after the fact, physical abuse by the 
charging officer.

Ms. Sorak, as the person responsible for defend­
ing indigent clients who have been charged with 
such offenses, is in the position to comment on 
this serious allegation. Ms. Sorak stated;

I think that our main observation of abuse is 
people that come in on essentially what I 

; would call “ trumped up charges” ...very
[ frequently disorderly conduct, resisting arrest,
I interfering with a police officer, will be
• crafted up together and generally when you
. see those three charges, you arc going to see
t a defendant that has received some treatment

from a police officer....'-^

In some instances, Ms, Sorak stated, due to the 
lack of a speedy trial, inability to secure bail, and 
the conditions of the city jail some of her clients 
have chosen to plead guilty to one of the 
“ trumped up charges.

Mr. Thompson said he believes that there is a 
relationship between citizen's allegations of physi­
cal abuse and the charges placed against them by 
the officers who allegedly perpetrated the abuse. 
He said his opinion is not as informed as Ms. 
Sorak’s, because his office does not generally de­
fend clients on misdemeanor charges.'' '̂*

Concurring with the opinions of other witnesses, 
both public defenders cited the lack of response 

; from the lAB, despite specific requests for infor­
mation about the disposition of com pla in ts .M r. 
Thompson offered his belief that, despite Director 
Chapman’s stated intentions, the Memphis Police 
Association's contract with the city severely 
restricts his options in investigating complaints 
against police officers:

Many of our people arc told that if they want 
their complaint pursued that they must take 
the polygraph, the lie detector test, ad­
ministered by the internal affairs, and then the 
policeman will refuse to do it and the in­
vestigation stops.'-"

Ms. Sorak said she had spoken with Director 
Chapman about police misconduct and her con­
cern that complaints be investigated and resolved. 
Director Chapman indicated his agreement with 
her aiul requested that he be notified ilireetly of 
such eomphiints. After seniling three alTidiivits of 
complaints to the director and receiving no resp- 
sonses, her office staff inquired ;is to the disposi­
tion of the first complaint sent:

(W]e received no notice of what happened to 
it or anything, and, finally, through contacting 
the police director, we found that they were 
not going to pursue it, and we advised the 
woman that she should take civil action if she 
felt it was necessary. There was nothing else 
we could do.'-"

With regard to persons they have referred to the 
lAB, both public defenders said they have occa­
sionally been informed by complainants of in­
cidents of retaliation by the individual police of­
ficers cited in their complaints.""’ Both public de­
fenders said that many of their clients refuse to file 
a complaint with the lAB and were reluctant to go 
“ back to the police department under any circum­
stances.’ ’"" Mr. Thompson stated his opinion that 
the clients do not believe they will get any positive 
response from the department."'- Ms. Sorak ex­
panded on Mr. Thompson’s remarks, stating that 
in addition to the belief of many clients that the 
department will not act on their complaints, many 
of her clients are confused as to what their legal 
rights are and the proper avenues for vindication 
of those rights.'"''

Mr. Thompson and Ms. Sorak, while reeognizing 
that they represent only indigents, expressed their 
belief (supported by their experienee in private 
practice and general observation of the communi­
ty) that the majority of police misconduct in Mem­
phis is visited upon poor and black residents."" 
Both were also in agreement that, because the 
poor and black residents bear most of the direct 
burden of police misconduct, the “ middle class" 
(i.e., largely white and affluent) of Memphis, 
through ignorance or indifference, is not a factor 
in pressing for an end to police misconduct.

Speaking of the likelihood of the entire commu­
nity effectively working towards ending police 
misconduct, Mr, Thompson stated:

I think you would have to get the middle elass 
interested and at the present time they are not

102'.)
39



because they either don’t see [police miscon­
duct] or don’t choose to believe it when they 
read about it.'-’'

Ms. Sorak expressed her agreement with Mr. 
Thompson’s opinion and added;

I suspect that if any of [the middle class] 
population...were subjected to the kind of 
treatment that we see on a daily basis that 
they would be exceedingly indignant and be 
pursuing [action] in all directions. But the 
fact of the matter is that it doesn't happen to 
those persons.'-"*

Both public defenders were asked their opinions 
on what is needed to alleviate the police-communi­
ty relations problems they had discussed. Mr. 
Thompson said that eventual solutions to the 
problems must include commitments by the politi­
cal leadership and the community to...“ do 
something about the problem and not pretend it 
doesn’t exist.”  He indicated that this will require 
a change in community attitudes towards the 
problem, because “ the attitude that you see in 
some officers of the police department reflects 
community attitudes to some extent.”  Mr. Thomp­
son indicated, however, that this commitment will 
not come about voluntarily;

1 think the spearhead is going to have to come 
from Federal courts the same as it did in the 
school [desegregation] cases here and the 
park cases and other the others.'■'*’

Ms. Sorak expressed her agreement with Mr. 
Thompson’s statement and also called for dis­
semination o f  information to the community, par­
ticularly the poor and black members, with regard 
to constitutional rights and the appropriate means 
to redress their grievances;

[T]here needs to be information out on the 
streets of what is a justifiable complaint. 
Everyone knows that if an officer beats your 
head or sics dogs on you that obviously you 
arc not being treated fairly, but I think the 
majority of the community don’t realize that 
there are a lot of other things that can con­
stitute arbitrary police abuse action...! think 
that the legal community...could make the 
populace aware of what would constitute 
grounds for a complaint, when you see it, or 
when you are the subject of it, and where you 
might take your complaint, and what kind of 
action you might expect.'*'"

40

The consensus of both public defenders as to 
the existence, nature, and extent of police miscon­
duct in particular and police-community relations 
problems in general, is significant. In the course of 
their professional responsibilities, both public de­
fenders have indisputedly been in the positon to 
speak with knowledge and experience. Both arc 
local government employees, and neither (Ms. 
Sorak in particular) are in a position to be natu­
rally critical of the Memphis Police Department 
and the officials responsible for its operation. The 
significance of their testimonies, moreover, is un­
derscored by the fact that they substantiated in 
many significant areas the earlier testimonies of 
representatives of the NAACP, Urban League, 
ACLU, and the Memphis and Shelby County 
Legal Services Association.

Individual Complaints of Police 
Misconduct

Numerous Memphis residents interviewed by 
members o f the Tennessee Advisory Committee 
and staff of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
told of mistreatment by Memphis police officers. 
Their allegations included harassment, verbal 
abuse, brutality, and physical intimidation. Staff 
members also attended meetings of community 
groups where individual citizens gave vent to their 
frustrations and spoke of their inability to cope 
with or even understand why they or their commu­
nities had been singled out by certain Memphis 
police officers for continual surveillance. A sur­
veillance, they stated, that reduced their freedom 
of movement and made them virtual prisoners in 
their own neighborhoods. A situation they found 
particularly intolerable since, they insisted, such 
action by the MPD was restricted to specific- 
minority neighborhoods or communities.

Collaterally, approximately 30 Memphis re­
sidents appeared at the Tennessee Advisory Com­
mittee’s open meeting, October S-9, 1976, and 
told of alleged police mistreatment. The testimony 
given at the open meeting is illustrative of the 
many complaints o f police mistreatment received 
by the Advisory Committee and Commission staff 
during the course of this study.

Individual Complainants
A black woman, mother of nine children, told 

the Advisory Committee that her entire family had

been \ 
Memph 
ficers 1 
their li. 
began i 
fiashliel 
questioi 
She sai- 
and po 
one in 
dition 
whecle 
with d 
At tlK 
droppe 

A 11 
Memp 
stoppe 
sundr\ 
and a- 
that h 
officei 
into tl 
pulled 
beat 1 
him I- 
man 
the 1 
minui 
Late I 
the V 
that 
and I 

A 
with 
her 
amoi 
by P 
her 
reste 
the 1 

to h‘ 
f—
goiii
nigji
said
dun

A
fice
on

1030



lO
n-
IIS

>r

I ■ 
t

1-

.(■

been verbally abused and physically beaten by 
Memphis police officers. She said that police of­
ficers had accosted two of her sons in front of 
their home, searched them, and in the process 
began to beat one of them on the hands with a 
llashlight. Other family members who altempleil to 
question the police were threatened with arrest. 
She said that a second and third police car arrived 
and police officers began to grab and beat every­
one in sight including a paraplegic son who, in ad­
dition to being beaten, was knocked out of his 
wheelchair by police. She said that they were cited 
with disorderly conduct and assault and battery. 
At the trial of the family members, the judge 
dropped all charges except disorderly conduct.

A middle-aged black man, a resilient of north 
Memphis, described an incident in which he was 
stopped by police as he walked home from a local 
sundry. Three officers in a squad car stopped him 
and asked where he was going. When he replied 
that he was going home, he was told by the police 
officers that he was going to jail. As he was put 
into the squad car, he said, a young black man was 
pulled out of the car by the officer. The officer 
beat the young man for 2 or 3 minutes and threw 
him back in the car. A short time later the young 
man was pulled from the car a second time, and 
the three black officers beat him for about 5 
minutes before throwing him hack into the car. 
Later, when the officers turned their flashlights on 
the young man in the car, the complainant saw 
that the young man’s head was “ busted in front 
and behind."'^"

A grandmother related a harrowing experience 
with the Memphis police. In attempting to retrieve 
her grandchildren from the vicinity of a fight 
among neighborhood children, she was accosted 
by police officers and placed under arrest. When 
her son attempted to intervene, he also was ar­
rested. She said that while being carried downtown 
the police officers, both of whom were white, said 
to her son, “ We f—black women but we wouldn't 
f— your mama you little son-of-a-bitch....We ain’t 
going to quit until we arrest all of you black-assed 
niggers, some of ya’II we are going to kill." She 
said her son's life was threatened several times 
during the ride to the police station.'^'

A young black woman spoke of two white of­
ficers who came to her home to serve a warrant 
on her brother. When they were informed that he

was not there and did not live there, she said they 
used abusive language and forced their way into 
her home. She said that as she attempted to go out 
the door to the porch, where she could be seen by 
neighbors, she was forcefully thrown to the fioor, 
anil the officers stepped on her hack, put two pairs 
of handcuffs on her, dragged her to the police car, 
where she was literally thrown into the squad car. 
Despite her protests they left her 2-year-old child 
in the house alone as they drove away to the po­
lice station.

Anothcr complainant, a black minister, told of 
his son’s arrest while standing on a corner waiting 
for his mother to pick him up after school. The 
son, a junior high school student. w;is shouting and 
wtiving his arms to get his mother’s attention as 
she ptissed in her ear. Two police officers, passing 
by, stopped their car and searched the youth who 
became frightened and started to run. The po­
licemen yelled for him to halt and he did. The po­
liceman approached the youth and one said, “ You 
know if you hadn’t stopped, we were going to 
shoot you'.’ ’ ’ The officer slapped the boy and ar­
rested him for disturbing the peace.

The charges of police misconduct made during 
the Advisory Committees’ open meeting were 
representative of charges made by Memphians 
during private interviews with Commission staff 
and those filed with the NAACP. ACLU, and 
PUSH.

Virtually all of the complainants interviewed and 
those who appeared at the open meeting said that 
they had filed formal complaints with the internal 
affairs bureau of the Memphis Police Department 
and several had willingly taken or offered to take 
a polygraph test to substantiate their charges. The 
complainants said that no action, to their 
knowledge, was ever taken by the bureau.

Subsequent to the October 1976 open meeting. 
Mayor Chandler said that the lAB would in­
vestigate the complaints of citizens who appeared 
before the Advisory C om m ittee .A ccording  to 
Mayor Chandler, however, several of the complai­
nants were uncooperative when contacted by lAB 
officials.'^' Given the initial lack of lAB response 
to citizen complaints, together with the ex­
periences they had endured at the hands of the po­
lice, lack of cooperation was not an unexpected 
response.

1031



Community Leaders
Business Leaders

Although the Tennessee Advisory Committee to 
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights iliti not eon- 
duct extensive interviews with indlvithml business 
leaders of Memphis in its sturly of police-commu­
nity relations, some measure of the business com­
munity’s knowledge of police relations with the 
black community was attained through the Mem­
phis Area Chamber of Commerce. Chambers of 
commerce arc known not only for their interest in 
the economic development of the cities they 
represent, but also for their interest “ in the total 
welfare...and quality of life" of their communi­
ties.

Samuel Hollis, president of the Memphis Area 
Chamber of Commerce, said “ we recognize that 
there are some problems” between the Memphis 
police and the community they se r v e .T h o u g h  
the chamber regularly maintained contact with the 
mayor and the new police director, and had of­
fered assistance to both in their efforts to improve 
police-community relations, it did not have any 
standing committee or similar vehicle for con­
tributing to those efforts. Mr. Hollis stated that his 
contacts with the NAACP, members of the 
chamber board, and staff who are black had made 
him aware of allegations of police misuse of 
power.'*" The hearing conducted in Memphis by 
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, however, 
was the first time Mr. Hollis was aware of the 
large number of complaints which had been 
lodged against the police.'*”

On behalf of the chamber of commerce, Mr. 
Hollis offered “ support ...in any way possible" 
toward solving any problems and promoting any 
solution to the ill will between police and commu­
nity. It was difficult for Mr. Hollis to specify what 
assistance the chamber might offer. The expertise 
of some of the chamber’s business leaders might 
be useful to the police, or the chamber might ful­
fill the role of providing information to its mem­
bership about relations between the police and the 
black community, if asked to do so. He 
acknowledged, however, that

...in general...the feedback we. get from our 
members would be more concern of crime 
and law and order as opposed to police bru­
tality...and I think it is a matter of (lack ofl

42

information. ..(W |e would be happy to 
cooperate with them (city officials] in any ef­
fort....'"’"

Police Director E. Winslow Chapman appeared 
to be trying to upgrade the professionalism of the 
Memphis police. Mi. Hollis saul .Special training 
and discipline arc needed to help some police of­
ficers overcome their prejudice toward blacks—a 
prejudice with which they were reared, according 
to Mr. Hollis, a native of Memphis.'"''

Edward Boldt, also a Memphis native and the 
executive director of the chamber of commerce, 
was less inclined to agree with Mr. Hollis that a 
real problem in police-community relations exists 
in Memphis. Recent media reports of alleged bru­
tality dill not indicate that any severe problems ex­
isted in Memphis in Mr. Boldt’s opinion.'"’- Just .S 
days before Mr. Boldt was interviewed by a staff 
member of the Commission, Police Director Chap­
man had fired two police officers for beating a 
black inmate at the city jail, suspended one for 
beating a white male conventioneer, and also 
suspended a fourth officer involved in a beating""' 
Like Mr. Hollis, Mr. Boldt had also met with 
Director Chapman and offered the support of the 
chamber. Mr. Boldt thinks the business communi­
ty, in general, is pleased with the selection and the 
performanee of Director Chapman.

In 1976 the chamber of commerce was instru­
mental in creating the Greater Memphis Council 
on Crime and Delinquency. As an affiliate of the 
National Council on Crime and Delinquency, the 
purpose of the incorporated group is 
“ investigation, research, education, and action 
concerning the causes of, and ways to prevent or 
reduce crime and delinquency in the Greater 
Memphis area.” '"’* The 40-member council is 
chaired by Newton Allen, and each council 
member serves on one of eight committees: 
justice, law enforcement, prisons and rehabilita- 
lion, media, churches, family life, schools, and 
youth. At present, only two of the committees 
(prisons and rehabilitation and family life) are ac­
tive. Mr. Allen said the head of the law enforce­
ment committee had met with Director Chapman 
to assure him of the committee’s support, but the 
committee was not yet actively dealing with police 
issues. Mr. Allen said he believes that problems 
between police and minorities do exist because of 
ihc numerous allegations of misconduct that are

report 
police 
tors.” ' 

fill 
.1 limn 
vices, 
the Im 
for mi 
tions 
place 
wome 
prove. 
Mcnij 
their i 

Ch. 
in SOI 
intcre 
teresi 
well . 
total I 
In Si 
si VC I 
tive 
was 1 

mem 
chan, 
in SI 
cut I 
fOCU:

indii-
mem
it pe
pros
Nasi

1m 
mm. 
ness 
over 
agai 
pled 
riiie 
to I 
and 
tho 
lar

B
cle;
ch.i
ptu

103::



reported. It is not unusual, he said, that in a large 
police department, there would he a ‘•few had ac­
tors.” ''-'

The Memphis Area Chamber of Commerce has 
a human relatittns division which, among other ser­
vices, promotes purchasing from minorily vendors, 
the hiring ol ex-oltenders, and provicles counseling 
for minority business people. The number of posi­
tions on the ehamber board was increased so that 
places would be available for minorities and 
women.'•'« The Memphis chamber, therefore, has 
proved itself to be interested in the welfare of all 
Memphians and has taken positive steps to ensure 
their involvement in the ehamber.

Changes that will prohibit ehamber involvement 
in social issues are imminent, however. The broad 
interests of the Memphis Area Chamber, i.e., in­
terests in the social development of Memphis as 
well as its economic development, have not been 
totally acceptable to many local business people. 
In September 1977 the chamber announced a mas­
sive reorganization and the resignation of Execu­
tive Director Boldt. The chamber of commerce 
was in severe financial trouble and steadily losing 
members. James McGehee, president-elect of the 
chamber, said that the ‘ ‘ broad scope has resulted 
in some d iv is iv e n e s s .T h e  reorganization and 
cut in staff (from 29 persons to 10) will result in 
focusing the chamber’s work strictly on recruiting 
industries that will provide new jobs. Chamber 
membership has declined steadily since 1974 when 
it peaked at 2,432. This year the chamber had ap­
proximately 1,800 members.'-'" In contrast, the 
Nashville-Davidson Chamber of Commerce had 
3,500 members in 1977.

In 1968, after the disturbances that followed the 
murder of Dr, Martin Luther King, Jr., the busi­
ness leadership of Memphis pledged $4 million 
over the next 3 years “ to get the city going 
again.” '-'" One businessman referred to those 
pledges as “ blood money.” Samuel Hollis, refer­
ring to those years, said, “ The chamber did a lot 
to keep this town from blowing up in the 1960s 
and 1970s...a lot to get this community through 
those rough times and sometimes it wasn't popu­
lar.” ""'

Business leaders have now made it abundantly 
clear, however, that they will no longer support a 
chamber that maintains involvement in “ social 
programs.”  Significant questions will be answered

after the chamber's full attention is turned to 
economic development. The questions are: Can a 
chamber ol commerce be ellective in economic- 
development when major social issues (police- 
community relations among them) still divide the 
minority coinmumty from a substantial portion ol 
the white community ’ Can a city prosper and at­
tract new industry, new jobs, when its social, racial 
unrest is well known'.'

Religious Leaders
Members of the Memphis clergy and religious 

lay leaders have made some attempts to improve 
relations between the Memphis police tinti citizens.
I heir ellorts. however well mtentioneii. have been 
Iragmented ami truitless. Religious representatives 
have acknowledged that a severe police-communi­
ty rehitions problem does exist.

The 1972 city council investigation of police 
brutality (discussed in chapter 4) promptetl action 
by a coalition of church women and later by the 
Metropolitan Intcr-I-aith Association. The women’s 
coalition, which referred to itself as ‘ ‘ Women of 
Memphis,” included Church Women United, the 
National Council o f Jewish Women, the Diocese 
Council of Catholic Women, and other nonreli­
gious groups called for the implementation of 
recommendations made in the report of the city 
council investigation. The group offered its sup­
port to Director of Police Jay Hubbard and called 
tor Robert James, chtiir ol the city council law en­
forcement committee, "to ttike immediate ac­
tion. As shown in chapter 4, however, no 
changes were made in the MPD as a result of the 
city council study.

The Metropolitiin Inter-Faith Associtition was 
asked by the Committee on Health, Welfare, and 
Churches of the Memphis and Shelby County 
Humtln Relations Commission to appoint a task 
force to research and report on improving police- 
community relations. The interfaith association is 
an active, religious organization that provides 
some social services. An undated letter to the task 
lorcc members Irom the two conveners indicated 
that the First meeting was attended by only two 
task force members.'"- The task force did not 
become active.

The most substantive effort made by religious 
leaders to improve police-community relations 
came in 1974. A number of churches and civic or-

1 lt ' ' ‘

43

.103 :^



The professional code of broadcasters 
acknowledges the personal responsibility of a 
broadcaster to the community;

A broadcaster and his staff occupy a position 
of responsibility in the community and shouki 
conscientiously endeavor to be acquainted 
with its needs and characteristics in order to 
serve the welfare of its citizens.' '̂*

The media of Memphis have, at times, provided 
indepth coverage of police-citizen discussions and 
confrontations. Whether the media has provided 
enough such coverage and whether its obligations 
as teacher and interpreter have been met is a 
question the Memphis community must answer.

Investigative journalism is an effective means for 
truly serving the community in that information is 
gathered through other than regular or official 
sources. In Memphis, investigative reporting on 
police-community relations matters has been the 
exception rather than the rule. Paul Barnett of 
WREG-TV said his station did not do investigative 
reporting with the exception of some "human in­
terest" stories such as a family being evicted. 
M.E. Griener cited “ limited staff” as the reason 
WMC-TV docs little investigative work, although 
some had been done on allegations of police bru­
tality.' "̂

The citizens of Memphis should recall the in­
vestigative journalism of the Commercial Appeal, 
which in 1971, followting a tip from inside the po­
lice department itself, pursued information on the 
traffic accident that allegedly killed Elton Hayes.
As a result, one Memphis police officer was in­
dicted for murder and four other officers were in­
dicted for assault to murder in connection with the 
incident. All were acquitted following a trial in 
December 1973. Several media persons in Mem­
phis told staff of the U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights that every rational person in Memphis be­
lieved that at least one of those police officers 
beat Elton Hayes to death.

In contrast, Memphis citizens should note a 
story in the Commercial Appeal on August 10, 
1977, that reported the preliminary hearing of 
three defendants involved in a shooting on July 
31—two blacks and one white Memphis police of­
ficer. The off-duty officer was accused of killing 
the son of the two black defendants who are 
charged with assault to murder and assault and 
battery. The 20-inch story devotes 8 inches to the

44

police officer's account of the killing, 11-1/2 
inches to background information (the court 
process, who are parties involved, what type bul­
lets were rccovererl where, etc.) and 1/2 inch to 
the black (.lefeiulants’ account of the killing.'""

When interviewed by Commissittn staff, the re­
porter who wrote the story said he simply 
"reported on the court hearing” and not much was 
said about the black defendants' side of the 
story.'"' Certainly that may be the etise. However, 
why would a reporter not seek information from 
the other parties involved? If such information was 
not available from the black defendants or police, 
why not state that in the news story? Would an 
editor question such a one-sided account of a 
black-white tragedy given the ongoing allegations 
of police-citizen confiict? The editors did not 
question the story. The reporter, who is not nor­
mally assigned to the police beat, said he was not 
pressed by a deadline, but simply had to "draw the 
line somewhere" when it came to gathering 
news.'"-

A story on August 6, 1977, in the weekly Tri- 
Siale Defender, the only black-owned-and-operated 
newspaper in Memphis, reported the same July 3 1 
shooting. The article reported only the black de­
fendants' side of the story; no mention of the pr)- 
lice account was made.'"' Memphis citizens should 
again ask, why did the reporter and editor not 
seek information from the other parties involved?

Mayor Wyeth Chandler said at the Commis­
sion's May 1977 public hearing that he believed 
the media have sometimes aroused negative at­
titudes toward the police department. He specifi­
cally mentioned "a black newspaper...! whose ] 
headlines searingly state as facts, allegations."'"^ A 
review of articles in the I'ri-Siale Defender from 
late 1975 to late 1977 show that, with few excep­
tions, news articles on police-citizen conflict did 
ihclUdc both police and citizen statements. A typi­
cal 1976 headline read "Woman ‘ Knocked Out,' 
Beaten by Policemen."'"' In 1977 the headlines 
rhotc often qualified such allegations, as did this 
One; "Man Says Police ‘ Fractured His Skull'. "'""

> Mayor Chandler testified that Police Director 
Chapman had told him that the problem of 
"seating headlines" had diminished since Chap­
man took office.'"' Linda Dickson, new managing 
editor of the I'ri-.Siaie Defender, said communica­
tion between the police department and the

newsp;i|
assumei.

Neil ' 
t,lining 
iim c \ . 

intenuei 
the rigli 
poseil II 
right ul 
and to I 
The pel 
broade,. 
setting 
aceouiii 
tions w I

Profe;
Prok 

historv 
Menipl 
organi/ 
Bar \
1,200 I
of Ilk 
ABA 1 
menilk 
eounti 
maim.I 
variels 
churel. 
The .' 
mated 
the \\ 1 

Of I 
phis, 
Natioi 
the A1 
tees; 
deal V. 
donali 

Nei, 
coiulll 
probl, 
mittei 
munii 
stated 
lieved 
relati. 
part, 
was .1



newspaper had improved since Mr, Chapman had 
assumed his duties.'""

Neil Sheehan, the man who is credited with ob­
taining the Pentagon Papers for the .Veu York 
lintes^ said thtit the writers t>l the first amendment 
intended to give more to the journalist than just 
the right to report and publish. He said, "tiiey im­
posed upon us a duty, a responsibility to tissert the 
right of the American people to know the truth 
and to hold those who govern them to account."'"" 
The people o f Memphis must ask themselves if the 
broadcasters and journalists of Memphis are as­
serting their right to hold city and police officials 
accountable for the poor police-community rela­
tions which exist in Memphis.

Professional Bar Associations
Professional associations of lawyers have a long 

history of service to the community. Those in 
Memphis are no exception. The largest of those 
organizations, the Memphis and Shelby County 
Bar Association (MSCBA) has approximately 
1,200 members, most <if whom are also members 
of the American Bar Association (ABA). The 
ABA is a national organization having the largest 
membership of any association of lawyers in the 
country. The MSCBA, independent of the ABA, 
maintains 29 sttmding committees and conducts a 
variety of educational forums in schools and 
churches during an annual •T.aw Day" celebration. 
The MSCBA president, Emmett Marston, esti­
mated he devotes about one-third of his time to 
the work of the a.ssociation.'""

Of the approximately 4 7 black lawyers in Mem­
phis, 35 are members of the local chapter of the 
National Bar Association (NBA). Many belong to 
the ABA also. The NBA maintains ad hoc commit­
tees; provides opportunities for its members to 
deal with police-community relations problems by 
donating their expertise.

Neither professional association, however, has 
conducted any formal study of police-citizens 
problems nor does either have a permanent com­
mittee which would deal directly with police-com­
munity relations. NBA President Larry Brown 
stated that he and the NBA "very definitely" be­
lieved there was a problem in police-community 
relations in Memphis,"" and his MSCBzX counter­
part, Mr. Marston, said he did not know if there 
was a problem.

The American Bar Association has traditionally 
developed, and revised as necessary, a model Code 
of Professional Responsibility which has servetl as 

gui(.le lor the various Slates in the a<.h>['>tion t>f' 
biiuling professional coiles of comluct for lawyers 
in their jurisdictions. With regard to professional 
responsibility to identify problems in their commu­
nities. canon 2 of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility reads, in part:

The legal profession should assist lay persons 
to recognize legal problems because such 
problems may not be self-revealing and often 
are not timely noticed. Therelbre, lawyers 
should encourage and participate in educa­
tional and public relations programs concern­
ing our legal system with particular reference 
to legal problems that frequently arise.'""

Canon 8 specifically encourages lawyers to aid in 
making needed changes and improvements which 
will advance the legal system.

Professional organizations elsewhere have con­
ducted studies and published reports dealing with 
various phases of the American law enforcement 
system, i.e., courts, police, prisons. A recent publi­
cation of the North Carolina Academy of Trial 
l.awyers deals with the civil rights of both police 
and citizens.'"" It serves not only the purpose of 
educating both lay people and law enforcement 
personnel about their (iwn rights, but makes them 
aware of each other's rights and duties and thus 
creates a base of common knowledge and 
promotes mutual respect.

The possibilities for a professional lawyers as­
sociation to make a significant contribution to im­
proving police-community relations in Memphis 
are countless. Unfortunately, no definite plans for 
doing s<j have been made to date.

Three attorneys who testified at the U S. Civil 
Rights Commission hearing stated that they did 
not feel the legal community of .Memphis had 
adequately fulfilled its responsibility in the area of 
the udministration of justice, especially regarding 
allegations against the police department. Some 
thought local lawyers in private practice were con­
cerned that they wouki bring professional harm to 
themselves if they got involved; others thought the 
sm.ill number of lawyers interested in criminal law 
made it difficult for tlie associations to pursue the 
issue.

r

r

4.S

103i)



ganizations held 2 days of public hearings on po­
lice brutality in March 1974. Rev. Ed Currie ot 
the Tennessee Black Assembly and Mary McWil­
liams of the Second Congregational Church 
chaired the hearings. A report on the hearings 
cited the death in 197 1 of Elton Hayes, a black 
man, and the subsequent acquittal of Memphis po­
lice officers indicted in connection with his death, 
as a major impetus for the hearings.'”-'

During the 2 days of hearings, police' and 
citizens, district attorney’s office personnel, and 
private attorneys talked about the problems 
between blacks and police and possible solutions 
to those problems. The report on the hearings 
clearly stated that the citizens who sponsored the 
hearings had given up the notion that public otti- 
cials would solve the problem:

Because of the lack of proper follow-up on 
police brutality and misconduct cases and the 
feeling that the Memphis City Cttuncil and 
other officials will not act responsibly on 
recommendations for an independent police 
review procedure, it is necessary for local 
community groups to structure their own 
redress procedures. A coalition effort to sig­
nificantly alter the present criminal justice 
structure and process is mandatory and must 
be done immediately before someone else is 
murdered by police in Memphis.'”^

The procedures for redress that were recom­
mended included the formation of a civilian review 
board, a citywide citizens committee to conduct an 
indepth study of the Memphis police department, 
and a review of police criteria for using deadly 
force,

There is no indication of direct followup to the 
March 1974 hearings. However, the U.S. Depart­
ment of Justice’s Community Relations Service 
program of conciliation between city officials and 
citizens (discussed in chapter 4) was begun in late 
March 1974. The recommendations made by the 
church-civic leaders are similar to those made 
later during that program.

The leader of an organization of clergy, well 
known in the 1960s for its stands on social issues, 
told staff o f the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
in 1977 that his group had no policy or statement 
regarding recent allegations of police brutality. 
Rev. Edward Reeves, president of the Memphis 
Ministers Association, said the association was just 
beginning to rebuild after a long dormant period.

46

The association is an ecumenical biracial associa- 
tit)n with approximately 1 10 members."’'’ In Janua­
ry 1977, when the association declined to take a 
stand on the death penalty. Rev. Reeves said;

The associtition seems to fiivor the general 
prtictice of refraining from offering endorse­
ments. recommendations, prttnounce- 
ments.... rhe primary goal set by the steering 
committee for this year was to establish a 
bond of fellowship among the clergy ot Mem­
phis.'”^

Rev. Reeves said that personally, through talks 
with blaek ministers, he was aware of severe 
problems between black citizens and city police. It 
was his impression, however, that most elergy were 
hopeful that Police Director Chapman would make 
positive changes. It appeared to many church 
leaders that Mayor Chandler was attempting, 
through Director Chapman, to improve human 
relations in Memphis."’"

In August 1977, after a year when allegations of 
police brutality were often discussed at their 
meetings, the National Conference of Christians 
and Jews set up a committee on police-community 
relations. The committee, composed of 9 of the 53 
board members, meets weekly. Staff said the com­
mittee was having informal talks with police and 
city officials about alleged police misconduct. Sub­
sequent action by the committee will be planned 
after the initial rounds of talks. MPD Director 
Chapman, City Council Law Enforcement Com­
mittee Chair Robert James, and Memphis Police 
Association President Joe Kent had met with the 
committee. Mr. Kent had been invited and agreed 
to attend the NCCJ national conference on police- 
community relations in late August. The NCCJ, 
said staffer Lynn Bampfield, is concerned about 
police-community relations in Memphis and has 
become “ deeply involved" in trying to improve 
those relations.'**

Media
One of the highest compliments paid to the 

American media is that which refers to it as the 
“ fourth branch of government." In addition to the 
executive, judiciary, and legislative branches, the 
media, in the minds of most Americans, is vested 
with the public’s trust and is implicitly asked to 
serve as watchdog over the government of the 
people. This public trust brings with it a special

relationsi 
media. I 
and rigi 
governm 
attempiu 
time, ho 
respect 
certain i 

For th 
mittee v 
recomm 
Memph. 
citizen  ̂
ry Coni 
observa 
of Mei 
newsp.i 
phis.

Durn 
Comnii 
muniiN 
of M. 
newsp: 
the I 
coopei 
about 
nity 
sons— 
stated 
lice .1 

when 
held , 
to pal 
matte 
black 
to pa 

Re
( 0»i
comi 
The\ 
sion 
rn i‘n 
cessi 
sion 

Bi 
tion 
pai I 
tek. 
opi- 
dei

1031)



relationship between the government and the 
media. Journalists and broadcasters arc sensitive, 
and rightly so, to criticism or comments Irom 
government officials that give the appearance <if 
attempting to intlucnce the media. At the same 
time, honest governmental bodies are cautious to 
respect the right of the media to have access to 
certain information and to report that information.

For these reasons, the Tennessee Advisory Com­
mittee will not draw any conclusions nor make any 
recommendations about the performance of the 
Memphis media and its relationship to police- 
citizen conflict in Memphis. However, the Adviso­
ry Committee and staff do submit the following 
observations for the consideration of the citizens 
of Memphis—those who vest their trust in the 
newspapers, radio and television stations of Mem­
phis.

During preparations for the Tennessee Advisory 
Committee’s open meeting to discuss police-com­
munity relations in October 1976, representatives 
of Memphis radio and television stations and 
newspapers were personally interviewed by staff of 
the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. All were 
cooperative in giving their professional opinions 
about the status of relations between the commu­
nity and police. Five of the seven per­
sons—reporters, news directors, editors—explicitly 
stated that critical problems existed between po- 
liee and black citizens and have for years. Yet 
when the Advisory Committee’s open meeting was 
held and representatives of the media were asked 
to participate in the meeting to discuss these same 
matters, all, with the exception of staff of the 
black newspaper. The Tri-Siate Offender, declined 
to participate.

Representatives of the Scripps-Howard papers 
(Commercial Appeal and the Press Scimitar) said 
company policy forbade them from appearing. 
They said only the chief editor could grant permis­
sion for them to appear.” " Efforts to contact Com­
mercial Appeal editor Michael Grehl were unsuc- 

•cessful. Phone calls from staff of the U.S. Commis­
sion on Civil Rights were not returned.

Broadcasters were even less responsive to invita­
tions to participate. One radio station promised a 
participant who never materialized.” ' Of the two 
television stations invited to speak at the 1976 
open meeting, one made no reply, the other 
declined, citing an ongoing Federal Communica­

tions Commission investigation into the station’s 
programming and employment as the reason.' ‘ -’

Citizens of Memphis should be advised that in 
numerous other studies conducted by Advisory 
Committees to the U.,S. Commission on Civil 
Rights, representatives of the media have been 
asked to give their opinions publicly on critical 
community problems and have done so. A 
l97.“S-76 study of police community relations in 
Miami and Dade County is a notable example. An 
editorial writer of the Miami News, publisher of 
the Oiario Las Americas, and an investigative re­
porter of WPLG-TV' were among the journalists 
who spoke at the June 1975 open meeting of the 
Florida Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commis­
sion on Civil Rights. Never before have media 
representatives declined to participate In open 
meetings held by the State Advisory Committees 
o f the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in the 
southern region.

Professional codes of ethics for both newspaper 
journalists and broadcasters clearly define their 
obligations to inform and educate the public, espe­
cially on issues of vital concern or controversy in 
the community. The code of ethics of the Amer­
ican Society of Newspaper Editors states that the 
primary function of a newspaper is to commu­
nicate to its readers what the members of the com­
munity do, feel, and think. It further states that 
"its opportunities as a chronicle are inclissoliihlx 
linked [/o) its ohlipations as teacher and in­
terpreter (emphasis added).

The National Association of Broadcasters’ code 
of good practice for television and radio singles 
out controversial public issues and the obligation 
of broadcasters to provide a public forum for 
discussion of those issues;

The broadcaster should develop programs 
relating to controversial public issues of im­
portance to his fellow citizens, and give fair 
representation to opposing sides of issues 
which materially affect the life or welfare of 
a substantial segment of the public.'’ ^

Broadcasters are regulated by the Federal Commu­
nications Commission and are required to serve 
the public interest as defined by the community 
served.” ' Citizens can challenge the license of a 
radio or television station that they feel does not 
fairly reflect their interest and serve the needs of 
the community.

03 /
47



Emmett Marston anti Larry Brown agreed that 
their organizations would be willing to review the 
report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
based on its extensive study of police-community 
relations, draw their own conclusions, and deter­
mine how they, as vital community organizations, 
might become involved in dealing with police-com­
munity relations. Mr. Marston of the AFJA 
qualified his response by saying that “ if finding 
that a real problem exists" his group would con­
sider being involved in finding solutions.""* Mr. 
Brown said “ we already know that these things 
I problems in police-crimmunity relatitins] 
exist...."'"''

Elected and Appointed Officials
City Council Members

Of the 13 members of the Memphis City Coun­
cil, 1 1 were interviewed by staff of the U.S. Com­
mission on Civil Rights regarding their opinions of 
police-community relations.'"" Seven of those 
council members (John Ford, J.D. Patterson, Fred 
Davis, Billy Hymen, Pat Halloran, A.D. Alissan- 
dratos, and Jeff Sanford) said they believed that 
police-community relations in Memphis were not 
good. Council Chairperson Oscar Edmonds, Jr., 
Law Enforcement Committee Chairperson Robert 
James, Ed McBrayer, and Thomas Todtl saiil they 
were unaware of any serious problems between 
police and the community.

Both Mr. Alissandratos and Mr. Halloran, mem­
bers of the three-man law enforcement committee, 
affirmed their belief that the majority of Memphis 
police were good officers but, in Mr. Halloran's 
words, it was apparent that some officers simply 
“ cannot restrain themselves" from using excessive 
force.'"" “ 1 think there is a percentage in the po­
lice department of individuals that do ntU react in 
a very favorable or humane way,”  Mr. Halloran 
said.' '̂"’ Both councilmen felt that Director Chap­
man was making an honest effort to eliminate 
those officers unfit for duty.

Mr. Halloran recommended that a full evalua­
tion of the entire MPD by a professional organiza­
tion, such as the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, would help improve police-com­
munity relations. Such a study would identify 
weaknesses within the department, as well as point 
out the strengths of the department. The commu­
nity’s confidence in the department would thereby

be increased, as would the confidence of police 
themselves. Increased communication between the 
city council, its law enforcement committee, and 
the MPD were also recommended by Mr. Hal- 
loran'-"" and Mr. Davis.

Councilperson Fred Dtivis suggested that firmer 
guidelines on police conduct would help improve 
police-community rchitions. Mttre human rehitions 
trtiining for police, strict tliscipline for officers who 
broke ileptirtment rules, the cretition of a special 
dttmestic crisis intervention squail. and tin increase 
in the number of black officers, as well as their in­
creased presence ;it supervisory levels would help 
solve problems between police and black 
citizens.''"'

Robert James ticknowledged that he received 
notices from the NAACP of alleged police brutali­
ty but said the numbers and seriousness of such 
notices had dwindled.'"' Given the rising crime 
r;ite, he said he thought police brutidity was nor­
mal. “ VVe should almost expect it," he said, "not 
condone it, but expeet it." He said he thought it 
a "marvel...that the police restrain themselves to 
the extent that they do.” '"' Mr. James offered an 
explanation for this "normal" hehavir)r on the part 
of the police. He submitted that some police were 
abnormal and therefore as poliee t)ffieers used ex- 
eessive force which he termed "normal":

1 think police work attracts a few sadistic peo­
ple. This is the nature of it. It is one of the 
hazards of the occupation....'""

...quite a few of the police that are accused of 
brutality have had questionable behavior 
sometime in the past....'"'

Mr. James said he felt that black citizens did 
overreact to poliee abuse (apparently meted out 
by a few sadistic police) but he knew most minori­
ty persons in Memphis were frustrated:

I don’t think that the white people have the 
frustrations that the blacks do because they 
have low incomes and htive got inlLition ;uul 
unemployment... pereentiigewise the blacks 
are in the majority of the htirdship cases 
economically.'""

A better system t>f justice which would eliminate 
the "revolving door" for the crimitial, would re­
lieve the frustration which Mr. Jtimes believes po­
lice feel, and it would, thereby, improve police- 
community relations. Mr. James also recom-

men 
wee 
tow, 
the 
in ii 

O 
he I 
con; 
thoi 
ack' 
stat 
eve 
pro

Dir
i

test
(Jc!
rol.
IWf
dci
fru
tlu
nu’
f i t l

pii

in
Rt
tT)
h i
til
an
sa
ot
Ci
P'
w
h.
at
l l

I!

48

1038



mended better “ screening of police applicants to 
weed out those few that do slip in that are inclined 
toward sadism.” -'"' He did not mention any role for 
the city council or its law enforcement committee 
in improving police-citizens relations.

Oscar Edmonds, chair of the city council, .said 
he personally did not think there were any police- 
community problems in Memphis, although he 
thought some black citizens thought otherwise. He 
acknowledged that Director Chapmen had publicly 
stated that problems did exist; he supposed, how­
ever, that Mr. Chapman had “ taken care" of the 
problems.'*'"

Director of Police
E. Winslow Chapman, director of police, 

testified under oath, without reservation, that there 
definitely was a problem with police-community 
relations in Memphis. He described the problem as 
twofold: “ a defensive attitude on the part o f the 
department and the officers" and "a feeling of 
frustration plus some sense of misunderstanding on 
the part of the community....” *" Mr. Chapman 
noted also that there was a particular lack of con­
fidence in the Memphis police among black Mem­
phians.

Director Chapman, who was appointed to office 
in September 1976, discussed with the U.S. Civil 
Rights Commission the two major steps he planned 
to take to improve police-community relations. 
First, every police officer would be made aware 
that physical abuse and overreaction on the part of 
an officer “ will not be tolerated.”*'* Mr. Chapman 
said he considered the attitude and performance of 
officers the primary factors which affect police- 
community relations, and consistently fair and 
professional behavior on the part of all police 
would have to be achieved. Mr. Chapman said that 
he had begun, two or three times each week, to 
answer police calls on a random basis and observe 
the performance of the police officers involved. 
He said he hoped that this sporadic monitoring 
would result in improved police conduct and ser­
vices.*'*

The second step Director Chapman stated he 
was taking to improve police-community relations 
was a concerted effort to “ establish rapport with 
the black community, to hear their problems and 
to respond to these problems...."*" Mr. Chapman 
did not elaborate on how he intended to establish

rapport with the black community. However, he 
did say during the Commission's May 1977 public 
hearing that he had considered the establishment 
of some type of citizen board to provide for citizen 
participation in police matters. He cited the Mem­
phis affiliate of the National Council on Crime and 
Juvenile Delinquency as one active citizens’ group 
which was already working with him. Mr. Chap­
man stated that he did “ intend to get into it 
(consideration of opportunities of citizen-pidice 
communication I when we have the budget and 
negotiations (police union contract( out of the 
way....”*'-'

Mayor of Memphis
Wyeth Chandler, mayor of Memphis since 1972, 

agreed with Police Director Chapman that there 
was a problem with police-community relations in 
Memphis. “ I think it’s (police-community relations 
problem] perhaps the same in every major city in 
the country, but I think we do have a problem.”*'"

The mayor acknowledged that many black 
citizens, and some white citizens also, probably felt 
their civil rights were violated by police. Mayor 
Chandler believed, however, that these citizens 
would be more likely to say they “ don’t get a fair 
shake, rather than talking about police brutali­
ty-

In response to questions at the Commission’s 
May 1977 public hearing about efforts to improve 
police-community relations in Memphis, Mayor 
Chandler cited the recruitment and hiring of more 
blacks and women as an effort that began early in 
his first term of office. The creation of a commu­
nity relations division with the police department 
was another example he cited. The division is no 
longer in existence, he said, because Bill Crumby, 
Director Chapman’s predecessor, believed the po­
lice personnel assigned there were needed in regu­
lar departmental operations because of the high 
crime rate in Memphis.*'"

The incentive for all pt l̂ice officers to promote 
good pblicc-community relations was quite clear in 
the mayor’s mind. He told the Commission;

...if a man steps out of line he is fired. He is 
sent home. And eventually if it happens more 
thdn once, it it recurs and the evidence is 
there, he is removed from the police depart-' 
ment and finds employment elsewhere. That is 
the incentive to try to make everybody behave 
ihemselves and do whatever should be 
done.*"'

49

1 0 3 : i



A more positive incentive cited by Mayor Chan­
dler was inservice training where “ ev­
ery policemen...has been instructed on how to 
act. ” 220 Lt. William Turner, chief training officer 
of the MPD, said, however, that not one of the 40 
hours of inscrvice training required of police of­
ficers each year is devoted to human relations 
training. (See chapter 3.)

Once again, like Director Chapman, Mayor 
Chandler was not opposed to the idea of citizen 
involvement in the police department. “ I would 
not mind a group that would like to come down 
and discuss policy and have an input in the policy 
with either criticism or praise,” he said.''''' Mayor 
Chandler referred to the team of citizens who 
worked with the city and the U.S. Department of 
Justice, Community Relations Service, in 1974 to 
negotiate some solutions to police-citizen tensions 
as a “ very good” effort;

...[as] a group of citizens representing every 
segment of this city who make their feelings 
known and become a sounding board for him 
[director of police] in operation of the police 
department. As such, certainly it’s [a citizens 
committee] acceptable.

Mayor Chandler also said he regarded the office 
of the mayor and the city council itself as primary 
channels for citizen input regarding police opera­
tions.**  ̂ Two rather specific recommendations for 
improving police-community relations were 
directed by the mayor to the citizens and the po­
lice. He urged greater patience on the part of both 
groups, and more cooperation on the part of 
citizens:

...I think a little more patience perhaps on 
both sides, the side of the police department 
and the side of the citizens, in particular the 
black citizens.**^

...I would like to see every citizen...[as] pfoud 
of its police department as they should be, 
happy with it, working with it, cooperating 
with it, helping eliminate the criminal in this 
city. That is what 1 would like to see.***

Notes to C hapter 5
1. Maxine Smith, testimony before the U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights hearing, Memphis, Tennessee, May 9, 1977, trans­
cript, p. 224 (hereafter cited as Hearing Transcript).

2. Maxine Smith, statement before the Tennessee Advisory 
Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights open meet­
ing, Memphis, Tennessee, October H-9, 1976, transcript, pp. 
373, 3K7 (hereafter cited as Open Meeting Transcript).

3 Ibid., p. 413.

4. For the purpose of this report, the term, “ police miscon­
duct”  refers to the following categories as set forth under the 
heading “ Types o f Complaints” from records of the Memphis 
Police Department, Internal Affairs Bureau, subpenaed by the 
Commission: Physical abuse, verbal abuse, theft, conduct un- 
becH>ming an officer, neglect of duty, harassment, discourtesy. 
Illegal arrest, illegal search, other. In referencing specific allega­
tions of police misconduct, an attempt to identify the type of 
misconduct by these categories has been made.

5. Smith Statement. Open Meeting Transcript, pp. 364—65.

6. Ibid., pp. 387 -8S .

7. Ibid., p. 389.

8. Ibid., p. 378.

9. Ibid., p. 368.

10. Ibid., p. 375.

11. Ibid. Ms. Smith elaborated stating, “ W e perhaps don’t file 
some that we should." Hearing Transcript, p. 24.

12. Smith Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, p. 368.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid., p. 392.

15. Ibid., p. 392.

16. Ibid., p. 393.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Smith Testimony. Hearing Transcript, p. 27.

20. Ibid., p. 25.

21. Smith Statement. Open Meeting Transcript, p. 369.

22. Ibid., p. 374.

23. Ibid., p. 366.

24. Ibid., p. 377.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid., p. 378.

27. Smith Testimony, Hearing Transcript p. 26.

28. Ibid., p. 57.

2<#. Ibid.

3t). United States v. City of Memphis, No. 74-285 (U .S .D  C. 
W .D . Tenn., consent decree issued Nov. 27, 1974)(hereafter 
referred to as U.S. v. Memphis).

31. Smith Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 29.

32. Sec discussion o f minority employment in chapter 3.

33. See discussion o f the Afro-American Police Association in 
chapter 3.

34. Smith Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 28.

35. Smith Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, p. 367.

36. Ibid., p. 393.

37. S.

38. Si

39. ii

40. II

41. 11

42. U

43. II

44. I

45. ■■ 
Leag'

46. T

47. T

48. I 
Ewin 
lice I 
parii 
sion

49. 1

50. I

51. I

52. 1

53.

54

55

56

57

58

59

60 
thi.- 
an.
61

62

6.̂

6a

65

6 (.

nc
Ri

6-

6;

6'

50 lOiO



37. See discussion in chapter 4.

38. Smith Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, pp. 3 9 3 -9 4 .

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid., p. 388.

41. Ibid., p. 390.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid., p. 388 .

44. Ewing Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, p. 86.

45. “ National Urban League: Terms o f Affiliation for Urban 
League Affiliates” , art. 1, sec. C .

46. Herman Ewing, telephone interview, July 8 , 1977.

47. Ibid.

48. Ewing Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, p. 87. Mr. 
Ewing was the Urban League representative on the 1974 Po­
lice-Community Negotiating Team organized by the U S. De­
partment of Justice. Community Relations Service; see discus­
sion, chapter 4.

49. Ibid., pp. 8 8 -8 9 .

50. Ibid., p. 98.

51. Ibid., p. 107.

52. Ibid., p. 88.

53. Ibid., p. 87.

54. Ibid., p. 85.

55. Ibid., p. 88,

56. Ibid,, p. 96.

57. Ibid.

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid., pp. 9 6 -9 7 .

60. Ibid., pp. 101—02. The city o f Memphis is required to use 
the Urban League, among others in the recruitment o f blacks 
and women for city employment. U S. v. Memphis, at 15.

61. Ewing Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, p. 102.

62. Ibid., p. 84.

63. Ibid., pp. 8 3 -8 4 .

64. See further discussion, chapter 6.

65. Ewing Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, pp. 8 3 -8 5 .

66. Written Statement o f  Herman Ewing, presented to the Ten­
nessee Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights, Open Meeting, Memphis, Oct. 8, 1976, p, 1.

67. Ewing Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, p. 83.

68. Ibid., pp. 8 4 -8 5 .

69. Written Statement o f Herman Ewing, p. 2.

"*0. Ewing Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, p. 103.

I. See also, discussion in chapter 6.

72, Chan Kendrick, telephone interview, July 22, 1977
(Hereafter cited as Kendrick Interview).

73 Arnold Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, p. 222.

74. Kendrick Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 30

75. Ibid.

76. Arnold Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, p. 190.

77. Kendrick Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 30.

78. Ibid.

79 Kendrick Interview.

80. Kramer Testimony, Hearing Transcripts, pp. 161-62.

81. Kendrick Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. 3 1 -32 .

82. Arnold Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, p. 188.

83. Kendrick Testimony. Hearing Transcript, pp. 3 1 -32 .

84. Ibid., p. 32.

85. Kendrick Interview.

86. Arnold Statement, Open Meeting, Transcript, p. 192.

87. City o f Memphis v, Payne, Crim. No. 28 -31  (Memphis City 
Court Dec. 15, 1975).

88. Arnold Statement, Open Meeting. Transcript, p. 192.

89. Quoted Statement is from Kramer Testimony, Hearing 
Transcript, p. 159. See also: Kendrick Testimony, Hearing 
Transcript, p. 78; Arnold Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, 
pp. 2 2 0 -2 1 .

90. Wiley v. Memphis Police Department, Civil No. 7 3 -8  
(U .S  D .C .W .D . Tenn July 15. 1975). u/y'd 528 F. 2d 1247 (6th 
Cir., 1977), petitian fur ceri. filed. 45 U .S.L W . 3755, (U.S. 
May 10. 1977)(N o. 7 6 -1 5 7 1 ) .

91. Arnold Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, pp. 2 1 1 -1 2 .

92. Kendrick Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 75.

93. Ibid., p. 35.

94. Legal Services Corporation Act. 42 U S.C. v2996 et seq. 
(1 9 76 ).

95. Wharton Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 37.

96 . Wharton Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, p. 199.

97 . Wharton Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 36.

98. Wharton Statement. Open Meeting Transcript, p. 194.

99. Ibid.

too. Ibid., pp. 195 -96 .

101. Wharton Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 37.

102. Lacey v. Jones, N o. 355505 et seq. (Gen. Ses. C t., Shelby 
County, Tenn.). Consent dismissal ordered Jan. 25 , 1977.

103. Wharton Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, p. 197.

104. Commercial Appeal. Nov. 17, 1976.

105. Lacy v. Jones.

106. Wharton Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, p. 197.

1 O(] 1 I
51



107. “ Agreement Between City of Memphis, Tennessee, and 
Memphis Poliec Association*', art. XII, sec. 7 (p, 21). See 
further discussion on agreement, chapter 6.

lOH. Wharton Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, pp. 
197-9H.

109. Wharton Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 41.

110. Wharton Statement, Open Meeting Tran.script, p. 216.

111. Wharton Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 41.

I 12. Perkins v. Chapman, No. 7 7 -2 2 1 4  (U  S.D  C. W  D. Tenn.. 
filed Apr. 1 I, 1977).

1 13. Wharton Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. 3X -39.

114. Wharton Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, p. 208; 
Hearing Transcript, pp. 8 3 -8 4 . See further discussion, chapter
6 .

115. Wharton Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 72.

116. See 18 U .S.C . y24I, 242, and 245: Wharton Testimony, 
Hearing Transcript, p. 72.

117. Edward G . Thompson, interview in Memphis, Apr. 27, 
1977.

118. Nancy Sorak, interview in Memphis, Apr. 27, 1977.

I 19. Ibid.

120. Thompson Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. 46—47; 
Sorak Testimony. Hearing Transcript, pp. 5 1 -5  3.

121. Thompson Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. 46—47.

122. Sorak Testimony. Hearing Transcript, p. 51.

123. See discussion, chapter 5.

124. Sorak Testimony. Hearing Transcript, p. 5 1.

125. Ibid., p. 53.

126. Thompson Testimony. Hearing Transcript, p. 49.

127. Thompson Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. 47—48; 
Sorak Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. 5 3 -5 4 .

128. Thompson Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 48.

129. Sorak Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 54.

130. Thompson Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. 7 7 -7 8 ;  
Sorak Testimony. Hearing Transcript, p. 77.

131. Thompson Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 49.

132. Ibid., p. 87.

133. Sorak Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. 5 2 -8 8 .

134. Thompson Testimony. Hearing Transcript, p. 71.

135. Ibid.

136. Sorak Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 73.

137. Thompson Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 50.

138. Sorak Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 55.

139. Elmo Baker Statement. Open Meeting Transcript, pp.
224-29.

.S2

140. Marshall Hobson Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, pp.
2 3 5 -3 9 .

141. Virginia Washington Statement. Open Meeting Transcript,
p. 239.

142. Deborah Lynn Rayford Statement, Open Meeting Trans­
cript. p. 240.

143. Rev. J R. James Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, pp, 
3 1 4 -2 2 .

144. /Vi'.v.r Scimitar. Oct. 12. 1976.

145. Wyeth Chandler, interview in Memphis. Apr. 29. 1977.

146. Samuel Hollis, president. Memphis Area Chamber of 
Comm erce, Testimony. Hearing Transcript, p. 9 1.

147. Hollis Testinu>ny, Hearing Transcript, p. 90,

148. Samuel Hollis, interview in Memphis, Apr. 22. 1977 
(hereafter cited as Hollis Interview).

149. Hollis Testimony. Hearing Transcript, p. 90.

150. Ibid., p. 92.

151. Ht)llis Interview.

152. Edward Boldt, interview in Memphis, May 2. 1977
(hereafter cited as Boldt Interview).

153. Press Scimitar. Apr. 27, 1977, p. 6.

154. Greater Memphis Council on Crime and Delinquency, “ By 
L aw s," Aug. 24, 1976, p. 2.

155. Newton Allen, interview in Memphis. Apr. 28, 1977.

156. Boldt Interview.

157. Cot}imerciai Appeal, Sept. 10, 1977, p. 1.

158. Ctmimercial Appeal, Sept. 1 I, 1977, p. A -6 .

159. Ibid.

160. Ibid.

161. Sister Mary Anne Guthrie, chairman. Wom en of Memphis 
Coalition, letter to Jay Hubbard, Feb. 14. 1973. USCCR files; 
Letter to Robert B. James, city councilman, Feb. 14. 1973. 
USCCR files.

162. Margaret Dichtcl and Colvin Baird, memo to members of 
Memphis Inter-Faith Asst>ciation Task Force, undated, USCCR  
files.

163. “ Report on Police Brutality and Police Misconduct in 
Memphis. Tenn.,”  March 1974.

164. Ibid., p. 4.

165. Ibid., p. 5.

166. Rev. Edward Reeves, interview in Memphis. Apr. 16. 
1977 (hereafter cited as Reeves Interview).

167. Press Scimitar. Apr. 14. 1977.

168. keeves Interview.

169. Telephone interview. Aug. 24, 1977.

170 William Sorrell, managing editor. Commercial Appeal. 
telephone interview, Oct. 1. 1976; Ray Wilson, city editor. 
/V<'.vv-.S't7>m7i/r, telephone interview, Oct. I, 1976,

171. Chui 
W D IA  R.u

172. Bot>l 
director, \ 
sident and 
Oct. 4, IV

173. John 
Holt, Rinc

174. Ibid ,

175. 47 1'

176. Hoh.

177. Paul

178. M l. 

179 Wav
interview

180. Com

181. Don 
view, Sei

182. Ibul

183. Tn
184. Te-

185. In

186. irt

187. Ch

188. liii.

189. Ho

190. Rn 
Bar As-

191. Bi.

192. M.

193. 11. 
no. 8, .

194. N 
metu A

195. A 
Testini.

196. M

197. H

198. J 
Hymai 
terviev 
Meinp 
Apr. 
1977. 
1977, 
Edm. 
loran, 
tervie 
mond



171. Charles Scruggs, vice president and general manager, 
W D IA  Radio, telephone interview. Sept. 22 , 1976.

172. Bobby D. Doctor, letter to Paul Barnett, a.ssistant news 
director, W R E G —T V , Sept. 24 , 1976; M .E. Greiner, vice pre­
sident and general manager, W M C -T V , telephone interview, 
Oct. 4 , 1976.

173. John Hohenbcrg, The Professional Jtturnalist (New  York: 
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), p, 570.

174. Ibid., p. 574 .

175. 47 U S.C. Y l5 1 et ,seq. (1 9 7 0 ).

176. Hohenberg, The Professional Journalist^ p. 575.

177. Paul Barnett, interview in Memphis, Apr. 12, 1976.

178. M .E. Greiner, telephone interview. Sept. 21, 1976.

179. Wayne Trotter, urban affairs editor. Commercial Appeal, 
interview in Memphis, Apr. 1 1, 1976.

180. Commercial Appeal, Aug. 10. 1977, p. 29.

181. Don G roff, reporter. Commercial Appeal, telephone inter­
view, Sept. 29, 1977.

182. Ibid.

183. Tri-State Defender, Aug. 1, 1977, p. 1.

184. Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 348.

185. Tri-State Defender, Apr. 2 4 , 1976, p. 1.

186. Tri-State Defender, Apr. 2 3 , 1977, p. 1.

187. Chandler Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 348.

188. Interview in Memphis, Apr. 15, 1977.

189. Hohenberg, The Professional Journalist, p. 533.

190. Emmett Marston. president, Memphis and Shelby County 
Bar Association, interview in Memphis, Apr. 19, 1977.

191. Brown Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 98.

192. Marston Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 96.

193. Bureau o f  National Affairs, Inc., "L a w  W eek, "vo l. 46 , 
no. 8, Aug. 23, 1977.

194. North Carolina Academy o f Trial Lawyers, Law Enforce­
ment Manuel, August 1977.

195. A .C . Wharton, Nancy Sorak, and Edward Thompson, 
Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. 8 3 -8 6 .

196. Marston Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 104.

197. Brown Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 105.

198. John Ford, interview in Memphis, Aug. 11, 1976; Billy 
Hyman, interview in Memphis, May 2, 1977; J.O. Patterson in­
terview in Memphis, May 4 , 1977; Robert James, interview in 
Memphis, Apr, 29, 1977; Ed McBrayer, interview in Memphis, 
Apr. 29, 1977; Thomas Todd, interview in Memphis, May 3, 
1977; A .D . Alissandratos, interview in Memphis, Apr. 27, 
1977; Jeff Sanford, interview in Memphis, Apr. 20, 1977; Oscar 
Edmonds, Jr., interview in Memphis, Apr. 2 1 , 1977; Pat Hal- 
loran, interview in Memphis, May 4, 1977; and Fred Davis, in­
terview in Memphis, Apr. 2 2 , 1977 (hereafter cited as Ed­
monds Interview, Holloran Interview, and Davis Interview,

respectively). Council members Glenn Raines and Pat Vander 
Schoaf were not available for interviews.

199. Halloran Interview.

200. Halloran Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 274.

201. Ibid., pp. 2 8 8 -8 9 .

202. Davis Interview.

203. Ibid.

204. James Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 268.

205. Ibid., pp. 2 7 6 -7 7 .

206. Ibid.

207 . Ibid., p. 283.

208. Ibid., p. 294.

209. Ibid., pp, 2 8 2 -8 3 .

210. Edmonds Interview.

211. Chapman Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. 3 0 0 -0 1 .

212. Ibid., p. 302.

213. E. Winslow Chapman, interview in Memphis, Apr. 19, 
1977.

214. Chapman Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 303.

215. Ibid., pp. 303 and 311.

216. Chandler Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 328.

217. Ibid., p. 344,

218. Ibid., p. 330.

, 219 . Ibid., p. 332.

■' 220. Ibid.

221. Ibid., p. 335.

222. Ibid., p, 341.

223. Ibid., p. 335.

224. Ibid., p. 336.

225. Ibid., p. 348.

104a 53



Chapter 6

POLICE MISCONDUCT— INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL 
REVIEW
Community Perspective of the 
Problem

Virtually everyone heard by the Tennessee Ad­
visory Committee and the Commission who has 
been in a position to reflect and comment upon 
the state of police-community relations in Mem­
phis agrees that problems do exist. On the salient 
factors such as the nature, extent, causes, and 
remedies, however, there are often sharp dif­
ferences of opinion. These differences are most 
prevalent in the matter of police misconduct and 
the remedies for it. A basic dichotomy exists 
which may be summarized as; ( 1 ) the opinion of 
those persons who maintain that a pattern and 
practice of police misconduct of severe propor­
tions exists in Memphis, exacerbated by the utter 
failure of the mechanisms designed to remedy it; 
ancf (2) the opinion of those persons who question 
the extent of the police misconduct and who main­
tain their belief and confidence that there are 
adequate corrective mechanisms, functioning ef­
fectively to remedy whatever police misconduct 
might exist.

In terms o f  ascertaining why this divergence of 
opinion exists, it is important to identify, albeit in 
a necessarily general fashion, those persons who 
espouse each opinion.

Those persons who have the first opinion are; 
(1) those who have alleged being victims of police 
misconduct and who are frustrated at the alleged 
failures of the remedial mechanisms; and (2) those 
persons (with the exception of Memphis Police 
Department (MPD) personnel) who have, through 
the course of their private and professional lives, 
been in positions to receive citizens’ complaints of 
police misconduct and, in 'attempting to seek 
remedial action on their behalf, have substantiated 
the alleged failures of the available mechanisms to 
effectuate remedial action. The testimonies of 
several, but not nearly all, of these,persons have 
been included in this report.

In terms o f  why these persons hold this opinion, 
it is unreasonable to suggest that they have ulterior

motives for doing so. With regard to the in­
dividuals who complain of police misconduct and 
their frustrations at remedial action, it is difficult, 
if not impossible, to find reasonable motives for 
their opinions other than that they have felt vic­
timized by their police and have not witnessed 
anything having been done about it. With regard 
to those persons who have been recipients of the 
complaints of individual citizens and who have at­
tempted to have their complaints remedied, the 
responsible nature of the positions they hold in 
their organizations, their collective experiences 
which connote informed opinion, and the unanimi­
ty of their opinion despite the different functions 
of their organizations, all discount any reasonable 
identification of ulterior motives as to why they 
hold their opinion.

Those persons who espouse the second opinion, 
however, that the extent of police misconduct is 
not severe but even "normal” and to be expected,' 
are virtually all in positions with vested interests 
for holding that opinion. Virtually all are in 
elected or appointed positions that have direct or 
oversight responsibilities to ensure that MPD per­
sonnel conduct their operations in a fair and effec­
tive manner.

There remains, of course, a substantial majority 
of the community that, because they do not exer­
cise any direct control over the situation and have 
not been directly affected by the problem of police 
misconduct, have not placed themselves in a posi­
tion to have an informed opinion in the matter.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine both 
the internal (within the MPD) and external 
(administrative recourses outside the MPD and 
civil and criminal legal action) review mechanisms 
that arc currently available to those community 
members who believe they have been victims of 
police misconduct. In identifying internal and ex­
ternal remedies, both the scope of the remedy as 
it is purported to be and its actual effectivenss in 
operation are examined.

54

104 1



As a foreword to this examination, the Tennes­
see Advisory Committee sets forth the following 
premises which are, or should be, of unquestioned 
validity: (1) all persons have a right to seek 
responsive action to complaints of police miscon­
duct and to have valid complaints acted upon in 
an open and affirmative manner; (2) the responsi­
ble public officials have an obligation to ensure 
that effective mechanisms exist to investigate and 
respond to complaints of police misconduct and to 
ensure that appropriate corrective action is taken; 
(3) the community has a civic right and responsi­
bility to be informed of the extent to which police 
misconduct is a problem and to take the necessary 
community action to ensure that public officials 
are exercising both the preventive and responsive 
steps needed to correct the problem in an open, 
fair, and efficient manner.

Nature of Internal and External 
Review

Prior to any detailed discussion of the internal 
and external review mechanisms that purportedly 
exist to remedy police misconduct in Memphis, an 
overview of the nature o f  these remedies, i.e., the 
scope of the remedies offered and their limitations, 
needs to be set forth.

Of primary significance is the fact that all inter­
nal and external remedies are basically reactionary 
rather than preventive in nature. They are essen­
tially official responses to police misconduct after 
the fact. As stated in the President’s Commission 
on Law Enforcement and Administration of 
Justice, Task Force Report: The Police,^ “ The best way 
to deal with misconduct is to prevent it by effective meth­
ods of personnel screening, sufficient training, constant 
retraining and supervision.’ ’ ^

Internal Review
Beyond the prerequisite preventive methods of 

police misconduct, however;

Without question, the best means for ensuring 
that personnel are complying with departmen­
tal policies and general notions of fairness is 
through effective internal police procedures. 
Internal discipline can be swifter and, because 
imposed by the officers’ own superiors, more 
effective. If properly carried out, internal 
discipline can assure the public that the de­
partment’s policies concerning community 
relations are fully meant and enforced. This is

particularly true when the department's own 
investigation discovers misconduct without 
any citizen complaint.

Strong discipline shows the public that 
misconduct is merely the action of individual 
officers—the few who violate the rules in any 
organization—and not action which is
customarily tolerated in the department. Con­
sequently, high priority should be given to im­
proving internal police procedures so that 
they can satisfy as much of the public as 
possible concerning their fairness and effec- 
tivenss.^

As the results of the MPD internal review efforts 
dictate (see exhibits 4, 5, and 6 and the following 
discussion) the critical importance of using inter­
nal review in winning the public confidence by 
demonstrating open, fair, and effective internal 
discipline has been largely unrealized in Memphis.

External Review
In all jurisdictions, if a complainant remains 
dissatisfied with the internal disposition of a 
case, there are other avenues of appeal out­
side the police agency; The local prosecutor; 
the courts; elected officials such as council- 
men or the mayor; the State’s attorney 
general; and the U.S. Department of Justice.'

In addition, in Memphis the community relations 
commission and the civil service commission (see 
discussion, below) are two additional external 
mechanisms for limited review of police miscon­
duct.

For a variety of reasons, not limited to the situa­
tion in Memphis, all forms of external review, to 
varying degrees, have been historically ineffective 
nationwide in coping with police misconduct in a 
systematic, comprehensive fashion.' This fact rein­
forces the need for a fair and effective internal 
review process.

An analysis of the external review mechanisms 
in Memphis underscores the validity of the above 
conclusion as to the historical ineffectiveness of 
external reviews of police misconduct. In sum­
marizing in this chapter the effectivenss of external 
review mechanisms in Memphis, the traditional 
factors militating against effective external review 
mechanisms are compared and contrasted with the 
actual history of external review efforts in the 
Memphis community.

55

1015



EXHIBIT 4

Citizen Complaints of Police Misconduct Investigated By lAB Category
(January 1, 1974-April 29, 1977)

Category 1974 1975 1976 1977 • Totals

Physical Abuse 72 119 131 60 382
Verbal Abuse 32 29 30 9 100
Theft
Conduct Unbecoming

53 19 26 7 105

Officer 135 39 40 15 229
Neglect of Duty — 17 25 6 48
Harrassment — 24 38 10 72
Discourtesy 17 12 14 5 48
Illegal Arrest 23 24 20 3 70
Illegal Search 15 8 3 1 27
Other
Total Complaints Investigated

13 16 15 1 45
1,126

* through April 29.

56 1 0 4 1 ^



EXHIBIT 5

MPD Disciplinary Actions By lAB Category Resulting From lAB Investigations of
1126 Complaints

(January 1 ,1974-April 29,1977)

i f -3

Dismissal Suspension
Written

Reprimand
Verbal

Reprimand No Action Unknown Under
(years)

77*
(years) (years) (years) (years) (years) Investigation

75 76 74 75 76 77* 74 75 76 77* 74 75 76 77* 74 75 76 77* 74 75 76 77* 1977*
Physical Abuse 0 0 3 0 1 3 4 3 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 0 63 102 115 17 8 12 1 2 38
Verbal Abuse 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 30 25 29 4 1 2 0 0 5
Theft 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 52 12 21 5 1 2 1 0 1
Conduct Un­

becoming Officer 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 5 0 124 34 30 2 10 2 0 0 13
Neglect of 

Duty 0 Q 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 22 3 0 2 0 0 3
Harrassment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 38 7 0 1 0 0 3
Discourtesy 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 16 12 11 0 0 0 0 2 3
Illegal Arrest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 17 20 20 0 6 4 0 0 2
Illegal Search 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 1
Other 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 7 15 1 5 6 0 0 0
Sub-Totals 0 0 6 0 3 7 11 3 1 8 8 1 1 5 11 1 324 256 304 39 31 31 2 4 69

Totals 6 24 18 18 923 68 69 = 1126

* Through April 29.



EXHIBITS

Percentages of MPD Disciplinary Actions by lAB Category Resulting From lAB 
Investigation of 1126 Complaints

Jan. 1974-April 29,1977

X

r J ^
—  I— -  n. 2  “o ? -3 3 r.



" T ’

As the summary of external review effectiveness 
in Memphis indicates, any declaration that citizens 
have effective and viable alternatives to internal 
review of police misconduct can only be placed in 
the category of a "let them eat cake" response to 
the problem.

Memphis Police Department 
Internal Affairs: Police 
Misconduct Investigation and 
Discipline

As set forth in the discussion in chapter 5, both 
the Tennessee Advisory Committee and the Com­
mission heard overwhelming testimony from mem­
bers of the Memphis community as to the ineffec­
tiveness and nonresponsiveness of the MPD inter­
nal affairs (i.e., investigation and discipline) 
process. Much of this testimony was directed at 
the MPD Internal Affairs Bureau (lAB), the inter­
nal organization established specifically for the 
purpose of investigating police misconduct. As 
discussed below, however, the lAB is only a com­
ponent, although an important one, of the entire 
MPD internal affairs process. To the extent that 
the lAB has been singled out as the major, if not 
the only, reason for the ineffectiveness of the 
MPD internal affairs efforts, the criticism has been 
largely misdirected. Much more on point is the 
criticism which is targeted at the entire MPD in­
ternal affairs process.

As the data supplied to the Commission pur­
suant to subpena so dramatically reflect, (sec ex­
hibits 4, 5, and 6) instances of disciplinary action 
taken in response to citizen’s complaints, particu­
larly of physical abuse, have been virtually nil. 
With regard to the critical category of physical 
abuse of citizens by police officers, for example, in 
the period from January I, 1974, through April 
29, 1977 (time reference of the data subpenaed), 
there were 3 82 complaints of physical abuse alone 
filed with the lAB. Complaints of physical abuse 
are exclusive of those complaints separately 
categorized by the lAB under nine other types of 
complaints (see “ Category" column in exhibit 4). 
Of the 382 complaints, 38 were still under in­
vestigation ax of April 29, 1977. Of the remaining 
344, the data reflect that the disciplinary actions 
taken in 23 complaints are unknown by the lAB. 
Subtracting the 38 complaints under investigation

and the 23 complaints for which the disciplinary 
actions taken, if any, are unknown, there remains 
a total of 321 complaints investigated by the lAB 
and referred for disciplinary action to appropriate 
MPD supervisory personnel for which the MPD 
disciplinary disposition is known.

The MPD disciplinary actions taken as a result 
of the 321 investigations of physical abuse in­
vestigated by the lAB have resulted in a total of 
three dismissals (0.93 percent) of the total and I 1 
suspensions (3.5 percent) of the total). Verbal and 
written reprimands, the only other types of 
disciplinary actions taken, have been given in four 
and six instanees, respectively (a eombined figure 
which represents 3.1 percent of the total).

Based on this data, the odds of a police officer 
being dismissed due to an investigation of a com­
plaint of physical abuse of a citizen are less than 
1 in a 100; of being suspended, 1 in 28; of being 
reprimanded verbally or in writing, 1 in 29.

Analysis of why meaningful disciplinary action 
in response to citizens’ complaints has been vir­
tually nonexistent must include factors other than 
an examination of the lAB alone. One factor is the 
disciplinary process b)r which the lAB has absolu­
tely no control. Another is the relevant provisions 
of the Memphis Police Association Bargaining 
Agreement with the City of Memphis^ which sub­
stantially affect the ability of the lAB to compile 
the necessary evidentiary record to dispute or sub­
stantiate the merits of a complaint, and, therefore, 
ultimately impact upon the disciplinary process as 
well.

MPD Internal Investigation Process
The Memphis Police Department has historically 

maintained an entity within the department to in­
vestigate allegations of police misconduct. Offi­
cially referred to as the internal affairs bureau, the 
lAB is charged with investigating all citizens’ com­
plaints of police misconduct. In addition, in a low 
percentage of instances, the lAB investigates 
charges of police misconduct initiated by ap­
propriate MPD supervisory personnel."

Since May 1974, the lAB has been located in 
offices (100 N. Main, Room 1104) outside MPD 
headquarters. This move was made by order of 
former Police Director lay Hubbard for the pur­
pose of facilitating the filing of complaints by 
citizens who might otherwise be reluctant to do so 
at the MPD headquarters.

l O T I
59



Inspector Robert Wilkinson was the commander 
of the lAB at the time o f  the Tennessee Advisory 
Committee’s October 1976 open meeting and the 
May 1977 Commission hearing. According to In­
spector Wilkinson,” the lAB staff consists of 1 1 
commissioned police officers (incliuling 2 black 
males and 1 black female) and .1 clerical support 
staff. All assignments to lAB are made from per­
sons volunteering for lAB assignment and the posi­
tions are permanent, i.e., lAB officers do not rou­
tinely rotate to other MPD assignements.

Shortly after E. Winslow Chapman became 
director in late September 1976, he organized the 
lAB line of authority from the chief of police to 
the director (see MPD organizational chart, ex­
hibit 2). The lAB separates complaints into nine 
specific categories (see exhibit 4) of misconduct 
and one miscellaneous category. An analysis of the 
computer printouts'" furnished by the MPD in 
response to Commission subpena discloses that the 
vast majority of disciplinary actions arc referenced 
to categorized departmental regulations," written 
guidelines regarding police conduct. They are • 
comprehensive and include such broad categories 
as “ DR 105 Adherence to Law,” which in effect 
makes any violation of law or regulation (Federal, 
State, county, and local) also a violation of depart­
mental regulation.

In addition to departmental regulation viola­
tions, police officers have also been investigated 
and disciplined for other specifically proscribed 
conduct as set forth in the city ordinances of 
Memphis and the Memphis Civil Service Personnel 
Manual.'* As illustrated by MPD General Order 
12-76 Internal Discipline, many minor infractions 
of work rules are disposed of without the 
assistance of the lAB. The order provides specifi­
cally, however, that all sworn allegations of verbal 
or physical abuse will be directed to the lAB for 
investigation and that all major offenses require in­
vestigation by the lAB.

The data illustrated in exhibits 4, 5, and 6 were 
compiled from statistics of lAB investigations of 
citizen complaints and the MPD disciplinary ac­
tions taken as a result o f  them as prepared and 
submitted by lAB Commander Robert Wilkinson 
in response to Commission subpena. The data in 
the exhibits, therefore, chronicle the entire 40- 
month history of lAB investigations of and MPD 
response to investigations of police misconduct in­

volving proscribed conduct ai;ciiii.si cinzt’i’a. The 
data in the exhibits il<i iiaf include disciplinary ac­
tions taken by the VI PD for reasons other than 
violations of the nine categories of police miscon­
duct as defined and listed by the lAB. Disciplinary 
actions for violations of "work” rules (e g., .ibiise 
of sick leave, insubordination, property loss, ete.) 
are not relevant to the issue of disciplinary actions 
taken in response to allegations of police miscon­
duct against citizens (e g., physical abuse, verbal 
abuse, illegal arrest, etc.) and arc not in any 
manner rcfiected in exhibits 4, 5, and 6.

Based upon information supplied by Inspector 
Wilkinson, the process in effect May 9, 1977, 
whereby the lAB investigates citizen complaints of 
police misconduct is as follows.'"

The lAB requires a citizen who wishes to make 
a complaint against an officer to appear in person 
at the lAB office and complete and sign a sworn 
affidavit summarizing the charges against the of­
ficer. The lAB will not respond to anonymous 
complaints or complaints made by telephone. The 
affidavit is completed by the complainant after an 
interview with an lAB officer. After the complai­
nant signs the affidavit in the presence of a notary, 
an lAB officer questions the complainant in an ef­
fort to solicit further evidentiary information (e.g., 
names of witnesses) from the complainant which 
will aid the lAB in its investigation. lAB officers 
then contact witnesses, if any, named by the com­
plainant and take written and oral (tape recorded) 
testimony from witnesses or other persons ascer­
tained to be relevant to the inquiry.

In certain instances, in particular where the 
complainant has no witnesses, the lAB officer will 
request that the complainant take a polygraph ex­
amination (administered by trained MPD person­
nel or, on occasion, by an independent examiner). 
If the complainant refuses to take the polygraph 
examination, the lAB will continue its investiga­
tion. In instances where there arc no witnesses to 
substantiate the complaint, however, it is a matter 
of the complainant’s word against the officer’s. By 
Uhion contract provision'" a police officer can 
refuse to take a polygraph examination for any 
reason.

Should the lAB at any stage of investigation of 
a citizen complaint determine that there is proba­
ble cause to believe that the officer named by the 
complainant has committed a criminal offense, the

60

l O b ! '



lAB is required by terms of the union contract'-' to 
discontinue investigation of the complaint, subject 
to a criminal investigation by the appropriate MPD 
criminal investigative branch. Subsequent to the 
criminal investigation, the lAB may renew its in­
vestigations to determine whether a noncriminal 
violation has likely occurred. Prior to any 
questioning of an officer pursuant to a sworn af­
fidavit of complaint by a citizen, the lAB is 
required, by terms of the union contract'" to pro­
vide the accused police officer with a copy of the 
signed affidavit. Upon completion of the lAB in­
vestigation, the complete results are forwarded to 
the various supervisory MPD personnel, depending 
upon the rank and duty assignment of the officer 
involved. By order of Director Chapman, made in 
September 1976, a summary of all lAB investiga­
tions (with exception of those complaints that are 
clearly insignificant) are forwarded to his atten­
tion. Included in each summary is a written state­
ment of the lAB commander stating his profes­
sional opinion as to whether the lAB investigation 
does or does not support the complaint made. The 
lAB finds approximately 60 percent of its in­
vestigations do not support (i.e., “ unfounded” ) the 
complaint and about 40 percent do support (i.e., 
“ founded” ) the complaint.'^

Subsequent to the lAB investigation and discipli­
nary action, if any, the lAB sends each complai­
nant a form letter which states, in effect, that the 
police officer’s commanding officer has taken the 
action that he considered proper. The letter also 
states that the complainant may come to the lAB 
office if he or she desires further information re­
garding the disposition of the complaint.

In the spring of 1977, negotiations were con­
ducted by representatives of the Memphis Police 
Association and the city of Memphis regarding 
renewal and changes in the 1974 union contract, 
which was to expire as of June 30, 1977. As a 
result of the negotiations, the union contract was 
renewed, effective July 1, 1977, through June 30, 
1980.'" One of the significant changes is the revi­
sion in the lAB procedure involving investigations 
of police misconduct that result in, or are likely to 
result in, a criminal charge placed against the ac­
cused police officer(s)."* The new procedure calls 
for complete investigations of all complaints, 
whether administrative or criminal in nature, by 
the lAB with assistance o f  an appropriate criminal

investigative branch as required and requested by 
the lAB.

In conversation with Inspector Wilkinson of the 
lAB^" and Sgt. Steve Brown, vice president of the 
MPA,' '̂ both persons agreed to the general pur­
poses of the change in the lAB criminal investiga­
tive procedure; ( 1 ) to facilitate an orderly and 
timely investigation of all complaints; (2) to place 
full investigative authority for all citizen com­
plaints in the independent lAB, purportedly 
removing conflicts of intere.st that might be occa­
sioned by a criminal branch investigating “ one of 
its own” ; and (3) to attempt to gain public con­
fidence in the entire MPD internal affairs process. 
The provision allowing a police officer to refuse to 
take a polygraph any time and without any ex­
planation for the refusal has remained 
unchanged.

MPD Internal Discipline Process
The MPD has written comprehensive procedures 

setting forth the department’s handling of discipli­
nary matters."" General Order (GO) 12-76 pro­
vides that the authority for the MPD to discipline 
police officers is derived from “ the City Charter, 
Ordinances, [and] the Civil Service regulations 
and is implicit in positions of command manage­
ment and supervisory responsibility.” ""

The line of authority for administering discipline 
is based upon the level disciplinary action contem­
plated.

Director E. Winslow Chapman"' and former 
Acting Chief John Holt"" outlined the current 
process whereby the level of disciplinary action 
contemplated is determined.

Director Chapman receives all substantive lAB 
investigation reports together with a written sum­
mary of each investigation made by Inspector Wil­
kinson of the lAB. The summary includes the in­
spector’s written opinion as to whether the com­
plaints are founded or unfounded. Director Chap­
man reviews each summary and notes those in­
vestigations which he believes are serious and will 
warrant discipline that will require his action or 
subsequent review. In these instances, the director 
requires personal notification of the internal 
discipline, if any, subsequently taken. The director 
then meets with his immediate subordinate 
(formerly the chief of police; currently, the ap­
propriate deputy director, i.e.. Deputy Director for

61

1051



Administering Authority

Immediate Supervisor
Precinct/Bureau Commander
Branch Commander 

(If applicable)
Deputy Chief
Director/Chief of Police

TABLE 3

Level of Disciplinary 
Action Authorized

Oral Admonition
Oral thru 3 days suspension

Oral thru 5 days suspension 
Oral thru 9 days suspension 
Oral thru termination

Statement of 
Charges Required

Optional
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

o
111
ii.

>1

62 1 0 5 :o



Operations M.S. Jones or Deputy Director for Ad­
ministration James Herbert) and discusses with 
him the disposition of the remaining complaints.

Of the remaining investigations not identified by 
the director for his personal review, the deputy 
director may initiate disciplinary action or deter­
mine at which level of operational assignment (i.e., 
deputy chief, precinct commander) the disciplina­
ry action, if any, should be administered. Often 
this is done on a case by case basis in discussion 
with the deputy chiefs o f the various operational 
assignments.

If any disciplinary action is taken (above an 
“ oral admonition” ) the accused officer must be 
presented with a “ statement of charges,” which he 
or she normally is granted the option of answering. 
In some instances, determined by the officer issu­
ing the charges, the officer may be required to 

, respond to the charges in writing. ’̂
Procedures are available to provide an officer 

who has been ordered disciplined to appeal the ac­
tion internally. Depending upon the severity of the 
disciplinary action, the appeal may be heard by an 
authority ranging from the officer’s immediate su­
pervisor to the director o f police.^"

At the appeal hearing, the accused officer may 
be represented by a union representative if he or 
she so requests and the MPD may be represented 
by its legal advisor, at the discretion of the 
director. The complainant is not allowed to appear 
or enter testimony or evidence at the hearing. 
Subsequent to the MPD appeal hearing, an officer 
may appeal any disciplinary action to the civil ser­
vice commission, if the action taken is at least 
suspension from duty for more than 10 days.^"

With regard to the work status o f an officer ac­
cused of police misconduct, GO 12-76 provides 
that pending investigation results, an officer 
remains in pay status and may continue in normal 
duties or be placed in non-enforcement duties or 
be temporarily relieved o f all duties. In addition, if 
an officer is formally charged or indicted for a 
criminal offense, the officer may be suspended 
from duty with or without pay or dismissed.

Bargaining Agreement with City 
of Memphis

In July 1977 the Memphis Police Association 
entered into its second 3-year bargaining agree­
ment with the city o f Memphis.'" Throughout the

course of its negotiations with the MPA, the city 
has quite effectively combated MPA demands that 
would require expenditures of revenues, e.g., more 
police officers, higher salaries, and more promo­
tions. That the city of Memphis needs more 
qualified police officers''^ and that competitive 
salaries are necessary to attract and keep com­
petent and effective police personnel is without 
question. It is also without question that the city’s 
current poor economic status (although possibly 
exaggerated by the mayor)’ '* is a significant barrier 
to these demands.’  ̂ In the crucial matter of inter­
nal investigations o f police misconduct, however, 
the city, suffering no economic effects and perhaps 
as a tradeoff to the unheeded economic concerns 
of the MPA, has acquiesced considerably to the 
MPA demands.

In any discussion of investigation and discipline 
for police misconduct, there are two fundamental 
aspects to consider; (1) a police officer is a 
“ trustee of the public interest” ’ ’  and in the exer­
cise o f a critical portion of the police power of the 
city and State,’* where life (and all too often) 
death decisions are made, the police officer must 
be held strictly accountable for his or her conduct 
in the performance of his or her duties by the 
public employer;”  and (2) the acceptance of po­
lice employment does not relegate a police officer 
“ to a watered-down version of constitutional 
rights.” **

In the pursuit of effective and fair investigations 
o f and discipline for police misconduct, these two 
aspects obviously require a legal and rational 
balance. This balance may be struck by an ex­
amination of the nature of administrative 
proceedings (where a police officer’s employment 
security is in jeopardy) and criminal proceedings 
(where a police officer’s liberty is in jeopardy).

Certain provisions of the 1977 union contract 
(all o f which were contained in the 1974 union 
contract) affect the ability of the MPD to in­
vestigate police misconduct effectively and to 
discipline police officers. These provisions arc 
discussed in this section with this balance in mind.

As illustrated by the discussion below, the MPAs 
legal rationale for certain provisions is untenable, 
amounting to unsupportablc job security demands 
and in no way founded upon constitutionally-based 
due process considerations. The acceptance of 
these provisions by those city officials responsible

63

i 0 5 ; j



for protecting the public interest is an abdication 
of their official duty.

Polygraph Examination
A provision of the union contract states: "No 

member shall he ordered to submit to a polygraph 
(lie detector) test for any reason. Such tests may 
be offered by Police Administration or indepen­
dently requested." (art. IV, sec. 5).

The importance of this provision, as it affects 
the department’s ability to investigate police 
misconduct and take appropriate disciplinary ac­
tion, can best be illustrated by the testimony of 
Director Chapman before the Commission:

We are faced in the vast majority of the cases 
where the citizen said this happened to me. 
The officers say that did not happen, or it 
didn t happen that way. You really have no 
basis upon which to make any substantive 
decision as to what you should do.

This accounts for what has obviously been in­
ferred or referred to here today, the vast 
number of complaints and yet the relatively 
small ratio of action taken. The reason is not 
that we don’t believe it happened, but very 
simple that we can’t prove it happened.

1 think that faced with a case like that we 
have no choice but to take no action when we 
can’t prove anything did happen.™

The hard facts are that in the majority of in­
stances where a citizen complains of police 
misconduct there is little evidence except the word 
of the complainant as opposed to the word of the 
officer(s) as to whether the officer had committed 
a wrong against the citizen. In such instances. 
Director Chapman has stated that the MPD has 
“ no choice but to take no action when we can’t 
prove it happened.’ ’™ This impasse brings the 
relevancy o f a polygraph examination clearly into 
focus; i.e., in many instances o f alleged police 
misconduct, a pwjlygraph examination may be the 
only useful investigative tool available to the de­
partment to ascertain the merits o f a citizen’s com­
plaint.

With regard to the reliability of a polygraph ex­
amination, it should not be necessary here to ex­
amine its merits exhaustively. The following facts 
with regard to the MPD’s use of the polygraph 
should suffice: (1) utilizing Federal funds,^' the de­
partment has developed an “ internal polygraph

capability for law enforcement purposes" with 
professional training at the /.onn Institute of Poly­
graph in Miami, Florida; (2) the department ad­
ministers a polygrtiph examintition to each appli­
cant to the MPI) as a reipiirement for selection to 
the force;'’̂  (.1) a polygraph extimitiation is rou­
tinely utilized by the lAB (by consent of complai­
nant and officer) in the investigation of citizens’ 
complaints. The MPD, therefore, has demon­
strated its reliance on polygraph examinations both 
in recruitment and complaint investigation and has 
developed a profcssiontil capability for doing so. 
Any statement by departmental personnel 
questioning the reliability and use of a polygraph, 
therefore, is clearly at odds with the department’s 
actual practice and reliance upon it.

With regard to the constitutional rights of a po­
lice officer (particularly the right to refuse to in­
criminate himself or herself)thcre is simply no in­
fringement of rights in compelling a police officer 
to take a polygraph examination on matters, 
"directly, and narrowly relating to the per­
formance of his official duties,"^-' provided that the 
officer’s answers cannot be used in a criminal 
prosecution.

The Supreme Court, in a series o f three cases, 
has grappled with the need to make public officials 
(e.g., police officers) accountable for the per­
formance o f their public function and at the same 
time protect their constitutional rights. In the 
Gardner case, the Court ruled that a police officer 
cannot be discharged for refusing to waive a right 
(i.e., freedom from self-incrimination) that the 
Constitution guarantees to the officer.™ In the 
Garrity case, the Court further established that if 
a police officer gives testimony because of a threat 
of removal from office, such testimony cannot be 
used against the officer in a subsequent criminal 
proceeding.

In Gardner, however, the Court turned directly 
to the issue of a police officer’s accountability to 
the public employer for the official performance of 
his or her duties and established a formula for 
achieving it. The Court, recognizing that a police 
officer “ is a trustee of the public interest, bearing 
the burden of great and total responsibility to his 
public employer..." emphasized that “ the po­
liceman is either responsible to the State or to no 
one” -*" Accordingly, the Court stated:

d. 
“ 1 
ai: 
re 
al 
n. 
o! 
si 
n 
ll

It

A
t'

k

64

1 0 5 4



If appellant, a pt)liccman, had refused to 
answer questions specifically, directly, and 
narrowly relating to the performance of his of­
ficial duties, without being required to waive 
his immunity with respeet to the use of his an­
swers or the fruits thereof in a eriminal 
prosecution of himself, the privilege against 
self-incrimination would not have been a bar 
to his dismissal.'"'

It should be noted that the 1977 union contract 
does provide that an officer may be disciplined for 
“ refusal to answer pertinent questions concerning 
any non-criminal matter."'" Allowing an officer to 
refuse to take a polygraph examination, however, 
at least in those instances where it is the complai­
nant’s word against the officer’s, makes a mockery 
of this provision. Both Sergeant Kent, MPA pre­
sident," and Inspector Wilkinson, lAB com­
mander,'* agreed that approximately 90 percent of 
the officers requested by the lAB to take a poly­
graph refuse to do so. In such instances, therefore, 
it is still the word of the complainant (who may, 
and often does, take a polygraph examination at 
the request of the lAB) against the uncontested 
word of the officer.

Procedures whereby a police officer may be 
compelled to take a polygraph examination, while 
also protecting the officer’s constitutional rights, 
can be readily established: Where a citizen’s com­
plaint does not allege a fact situation connoting a 
criminal offense, no constitutional question arises. 
Therefore, the officer should be compelled, if 
necessary (i.e., no other evidence is available) to 
take the examination at the initiation of the lAB 
investigation. Where a citizen’s complaint does al­
lege a situation connoting a criminal offense, the 
officer should be compelled to take the polygraph 
examination when the criminal offense issue is 
disposed of, i.e., ( 1) upon completion of an initial 
investigation which results in no probably cause 
that a criminal violation has taken place; (2) upon 
decision of the appropriate prosecutor not to 
prosecute the charge for whatever reason; or (3) 
upon dismissal o f charges or acquittal at a sub­
sequent criminal prosecution. As discussed above, 
according to the dictates of the U.S. Supreme 
Court, compelled statements of an officer can 
never be used against him or her in a subsequent 
criminal hearing. The procedures of delaying com­
pelled statements via a polygraph examination 
when there is probable cause to believe a crime

has been committced, therefore, is not legally 
necessary.

riicre arc several reasons, however, why such 
procedures should he utilized. One is that the tic- 
cused officer will be given extrti tissurance that the 
compelled st;ilcmenls will not be nscti in a 
criminal proceeding. Another is that the prosecu­
tor, should a criminal charge be directed against 
the officer, will not have to contend with the 
defense that the officer’s compelled statements, or 
the fruits of them, will be used in the criminal 
proceeding. Pending all delays, of course, the of­
ficer should be assigned nonenforcement duties or 
suspended, depending on the seriousness of the al­
legation and in accordance with existing depart­
mental procedures.

Procedures making a polygraph examination 
mandatory, despite the fact that an officer has 
been charged and cleared of a criminal offense, 
are essential. It is axiomatic that an officer who 
may not be convicted of a criminal charge, either 
by a decision not to prosecute or by failure of the 
State to meet the burden of proof required for 
conviction (i.e., guilt beyond a reasonable doubt), 
may nonetheless be guilty of a violation of a public 
trust for which departmental disciplinary action 
should be taken.

Director Chapman has stated that the 
“ polygraph thing has been totally blown out of 
proportion...”  and it is not “ a decisive factor 
because...a polygraph is not permissible as 
evidence in court.” '" This statement confuses the 
issue by ignoring the distinction between the al­
lowable use of a polygraph in administrative 
proceedings, as opposed to its impermissibility in 
criminal proceedings. Director Chapman lapsed 
into non sequitur by stating that although the 
MPD cannot take administrative action when it 
fails to find sufficient proof (exacerbated by not 
using the polygraph), the complaints of police 
misconduct do not “ just go by the wayside” ''* 
because they arc often referred for criminal 
prosecution. ObvKiusly, if the MPD cannot meet 
the burden of proof to take administrative discipli­
nary action (i.e., supported by a mere preponde­
rance of the evidence), there is virtually no 
likelihood that a prosecutor will be able to prove 
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The procedures set forth with regard to com­
pelling an officer to take a polygraph examination

b.'i

f ?



can in no way, as dictated by the U.S. Supreme 
Court, conflict with the officer’s constitutional 
rights. Should unforseen incriminating statements 
result from the polygraph examination, neither the 
statements nor the fruits of them can be used 
against the officer in a subsequent criminal 
proceeding. Accordingly, once an officer is com­
pelled to take a polygraph examination, the officer 
cannot rationalize any refusal to respond, based 
upon a constitutional right. In such instances, the 
officer’s refusal to respond should be recognized 
for what it actually is—an unacceptable refusal to 
be held accountable for conduct in the per­
formance of duty.

Beyond the evidentiary value of a polygraph ex­
amination in ferreting out police misconduct, there 
are two other compelling reasons why a police of­
ficer should, in appropriate circumstances and ac­
cording to established procedures, be required to 
take a polygraph examination or be dismissed for 
refusal to do so: (1) established procedures
whereby a police officer knows in advance that his 
or her conduct in the performance o f official du­
ties will be strictly scrutinized and that his or her 
version of the facts will be tested by means o f a 
polygraph should have a significant deterrant ef­
fect in preventing police misconduct; (2) public 
confidence will be greatly enhanced if the depart­
ment demonstrates that it is using every reasonable 
means to investigate allegations of police miscon­
duct; at the same time, this should go a long way 
towards demonstrating a sense of fairness to the 
complainant who previously, in electing to subject 
himself or herself to the polygraph, knew that the 
officer could refuse to do so with impunity.

It is syllogistic to state that being subjected to a 
polygraph is an unpleasant experience for both of­
ficer and complainant, and therefore its use should 
be avoided. It is an unfortunate fact of life in 
Memphis that the number of complaints of police 
misconduct is cause for public outrage, exceeded 
only by the fact that so few disciplinary actions 
result from them. The MPD—the entire communi­
ty—cannot afford to ignore any reasonable means 
for making Memphis police officers accountable 
for their conduct in the performance of their 
awesome public trust. To do otherwise suggests 
continued ignorance o f the critical problem of po­
lice misconduct in Memphis, continued acceptance 
of MPA demands that are contrary to the public

interest, and continued abdication of civic respon­
sibility by those public officials charged with en­
suring accountability for police misconduct.

identity of Complainant
Before Internal Affairs intcrogates an officer 
as a direct result of a complaint by a citizen 
whose identity is known that citizen shall be 
required to sign a sworn affidavit, clearly stat­
ing the allegation, a copy of which shall be 
provided to the officer at the time of the in­
terrogation. (Union contract, art. XV, sec. J.)

Prior to specific discussion on how this provision 
affects the ability o f the MPD to investigate com­
plaints o f police misconduct, the essential im­
portance of an adequate complaint investigation 
process and its impact on police-community rela­
tions needs to be set forth. The President’s Com­
mission on Law Enforcement and Administration 
of Justice made the following statement in this re­
gard:

No department can be expected to operate 
without some misconduct at times by some of 
its personnel. Every department can, however, 
be expected to attempt to discover its faults, 
correct them where possible, and learn from 
them. Since law enforcement is primarily a 
business which deals with the public and must 
have its trust, complaints by citizens offer a 
unique opportunity—a channel for communi­
cation that may otherwise not exist, a means 
for discovering failures to follow department 
policies, a method for the redress of 
grievances, and an early warning of larger 
troubles. How a department treats such com­
plaints is a general index of its concern or 
lack of concern for community relations.”

The union contract provision is clearly at odds 
with the effective utilization of citizens’ complaints 
as set fbrth in this statement. The provision, allow­
ing an accused officer to know the identity of the 
complainant at the initial stage of lAB investiga­
tions has the following debilitating effects upon the 
department’s ability to ferret out police miscon­
duct. First, this procedure discourages a person 
who feels mistreated by a police officer from filing 
a complaint. Particularly in those instances where 
a person alleges physical abuse by a police officer 
(approximately one-third of all lAB investigations 
involve allegations of physical abuse”  the person 
obviously will be reluctant to file a formal com­
plaint, knowing that to do so may invite retaliatory

act
rci
h r

p r  

( . 

In
Vl-
an
be

no
ai'
Fi
ha

cli
Wi
n.
t h

t h

t l

Cl
U.
P
w
d
!■
tl

n
l

66



action by the accused officer. Second, this fear of 
retaliation, far from being mere apprehension, has 
been a reality for certain complainants. Several 
persons outside of the MPD testifieil before the 
Commission that such retaliation has ttiken place. '' 
In addition. Inspector Wilkinson, lAH commander, 
verified that the lAB has received, investigtited, 
and substantiated complaints by citizens who have 
been, in Inspector Wilkinson's phrase, verbally if 
not physically "intimidated" by police officers 
against whom they have filed complaints.'’" 
Further, as discussed in chapter 5,’" police officers 
have unsuccessfully sued a complainant for filing 
charges with the lAB. The legal merits of this suit 
were so weak (i.e., no allegation that the complai­
nant acted with wilful and malicious intent) that 
the motives of retaliation and intimidation, rather 
than valid legal redress, were forcefully presented.

Sergeant Kent, MPA president, ignoring the fact 
that there have been incidents of retalitttion by ac­
cused officers against complainants, testified that 
he did not believe that the sworn affidavit 
procedure has any inhibiting effect upon citizens 
who may wish to file a complaint of police miscon­
duct. Sergeant Kent also stated that the communi­
ty has a responsibility to police officers to "see 
that our people get due process of law.”'"’ Accord­
ing to Sergeant Kent's standard of "due process," 
this requires the MPD to proceed in administrative 
disciplinary proceedings on the same evidentiary 
level that is required in criminal prosecutions'” 
This contention is not only legally unsupportable, 
but it also ignores the responsibility of public offi­
cials to have their conduct in the performance of 
official duties subject to reasonable and workable 
investigation.

As with the discussion regariling the use t)f a 
polygraph, the issue of a p*>lice officer's constitu­
tional rights needs to be brought into focus. In this 
instance, the constitutional right to face an accuser 
appears to be the shield offered by the MPA to 
support this contract provision. Again, however, as 
with the constitutional right to be free from self­
incrimination, the right to face accusers is based 
upon the need to protect a person from being un­
duly deprived of liberty through criminal prosecu­
tion. Even in a criminal prosecutittn, this right is 
not so absolute as to require that the identity of 
an accuser be given to a defendant in every in­
stance. It is established police practice to utilize

"reliable informants" to gather information against 
an ticcused without the accused ever having the 
benefit of either knowing or questioning the infor- 
ntants. The basic rationale for this practice is that 
to inform every defendant automatically of the 
identity of police informants woukl "dry up" valu­
able police sources of information and seriously 
impair the police function of apprehending 
criminals.

It approaches the height of sanctimony for po­
lice officers, who embrace the use of unidentified 
"reliable informants " agtiinst citizens in criminal 
prosecutions, to state that they should have an un­
fettered right to know the identity of persons 
whose complaints of misconduct may, or may not, 
be used as evidence in MPD administrative 
disciplinary proceedings.

There are clearly no constitutional dictates that 
require informing police officers of the identity of 
a complainant in departmental administrative 
disciplinary proceedings. Should subsequent 
criminal charges be placed against the officer, the 
officer at that time has available all of the con­
stitutionally-based rights as defined and prescribed 
in the law of criminal procedure.

Further diminishing any rational basis for an of­
ficer being presented with a complaints' identity is 
the fact that the department never initiates 
disciplinary action against an officer solely on the 
word of a complainant. Disciplinary action is 
taken, if at all, only when there is other evidence 
to substantiate the complaint's allegations'"' The 
complaint is used merely as a tool to initiate in­
vestigation and not as the basis for disciplinary ac­
tion.

The practical effect of not providing an accused 
officer with the identity of the complainant before 
the officer is questioned by the lAB needs to be­
set forth to lend a perspective to this discussion.

In most cases, after the lAB questions the of­
ficer, the facts of the incident, without actual dis­
closure of the complainant's identity, will allow the 
officer to discern who the person is who filed the 
contplaint. In most cases, once the officer has 
been questioneil, there is simply no way to avoid 
the fact that the officer will have the informtition 
necessary to take retaliatory action against the 
complainant. Obviously, the MPA was aware of 
this fact when they successfully obtained this 
provision in the union contract. Twn reasons mav

t
to

P-

h

tT'

67

105/



be offered why the MPA would wish to have it 
guaranteed in the contract. One is to ensure that 
in every instance the officer will be informed of 
the identify of the complainant. Another is to put 
all putative complainants on public notice that the 
officers will be informed of their identity should 
they choose to file a complaint.

To minimize the likelihood of retaliatory action 
by an accused officer, therefore, procedures 
should be established whereby in appropriate cir­
cumstances (particularly when physical abuse is al­
leged) the lAB will conduct an initial investigation 
to discern if the complainant’s allegation can be 
substantiated by other evidence prior to question­
ing of the accused officer. This will serve to 
facilitate the assembly of an evidentiary record 
that might otherwise be jeopardized by the police 
officer's possible retaliation, and also provide the 
lAB with additional data upon which to question 
the officer.

It should be emphasized that the point o f this 
discussion is in no way intended to infringe upon 
an officer's knowledge o f the basis o f the charge 
against him or her. It is simply to illustrate that the 
identity o f the complainant is not necessary to pro­
tect the rights of the officer, but, on the contrary, 
there are compelling reasons why this identity 
should not be immediately disclosed. These 
reasons are to facilitate rather than discourage 
citizens’ complaints and to reduce the likelihood 
o f retaliation against citizens who have exercised 
their right to seek redress for what they believe is 
police misconduct.

The facts are that this union contract provision 
does serve to discourage citizens from filing com­
plaints o f police misconduct and has also served as 
a vehicle to facilitate retaliatory actions against 
citizens who have filed complaints. With the 
realization that there is simply no basis in law or 
fact that this provision is required or necessary to 
protect the rights of police officers, this provision 
should be recognized for what it is—a successful 
attempt, authorized by the public employer in 
violation of the public interest,’ to further isolate 
police officers from accountability for their con­
duct in the performance of duty.

Effective Use of Citizen 
Complaints
Reception of Citizen Complaints

The fundamental importance of using citizen 
complaints to improve police-community relations 
cannot be overstated. Citizen complaints serve as 
vehicles to discipline misbehaving officers and 
deter others from misbehaving."^ Equally impor­
tant is the fact that citizen complaints offer a 
“ channel for communication’ ’"’' between the police 
and the community that serves not only to 
facilitate better police administration, but also to 
enhance the confidence of the community in the 
department.

Since citizen complaints are extremely impor­
tant to police departments, efforts should be 
made to encourage citizens with grievances to 
file them. Unfortunately, police officers and 
departments often regard a citizen complaint 
as an attack on the police as a whole rather 
than a complaint against an individual officer, 
and therefore, attempt to discourage citizens 
from filing them. The discouraging of citizen 
complaints not only deprives a department of 
valuable information but also convinces the 
public that the kinds of practices complained 
about are condoned or even expected.""

The lAB’s citizen complaint procedures, rein­
forced by certain provisions of the union contract, 
have the effect of discouraging citizens from filing 
complaints of police misconduct with the lAB. Ex­
cept in those rare instances where an lAB in­
vestigation is requested internally, all lAB in­
vestigations are predicated upon a signed and 
sworn affidavit of a citizen, a copy of which is pro­
vided to the officer at the time of lAB questioning.

This process dramatically reduces the usefulness 
of citizen complaints. As stated in the report of 
the President’s Task Force on Law Enforcement 
ahd Administration of Justice;

When made, a complaint should be accepted; 
I 1 ) whether reported in person, in writing, or 
by telephone; (2) whether made anonymously, 
sworn to, or in any other form; and (3) 
whether from the victim, an eyewitness, a per­
son who has merely heard of the incident or 
an organization such as a civil rights group.

...Even if the complaining citizen wishes to 
drop the complaint, the department should 
continue its investigations, if only to prevent

68

1



m
-fe'*-''

any possibility that complaining witnesses will 
be discouraged or intimidated.

Departments should advertise widely, as 
[some departments) have done, that they seek 
out all complaints of police misbehavior of 
any type. Complaint forms shouUl be available 
for civic organizations, civil rights groups, an­
tipoverty agencies, and neighborhood advisory 
committees. Advisory committees should be 
constantly reminded to encourage residents 
with complaints to bring them forward.**^

Publicizing Complaint Disposition
Criticism of the MPD for failing to notify either 

complainants or other citizens who have referred 
complaints to the lAB of the disposition of the 
complaints has been great and continues to be a 
significant factor contributing to poor police-com­
munity relations. The department’s current use of 
a form letter, that contains no disposition of the 
specific complaint, is simply unacceptable given 
the fundamental importance o f demonstrating to 
the complainant, as well as the community, that 
the department has the will and ability to police it­
self.

While the department does provide the complai­
nant with an opportunity to be informed orally of 
the disposition of his or her complaint, this 
procedure, in addition to putting the burden on 
the complainant to return to the lAB, is useless in 
building a formal record and having it available for 
public scrutiny.

Once the decision on a complaint has been 
made, the complainant should be notified of 
the decision and of the basis for it. And the 
public should have access to the facts of the 
case and the nature of the decision. Unless 
the public has access to reliable information, 
it is likely to assume the worst. On the other 
hand, if complainants are told o f the disposi­
tion, "they would know that the Department 
is concerned and that their complaint was hot 
thrown in the wastebasket.” ""

In addition, when an incident or series of In­
cidents has raised tension in an area, it will 
often be desirable for the determination to be 
announced and explained directly to the re­
sidents o f  the area either through the commu­
nity relations unit, a neighborhood advisory 
meeting, or some other similar procedure. An 
annual report by the police department 
providing such facts as the number and kinds 
of people who made them, the disposition of 
the complaint, and the punishments imposed

can also make a useful contribution to better 
public understanding.""

Director Chapman gave two reasons why the de­
partment refuses to notify anyone in writing as to 
the disposition of a citizen’s complaint. The first Is 
to avoid display of facts or an admission of wrong­
doing that might be used in subsequent litigation 
against the officer and the department.^" The 
second is to protect the rights of the officer in 
those instances where an officer is compelled to 
make statements under a promise of immunity, 
whieh precludes the use of the statements in any 
subsequent criminal action against the officer.^'

Because of the strong public policy considera­
tion which requires that the community should be 
aware o f the department’s disciplinary actions, and 
because of the largely illusory legal rationalizations 
of the reasons themselves, neither of these reasons 
are acceptable barriers to public disclosure. All 
that is needed is that the complainant be notified 
of the decision and the basis for it. This entails 
only the disciplinary action taken, in which case 
no further explanation is necessary, or if no 
disciplinary action is taken, a brief explanation as 
to why no action was taken.

With regard to any possible civil litigation, to 
the extent, if any, such information would be rele­
vant to the law suit, it would clearly be discovera­
ble by the plaintiff through the normal rules of 
discovery allowable in civil cases. With regard to 
criminal prosecutions, it is difficult to imagine how 
the nature of this information could possibly in­
fringe upon an officer’s rights. Furthermore, as 
discussed above, the U.S. Supreme Court has 
specifically ruled that neither the compelled state­
ments o f a police officer nor the fruits of them can 
be used against the officer in a subsequent 
criminal prosecution.

At any rate, the department can readily adopt pro­
cedures by which the complainant (and the public 
upon request) can be notified of the disposition of a 
complaint and at the same time protect any legally 
required rights of all concerned. To infer that dis­
closure is an all-or-nothing proposition is merely a 
self-serving misstatement of fact.

69

1051)



Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 
Taken
Response of Director Chapman

The effectiveness of the Internal Affairs Bureau 
is significantly impaired due to a variety of factors 
previously discussed. It might be assumed that 
when the lAB overcomes these factors and com­
piles an evidentiary record which supports the 
validity of the complaint that disciplinary action 
would logically result. During Director Chapman’s 
tenure, however, the facts are that over halF'* of 
the complaints that the lAB commander has 
declared to be “ founded”  have resulted in absolu­
tely no disciplinary action of any kind.

Director Chapman offered two reasons during 
his testimony at the Commission hearing why 
disciplinary action had not been taken despite the 
lAB’s findings. The first explanation offered was 
that “ mitigating circumstances,” ”  such as the 
severity of the incident and the officer’s service 
record, would account for the fact that no discipli­
nary action had been taken. The second reason of­
fered by Director Chapman was his belief that, 
despite the lAB commander’s opinion, disciplinary 
action could not be taken because o f the depart­
ment’s inability to “ prove that the incident took 
place.

The first reason offered by Director Chapman is 
logically supportable but obviously does not ac­
count for the majority of instances where no 
disciplinary action has been taken despite the find­
ing of the lAB. Rather, in most instances no 
disciplinary action is taken in response to a 
founded complaint because of the director’s al­
leged belief that the department cannot prove the 
charge. The factors (e.g., lack of the use of a poly­
graph examination) that adversely affect the lAB’s 
ability to meet the necessary burden of proof have 
previously been discussed. Beyond the evidentiary 
problems, which are largely correctable, the fact 
that Director Chapman has ignored the findings of 
the lAB in 5 3 percent of the cases where the lAB 
investigations have dictated that the complaints 
were founded, casts severe doubt upon his 
willingness to effectively combat police miscon­
duct.

Particularly in view of the fact that a police of­
ficer may appeal significant disciplinary action to 
the civil service board. Director Chapman’s uni­

lateral decision not to initiate disciplinary action in 
the majority o f meritable cases casts doubt on his 
stated intent to discipline offending officers.

In August 1977, Director Chapman reassigned 
Inspector Wilkinson, lAB commander, to a post 
outside the lAB. According to an article in a 
Memphis newspaper,’ * sources close to Director Chap­
man stated that he had been disturbed by Inspector Wil­
kinson’s charges against a former police officer. The 
director was quoted as saying that the charges were “ to­
tally unsubstantiated.”
Statistical Overview

The results of the contractual and self-imposed 
restrictions placed upon the lAB investigations of 
police misconduct and the resulting inability and 
unwillingness of appropriate personnel to take 
disciplinary action are illustrated in the three ex­
hibits incorporated into this chapter.

In 40 months the lAB investigated more than 
1,100 complaints, over one-third of which were al­
legations o f physical abuse. A total of six dismis­
sals have resulted from these investigations, or
0.61 percent of the total investigations made for 
which the disciplinary actions are known. There 
have been 24 suspensions in the 40-month period, 
or 2.10 percent of the total. Therefore, less than 
3 percent (i.e., 2.71 percent) o f the investigations 
have resulted in disciplinary action above a verbal 
or written reprimand. Incredibly, only 3.50 percent 
of the investigations have resulted in verbal or 
Written reprimands, a “ disciplinary action”  that 
results in no loss of pay or status.

Conclusion
By any measurement, these statistics expose any 

declaration that the Memphis Police Department is 
effectively responding to complaints of police 
misconduct as a myth. These statistics reinforce 
the opinions of many that the department is un­
willing and unable to take effective disciplinary ac­
tion against offending officers. And these statistics 
lend credence to the belief of many that the de­
partment has no intention o f taking effective 
disciplinary action against officers who abuse 
citizens. Rather, these statistics reinforce the con­
viction of many people that such lack of response 
is tantamount to approval of police misconduct.

70

lO B n



External Review of Police 
Misconduct
Administrative Review

City Council
Both the limited authority of the Memphis City 

Councir" and the limited focus and success of past 
council efforts”  with regard to police misconduct 
support the proposition that it is not a viable entity 
for providing dramatic improvement in police- 
community relations.”* Nonetheless, the Memphis 
City Council does have at least two important 
functions which, if properly utilized, can produce 
a positive impact upon the situation.

The first is to exercise legislative oversight of 
Memphis Police Department activities. Patrick 
Halloran, councilman and member o f the council 
law enforcement committee, underscored the cur­
rent lack of any such oversight;

1 can’t help but feel that there is a total lack 
of communication between the council and 
the council [law enforcement] committee and 
the department.

This is a much our fault as it is theirs, but it 
doesn’t seem to me that they have kept us ad­
vised o f their needs, their progress, or their 
special problems. We can read about it in the 
paper.

So, I guess we should be asking them, “ How 
can we help you? What are your problems? 
What do you need? Why did this happen? 
How are you going to see that it doesn’t hap­
pen again?’ ’”

There are substantive reasons, of course, why 
the city council should not involve itself with the 
administration o f the MPD, per se. The council 
can and should, however, exercise its legitimate 
and heretofore largely ignored responsibilities to 
ensure that, having funded “ every penny’s worth 
of tax dollars that goes to implementing the de­
partment’s activities,’ ’***’ that those activities are 
beneficial and in the public interest. This would 
not only make the MPD answerable to those 
elected officials charged with its funding, but also 
would open channels o f communication between 
the MPD and the council and offer another 
avenue o f public scrutiny as well.

One notable area that begs the scrutiny of the 
city council is the MPD investigation and

discipline process. Another, not unrelated area, is 
the bargaining agreement (i.e., union contract) 
between the city and the Memphis Police Associa­
tion. Both of these areas, as previously discussed 
in this chapter, have a significantly negative im­
pact upon police-community relations in Memphis 
and are clearly in the proper scope of legislative 
inquiry.

The second city council function, consenting to 
the mayor’s nominations, can also be effectively 
used to improve police-community relations in 
Memphis. This fact was illustrated in the council’s 
unprecedented hearings on the nomination of E. 
Winslow Chapman to be director of police in Sep­
tember 1976. The hearings enabled both the coun­
cil and the public to be apprised of Mr. Chap­
man’s qualifications and his opinions on how the 
department should be run.

By law"' the city council has authority to ap­
point, upon nomination of the mayor, the civil ser­
vice commissioners. Apparently, the city council’s 
past review of civil service commission nominees 
has been perfunctory. Severe criticism has been 
expressed by both community people and public 
officials against the civil service board in failing to 
uphold certain MPD disciplinary actions involving 
police misconduct."'^ Scrutiny o f nominees by the 
council before they become commissioners will 
not only ensure their qualifications for office, but 
also provide a public record as to the nominees’ 
philosophies on such critical areas as police 
misconduct.

Community Relations Commission
The purpose and function of the Memphis Com­

munity Relations Commission is largely an enigma 
to the Tennessee Advisory Committee and staff. 
The Community Relations Commission (CRC) did 
not send a representative to the Advisory Commit­
tee’s October 1976 open meeting. Further, despite 
the verbal assurances of cooperation by CRC offi­
cials, subsequent to the open meeting and before 
and after the May 1977 Commission hearing, 
neither Rev. P. L. Rowe, (CRC Chairman) nor his 
staff were able to keep appointments to talk with 
staff o f the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

The CRC was apparently established in Februa­
ry 1972 following the death of Elton Hayes, the 
black youth allegedly beaten to death by nine po­
lice officers."' Apparently designed to have a 
broad range of functions with regard to communi-

t O ( U



ty relations in general, the CRC, according to the 
limited evidence available to the Tennessee Ad­
visory Committee, has had no impact with regard 
to alleviating police-community problems in Mem­
phis.

According to a newspaper article,"'* the CRC 
was authorized by the mayor shortly after the Ad­
visory Committee’s open meeting to inform com­
plainants of police misconduct as to the MPD 
disposition o f complaints. It is not known to what 
extent, if any, this procedure was ever initiated, 
and, through subsequent examination of the inter­
nal affairs process, it is apparent no such 
procedure currently exists.

In the preparation of both the open meeting and 
the Commission’s hearing, staff and members of 
the Tennessee Advisory Committee were informed 
by persons both within and without the MPD that 
the CRC was simply ineffectual. A summary of 
these comments is that the CRC, treated with 
benign neglect by city officials and held in con­
tempt by those who have come to view it as com­
munity relations “ window dressing,’ ’ has atrophied 
to the point of uselessness. It is the sincere hope 
of the Tennessee Advisory Committee that with 
meaningful citizen input, the CRC might be reor­
ganized and used as a positive factor in the overall 
community effort needed to improve police-com­
munity relations.

Civil Service Commission
The Memphis Civil Service Commission (CSC) 

is headed by three commissioners who serve part 
time and without compensation. Given nearly ple­
nary powers under the Memphis City Code of Or­
dinances"'* with regard to all aspects of the civil 
service system, the basic function o f the commis­
sioners has traditionally been restricted to presid­
ing on the final appeal board for city employees 
who have been disciplined by the various depart­
mental supervisors."*

Commission Chairman Robert Fargarson said 
the lack o f involvement of civil service commis­
sioners, other than on the appeal board process, is 
because of the restricted time and energies availa­
ble to part-time commissioners and the lack of 
adequate staff and resources to expand commis­
sioner efforts."’  Wade Hardy, CSC commissioner, 
gave his opinion o f the restricted function of the 
commissioners;

You have to understand that the commission, 
civil service commission, is primarily 
established to review disciplinary actions 
taken (against) those that are employed by 
the city to see to it that those who are em­
ployed, who, when they are disciplined, are 
given a fair administrative hearing by those 
that are primarily not associated with the 
city’s day-to-day operations.""

With regard to allegations of police use of physi­
cal and verbal abuse. Chairperson Fargarson stated 
that the CSC has the authority not only to in­
vestigate why so few MPD disciplinary actions 
result from investigation of citizen complaints, but 
also to initiate investigations of the complaints as 
well."" For the reasons stated above, however, both 
commissioners said they have never initiated such 
actions."*’

Both Mr. Fargarson and Mr. Hardy"' said that if 
the MPD internal affairs process were proved inef­
fective, either a properly staffed and structured 
civil service board or another independent 
mechanism to review police misconduct “ would 
definitely be of merit.’ ’"’

As stated earlier in this chapter, the civil service 
board has been severely criticized for failure to 
uphold MPD disciplinary actions against police of­
ficers accused of physical abuse of citizens. In par­
ticular, the actions of the board in reinstating two 
police officers who were fired for beating a 
prisoner (breaking both his arms) brought criti­
cism from Director Chapman and a local 
newspaper.""

Despite such criticism, the effect of the board’s 
actions, generally, has been more symbolic than 
substantive. The facts are that the board has had 
occasion to review very few instances where police 
officers have been disciplined because of physical 
abuse of citizens. While approximately 60 percent 
of the cases before the board involve discipline of 
police officers,"" very few (only three cases during 
the 2-year tenure of Commissioner Hardy)"* in­
volve police physical abuse. The miniscule number 
of disciplinary actions taken by the MPD against 
officers accused of physical and verbal abuse, as 
discussed previously,"* accounts for the small 
number of disciplinary actions before the board. 
The actions of the board, therefore, muddled and 
misguided as they may be, are statistically insignifi­
cant when compared to the MPD’s demonstrated 
unwillingness and inability to initiate disciplinary 
actions against offending officers.

72

l O G o



Nonetheless, should the MPD begin to demon­
strate effective disciplinary responses to police 
misconduct, the current process of the civil service 
board would have a proportionately negative im­
pact upon the overall effort toward combating the 
problem,

A resolution was introduced in the city council 
to remove the three members of the board that 
reinstated the two police officers who had beaten 
a prisoner." The judgment o f the three board 
members might well be subject to question; how­
ever, such action appears to be misdirected. More 
on point is an examination of the civil service 
board process itself.

The current process of utilizing unpaid, part- 
time commissioners, who may or may not be 
qualified or experienced to preside effectively over 
civil service matters, to make extremely subjective 
judgments without benefit of any meaningful 
guidelines of evidentiary or administrative 
procedure, calls for reevaluation. For example, it 
might be assumed that a police officer’s past em­
ployment record, if relevant, would be taken into 
account by the board in deciding upon the merits 
of the latest MPD disciplinary action before the 
board. Commissioner Hardy, however, has stated 
that “ for reasons o f justice”*" the board can only 
deliberate on the specific incident before it to 
determine if the disciplinary action is justified.** 
Commissioner Fargarson, however, has stated that 
the board can take an officer’s past record into ac­
count for the purpose o f  determining whether to 
uphold the disciplinary action before the board, 
but only if the officer’s record is stated by the 
MPD to be part o f the basis for the action 
taken.""’ These kinds o f conflicting opinions are 
conducive to muddled and disjointed board ac­
tions.

The civil service board process, therefore, needs 
to be reevaluated, with particular attention given 
to the desired and permissible authority of the 
board to determine disciplinary appeals o f police 
officers accused of physical and verbal abuse 
against citizens. Further, the authority, procedure, 
and desirability o f having the civil service board 
act upon citizen complaints should also be studied 
along with alternative methods o f civilian review.

The review o f both MPD disciplinary actions 
and citizen complaints should he included in a 
comprehensive review o f the entire Memphis Po­

lice Department conducted by a competent profes­
sional organization such as the International As­
sociation of Chiefs of Police. Additionally, an ap­
propriate committee of a local bar as.sociation. as 
a demonstration ol the legal profession’s responsi­
bility for improving the administration of justice, 
should be called upon to study and recommend 
appropriate rules of procedure for use in civil ser­
vice board hearings.

Legal Review
Criminal Prosecution

The relevance of the criminal law to police- 
community relations is limited by the fact that 
many forms of police misconduct affecting po­
lice-community relations, such as verbal 
abuse, coercion of respect, and the like, are 
not violations o f the criminal law. It is further 
limited by the problem of proof and credibili­
ty o f testimony. In many cases, the only wit­
nesses to the misconduct are the policeman 
and the alleged victim, and often the alleged 
victim and nonpolice witnesses are from 
minority groups, are poor or unemployed, or 
have criminal records. Finally, many prosecu­
tors are reluctant to bring charges except in 
serious cases because they work so closely 
with the police.""

Clearly, there are several factors, practical as 
well as political, that restrict the usefulness of 
criminal prosecutions as a viable tool for dealing 
with police misconduct. As previously discussed, 
there is no substitute for proper methods of 
preventing police misconduct before it ' occurs. 
Nonetheless, the restricted remedy of prosecution 
of police misconduct that constitutes a violation of 
the law should be pursued with vigor. This is 
necessary in order to demonstrate that no one, in­
cluding police officers, are above the law, thereby 
ensuring public confidence as well as deterring 
misconduct. Furthermore, because a review of the 
MPD internal affairs process illustrates that police 
officers are able to perpetrate misconduct against 
citizens with virtual impunity, the necessity for 
criminal prosecution in appropriate circumstances 
is essential.

Unfortunately, all the factors that generally 
preclude criminal prosecution as a useful method 
of stopping police misconduct exist in full force in 
Memphis. Additionally, the following facts illus­
trate that criminal prosecution of police miscon­
duct in Memphis has proved to be more myth than

73

10(13



reality: Despite the hundreds of allegations of 
physical abuse by police officers reported to the 
MPD and a number of persons killed by police o f­
ficers in recent years, the amount of criminal ac­
tion brought against police, in both Stale and 
Federal courts, has been virtually nil; the number 
of convictions has been literally none.

State Action
The district attorney general for the Memphis 

and Shelby County area is Hugh Stanton, an 
elected official who has been in office since March 
1974. TheVe are 27 judicial districts in Tennessee, 
and the district attorney offices are largely au­
tonomous, having Ju-risdiction to prosecute any 
violation of a State statute but, practically, they 
handle mostly felony cases, leaving misdemeanors 
to be handled in city court.'"’' Mr. Stanton super­
vises a staff of 38 county prosecutors as well as 2 
attorneys who process indictments. Additionally, 
the office has an investigative unit o f 12 persons 
responsible for preparing and presenting informa­
tion to the Shelby County grand jury.'""

According to Mr. Stanton, the only method for 
ascertaining the number of Memphis ptilice o f­
ficers who have been indicted for crimes against 
citizens (e.g., assault and battery, homicide) would 
be to go through each of the approximately 6,500 
to 7,000 cases handled by the district attorney 
general’s office each year:

We file basically by name, or we have a num­
bering system, but it's alphabetical...and I 
don’t separate police cases from larceny cases, 
and larceny cases from murder cases.'""

Asked to recall how many indictments have 
been made against poliee officers during his 
tenure, Mr. Stanton stated, "W e have returned 
some indictments against officers for larceny and 
that kind o f thing,"'"' but he could only recall one 
instance where an officer had been indicted for 
physical abuse of a citizen.'"*

The office relies almost exclusively upon the 
Shelby County Sheriff’s Department and the Mem­
phis Police Department to conduct investigations, 
including possible criminal police misconduct, for 
use in the preparation of criminal cases.'"' Mr. 
Stanton stated;

The attorney general’s office has 12 investiga­
tors whose primary function is to prepare 
cases that are pending in our criminal courts

for trial, and 1 do not have a staff that would 
he adequate to investigate as thoroughly as 
perhaps they should be all complaints made 
against anyone. We refer them to the proper 
department in...the Mernphis Police Depart­
ment, tind the Memphis Police Deptirtment 
has an interntil affairs | bureau | which nor­
mally does it.'""

Mr. Stanton added that his office htis conducted 
investigtitions of police misconduct, especitilly 
when an officer has killed someone.'"" These in­
vestigations, he said, are "normally" restricted to 
a review of the internal affairs bureau’s investiga­
tion,"" although Mr. Stanton stated that his office 
will often "follow through" with additional in­
vestigative efforts as deemed necessary.'" He ex­
plained that his office has no policy to determine 
what instances might require their investigation 
beyond the MPD investigation.

The office relics almost exclusively, therefore, 
upon the investigations of the MPD to determine 
whether an allegation of police misconduct might 
constitute a criminal offense. In the best of times, 
this process might rtiise questions about the effi­
ciency of a prosecutor relying upon a department’s 
investigation of one of its own officers. Given the 
history of the MPD’s failure to demonstrate either 
the willingness or ability to take disciplinary action 
despite the hundreds of complaints received (41) 
percent of which are founded, in the opinion of 
lAB officials),"'" the continued reliance by the dis­
trict attorney general on MPD investigations is 
both unworkable and inexcusable.

That the prosecutor’s office may have too few 
investigators and must rely heavily upon the MPD 
to prosecute charges other than police misconduct 
are factors contributing to the problem. The cur­
rent process, therefore, requires a significant 
degree of change to ensure proper attention to 
criminal police misconduct in Memphis.

First, the district attorney general should recog­
nize the fact, as illustrated throughout this report, 
that the allegations of police misconduct in Mem­
phis are pervasive and the MPD action in response 
to them is suspect. Therefore, that office can no 
longer rely so heavily upon the MPD for investiga­
tions of possible crimintil police misconduct.

Secondly, specific steps that have been taken in 
other jurisdictions"" should he initiated in the dis­
trict attorney's office. A special investigative unit 
should be established within that office to iniriate

iin.
cn
St. i

ini
be
bli
Ik

t o  

ih. 
I I,
III 
\ e

M
I'll
p e  

I I I . 

w I
SI  i

I II

I I I

!"
Id
ol
t o

r\

ill
III
tl.

74

10(rl



and conduct independent investif’ations o f alleged 
criminal police misconduct in appropriate circum­
stances and in every instance of homicide involv­
ing police officers. Additional investigators should 
be employed as necessary. If funds arc not availa­
ble to hire additional investigators, the unit should 
be composed from the existing staff. It is difficult 
to imagine a more pressing priority in Memphis 
than investigation of criminal police misconduct. 
The unit should not include any former MPD of­
ficer. Although utilizing the results of MPD in­
vestigations, it should work independently of the 
MPD to ensure the objectivity of its investigations. 
Further, this unit should work exclusively on inde­
pendent investigations o f alleged criminal police 
misconduct anti never on other investigations 
where the assistance of the MPD is required for 
successful prosecution. Specific recordkeeping on 
the number, nature, and results of the investiga­
tions should be maintained and made available for 
public scrutiny. Because it may be difficult for the 
local district attorney general to prosecute police 
officers, authority should be given to the State at­
torney general to pursue such cases when necessa­
ry-

These steps are the minimum necessary to ad­
dress the critical problem of criminal police 
misconduct in Memphis. As stated in the report of 
the President s Commission on l-aw Enforcement 
and Administration of Justice, "The basic problem 
is to assure that prosecutors enforce the criminal 
law as vigorously against public officers as against 
private citizens.” "^ The current process of the of­
fice of the district attorney general in investigating 
possible criminal police misconduct undermines 
this assurance.

Federal Action
The authority and scope of Federal criminal 

prosecution of police misconduct is substantially 
less than that of State and local prosecutors. 
Walter James Cody, III, former member of the 
Memphis City Council, was appointed to the posi­
tion of U.S. Attorney for the Western District of 
Tennessee in April 1977. At the Commission's 
hearing, Mr. Cody described the process whereby 
Federal action may be initiated in response to 
evidence of police misconduct.

Both the local U.S. attorney and the U.S. De­
partment of Justice, Civil Rights Division, have the

authority to request the Federal Bureau of In­
vestigation to prepare a preliminary investigation 
of alleged police misconduct. Mr. Cody stated that 
this is done either in response to a complaint or 
at the initiative of the U.S. attorney. Additionally, 
the Civil Rights Division may initiate an investiga­
tion with or without the input of the local U.S. at­
torney. If probable ctiuse is found that a violation 
has been committed, either the U.S. attorney, the 
Civil Rights Division, or the two offices working in 
concert c;m seek an indictment from the Federtil 
grand jury."-' The principal Federtil crimintil 
statute with regtird to police misconduct is IS 
U.S.C. §242. This Itiw prohibits the deprivation:

...under color of any law...of any rights, 
privileges, or immunities secured or protected 
by the Constitution or laws of the United 
States...on account of such inhabitant being 
an alien or by reason of his color or race."”

Historically, there have been few Federal 
prosecutions of police officers for misconduct 
under this or any other Federal statute. For exam­
ple, in 1975 out of 9,()()() complaints received na­
tionwide by the U.S. Department of Justice, only 
40 police otlicers taced eventual prosecution."' 
This figure includes all complaints of official 
misconduct for which there is a Federal law 
proscribing the misconduct alleged in the com­
plaints.'"*

In a 10-year period from 1967 to 1977, there 
was only one Federal indictment for police 
misconduct sought by western district U.S. attor­
neys. The grand jury returned an indictment in this 
instance against two Memphis police officers in­
volved in the killing of a Memphis citizen while 
the officers were on duty. Both officers were sub­
sequently acquitted of the charge.""

There are various factors that account for the 
historical lack ot Federal action regarding criminal 
police misconduct. One such factor is the judicial 
interpretation of IS U.S.C. §242 that requires 
proof of wilful and intentional actions to deprive 
a person of his constitutional rights in order to 
support a conviction under §242. The U.S. 
Supreme Court in Screws i-. United States in­
terpreted the statute to require that the prosecutor 
prove not merely that the defendant had beaten a 
helpless prisoner to death, but that "To convict it 
was necessary for them to find that petitioners had 
the purpose to deprive the prisoner of a consti-

75

1065



s

tional right....” '-" Another factor has been the pol­
icy of the U.S. Department of Justice to defer to 
local authorities for prosecution any cases of po­
lice abuse under State law prior to involvement, if 
any, by the Department o f Justice.

Recent developments, on both the national and 
local level, indicate that the dormant Federal ju­
risdiction over police misconduct will begin to be 
exercised, U.S. Attorney Cody has indicated his in­
tention to order investigations and to prosecute 
appropriate instances o f police misconduct by 
Memphis officers.''" Evidence of this intention was 
illustrated by the presentment to the grand jury 
and the subsequent indictment of a police officer 
accused of beating a person incident to an ar­
rest.A dditionally , U.S. Attorney Cody has been 
quoted as saying;

The FBI is investigating numerous complaints 
that have been received, and if it appears at 
the end of those investigations that violations 
of the law have occurred, then they will be 
presented to the grand jury.''"'

On the national level, U.S. Attorney General 
Griffin Bell has stated that the Department of 
Justice will no longer automatically defer to local 
jurisdictions for prosecutions of police misconduct. 
The Department will, in appropriate instances, 
take Federal action with or without prosecution at 
the local level. Evidence of the Department’s in­
terest in police misconduct was illustrated by the 
meeting of Drew S. Days, 111, Assistant Attorney 
General, Civil Rights Division, with black leaders 
in M em p h is .M r. Days came to Memphis in Au­
gust 1977 at the request of Mr. Cody subsequent 
to the shooting deaths of four black Memphians.

The general concern o f the U.S. Department of 
Justice and the specific actions of Mr. Cody are 
applauded by the Tennessee Advisory Committee. 
These developments represent the few, if not only, 
meaningful and concerted efforts at combating po­
lice misconduct in Memphis. At the same time, it 
is extremely regrettable and a sad reflection upon 
the Memphis community and its leadership that 
Federal prosecution of police misconduct, a very 
limited remedy at best, represents the most viable 
attempt at abating this community affliction.

Civil Suits
In the President’s Task Force Report: The Police, 

the following findings are made, 'which illustrate 
the limited nature and impact o f civil suits as a 
means to combat police misconduct;

While civil cases are more frequent than 
criminal cases, particularly in large cities, civil 
litigation also has serious difficulties. The 
chief witnesses are still likely to be the alleged 
victim and the officer. Even if a victim is suc­
cessful, the officer may not be able to pay the 
judgment. Unless the prospect of payment is 
substantial, there is little incentive for the vic­
tim to incur the costs of investigation and 
counsel’-''* necessary to the suit or for counsel 
to take the case on a contingent fee basis.'-"

The effect of the threat of possible civil liabili­
ty upon police policy is not very great. In the 
first place, plaintiffs are seldom able to sustain 
a successful lawsuit because of the expense 
and the fact that juries are not likely to have 
compassion for a guilty, even if abused, plain­
tiff. Insurance is also now available along with 
other protective methods that insulate the in­
dividual officer from financial loss.

The attitude of the police administrator is to 
try to protect his man or the municipality 
from civil liability even though he may 
privately be critical of the actions of the of­
ficer. Usually legal counsel will instruct the 
police administrator to suspend departmental 
disciplinary proceedings because they might 
prejudice the litigation.

Even in the unusual case where an individual 
is able successfully to gain a money judgment 

. in an action brought against a police officer or 
governmental unit, this does not cause a 
reevaluation of departmental policy or prac­
tice.

In general, it seems apparent that civil litiga­
tion is an awkward method of stimulating 
proper law enforcement policy. At most, it 
can furnish relief for the victim of clearly im­
proper practices. To hold the individual of­
ficer liable in damages as a way of achieving 
systematic reevaluation of police practices 
seems neither realistic nor desirable."*’

There have been a few limited successes in com­
bating police misconduct in Memphis through 
resort to civil legal remedies. The most notable 
was a consent decree enjoining the illegal police 
practice of automatic “ field interrogations” (i.e., 
random stop and frisk questioning) of all black 
males in certain Memphis neighborhoods without 
reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe 
that a crime had been or was being committed."*" 
The failures and frustrations, however, have far 
outdistanced the successes. The following state­
ment o f Bruce Kramer, private attorney and

76 10(56



cooperating counsel with the American Civil 
Liberties Union o f Tennessee, reflects the consen­
sus o f other attorneys heard by the Tennessee Ad­
visory Committee and the Commission:'^®

Most o f your witnesses...are people who have 
records and do not make the ideal witness. 
The juries cannot relate to them.

The defendants are [individual] police officers 
and...you [must] get by certain Supreme 
Court rulings [to] get the officials o f the po­
lice department.

And it comes down to a question o f whether 
or not there is reasonable force used under 
the circumstances; I think Jurors are reluctant 
to find, except in the most flagrant situations, 
that there was excessive force.

In those rare instances where you get by the 
jury or the defendants have failed to ask for 
a jury trial, the awards have been very small.

The plaintiffs have a feeling that the principles 
have been vindicated, but they are not com ­
pensated for the 2- or 3-year wait and the 
abuse and anxiety that they have gone 
through."*® °

Clearly, civil remedies for police misconduct, in­
itially limited in scope, have proved to be largely 
ineffective in practice as well. Nonetheless, resort 
to civil remedies for police misconduct should be 
increased and funds should be found to support 
them, if for no other reason than the fact that few 
other viable remedies currently exist. It is evident, 
if regrettable, that such action is necessary in
Memphis to forward positive changes in police 
conduct.

Notes to Chapter 6

1. Robert James, chairman. Law Enforcement Committee, 
Memphis City Council, testimony before the U.S. Commission 
on Civil Rights, hearing, Memphis, May 9 , 1977 , transcript p 
276 (hereafter cited as Hearing Transcript).

2 . President s Commission on Law Enforcement and Adminis­
tration o f Justice Tar* Force Report: The Police. Washington,
O C .:  Government Printing Office, 1967 (hereafter cited as The 
Police).

3 .Ibid., p. 193.

4,lbid.. pp. 193 -94 .

5 .Ibid., p. 198.

6.For detailed analysis and commentary on effectiveness o f  ex- 
temal review, see. The Police, chap. 2, "External Controls," pp, 
3 0 -3 5  and chap. 5, “ Ensuring Fairness.”  pp. 1 9 3 -205 .

7.Agreement between city o f Memphis and Memphis Police As­
sociation. effective July 1, 1974 (hereafter cited as 1974 Union 
Contract). See chap. 3 for discussion o f the Memphis Police 
Association.

8 .Inspector Robert Wilkinson. lAB commander, stated that 
charges o f  police misconduct initiated internally without citizen 
complaint represent less than 5 percent o f  the total lAB in­
vestigations. Telephone interview, Aug, 3, 1977. (hereafter 
cited as Wilkinson Interview.) In referencing the data in exhibit 
4 (which, among other things, lists the total number o f com ­
plaints investigated by the lA B ) the complaints arc. therefore 
termed "citizen com plaints" for the sake o f general reference. ’

9 . Robert Wilkinson, interview in Memphis, May 4, 1977 
(hereafter cited as Wilkinson Interview).

10. M PD Disciplinary Action Report, nos. 77123 and 77125.

M ^Memphis Police Department: Policies and Regulations, May

k

K-

r

12. Wilkinson Interview.

13. Wilkinson Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. 198 -204 ; W il­
kinson Interview. ’

14.1974 union contract, art. XII. sec. 5.

No member shall be ordered to submit lo  a polygraph (lie-detec­
tor) test for any reason. Such lest may be offered by Police Ad­
ministration or independently requested by the officer.

15.Ibid., art. XII, sec. 4 ,,subsec. H.

If a member is under arrest or is likely to be, that is, if he is a 
susfKct or the target o f  a criminal investigation, the investigation 

^  turned over to the appropriate investigative bureau and 
the olTicer shall he given his rights pursuant lo the Miranda deci­
sion or applicable law If a member chooses to invoke his protec­
tion under the Miranda decision at that time, that member will 
not be subject to charges o f insubordination or failure to 
cooperate for that reason alone.

16 .Ibid., art. XII, sec, 7.

Before Internal Affairs interrogates an officer as a direct result o f 
\ ®  whose identity is known, that citizen
should be required to sign a sworn affidavit, clearly slating the al- 
egation. a copy o f which shall be provided to the officer at the 

iim6 o f  ih€ interrogation.

17.Wendell L. Robinson, captain, MPD lAB , telephone inter­
view, Aug. I I , 1977 (hereafter cited as Robinson Interview).

IS.Agreement between city o f Memphis and Memphis Police
Association, effective July I, 1977 (hereafter cited as 1977 
Unioh CofUraci).

19.Ibid., drt. X V , sec. 4, subsec. H.

If a member is under arrest or is likely to be. that if he is a 
suspect or the target o f  a criminal investigation, the investigation 
shall ^  conducted by the Internal Affairs Bureau with the adviso- 
ry and technical assistance o f  any appropriate investigative bureau 
deeined necessary, and the officer shall be given his rights pur- 
suani to the Miranda decision or applicable law. Such advisory 
and technical assistance personnel from ih proper investigative 
bureau shall not be physically involved in the interrogation 
process. If a member chooses to invoke his protection under the 
Miranda decision at that lime, that member will not be subject lo 
auTre'* '"subordination or failure lo cixiperale for that reason

2 0 .Robert Wilkinson, telephone interview, Aug. 2, 1977.

21 .Steven Brown, telephone interview, Aug. 2, 1977.

22 .1977 Union Contract, art. X V , sec. 5.

10B7 77



2 3 .Memphis Police Department, General Order 1 2 -76 , 
“ Internal Discipline" (M ar. 18, 1976) (hereafter cited as GO  
1 2 -76 ).

24 .Ibid., sec. 3, subsec. A .

25. Chapman Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. 3 1 3 -1 4 .

26. John Holt, former acting chief, currently deputy chief, in­
vestigative services division, telephone interview, Aug. 3, 1977.

27. G O  1 2 -7 6 , sec. 3, subsec. D.

28 .Ibid., sec. 3, subsec. J.

2 9 . Chapman Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 314.

30 . Memphis, Tennessee, Code, Civil Service, chap. 12, § § I 2 -  
18(c).

31.1977 Union Contract.

32.“ O f the forty-five major U.S. cities, thirty-three (7 3 .33  per­
cent) have more police per thousand than Memphis. Addi­
tionally, M emphis has 1.13 less police per square mile (i.e., 
4 .32] than the national average....”  U.S. Department o f  Justice, 
Community Relations Service, "M em phis, Tennessee Police 
Project" ( 1 9 7 4 ) , p. 1.

'M.CommercutI Appeal, “ For the Next A ct”  (editorial), Aug. 6 , 
1977, p. 6.

34.See discussion in chap. 2.

3S.Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 , 277 (1 9 6 8 ) .

36.Sm  1977 Union Contract, art. X V , sec. 1.

37 .392  U.S. at 2 7 7 -7 8 .

38. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U .S, 49 3 , 500  (1 9 6 7 ) .

39. Chapman Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. 3 0 6 -0 7 . 

40.1bid., p. 307.

4 1 . L E A A  Grant No. 72A 47R  05 5 4 ; Grantee; Memphis Police 
Department; Title: “ Development o f an Internal Polygraph 
Capability” ; Award Date: Oct. 26 , 1973.

42. “ Memphis Police Department: A  Police O fficer,”  
(recruitment brochure), undated. Submitted in response to U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights subpena.

43 .392  U.S. at 278 .

4 4 . M.

45 . GaiTity v. New  Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ; Spevack v. 
Klein, 385 U .S . 511 (1 9 6 7 ) ; and Gardner v. Broderick, 392  
U.S. 273 (1 9 6 8 ) .

46 .392  U .S. at 279 .

47 .385  U.S. at 500 .

48 .392  U.S. at 2 7 7 -7 8 .

49 .392  U.S. at 278 .

50 . Article X V , sec. 4 , subsec. J.

5 1. Kent Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. I & l .

52 . Wilkinson Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 181.

53 . Chapman Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 308.

5 4 .Ibid., p. 309.

5 5 . The Police, p. 194.

5 6 . Based on lAB data, supplied pursuant to Commission sub­
pena, o f the 1,126 complaints investigated by the lAB from 
Jan. 1, 1974, through Apr. 29, 1977, 382 o f the complaints 
have alleged physical abuse, or 34 percent o f the total. See ex­
hibit 6 for complaints o f  police misconduct by lAB category 
that have been investigated by the lAB.

5 7 .See, generally, the summary o f testimony o f representatives 
o f private and public service organizations, chap. 5.

5 8 .Wilkinson Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 185.

5 9 .See summary o f A .C . Wharton, executive director, Memphis 
and Shelby Legal Services Association, testimony, chap. 5.

6 0 .Kent Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 184—85.

6 1 .Ibid., p. 183.

62.Chapm an Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. 3 0 0 -2 7 .

6 3 .Ibid.

6 4 .The Police, p. 174.

65.1bid.

66.1bid., p. 175.

6 7 . Wilkinson Interview.

6 8 . The Police, p. 195.

69.lbid.

70.Chapman Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 317.

7 1 .Ibid., p. 318.

7 2 . A t the Commission hearing. Inspector Wilkinson testified 
that he did not have the exact statistics available, but he be­
lieved that o f the complaints investigated by the lAB for which 
he had made a written finding to the director that the investiga­
tion had revealed that complaints were founded, approximately 
50 percent did not result in any form of disciplinary action 
(Hearing Transcript, p. 205 ). Director Chapman, during his 
testimony before the Commission, questioned Inspector Wilkin­
son’s opinion, stating that, “ I would say it’s probably more 
like...20  to 25 percent....”  (Hearing Transcript, p. 306). Inspec­
tor Wilkinson was subsequently contacted to clarify his state­
ment. He said that a review o f his records disclosed that the 
procedure o f informing the director whether a complaint was 
“ founded”  or “ unfounded”  was initiated in October 1976, and 
through May 8, 1977, 53 percent of the founded complaints 
had not resulted in any disciplinary action. Telephone inter­
view, Aug. 2, 1977.

73 . Chapman Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 306.

74.1bid.

7 5 .Commercial Appeal, Aug. 23 , 1977, p. 11.

76.See discussion chap. 2.

7 7 .See discussion chap. 4.

78.See statements and testimony o f city council members, 
chap. 5.

79.Halloran Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 289.

80.lbid ., p. 290.

78



8 1 .Memphis, Tennessee, Code, Civil Service, chap. 1 2 , § 1 2 -2 .

82 .See, e.g., testimony o f Herman Ewing, discussed in chap. 5 
and Commercial Appeal, Aug. 9 , 1977, "W h o  Runs Police” 
(editorial).

8 3 .Walter Evins, former C R C  Chairman, interview in Memphis 
Apr. 21, 1977. ’

Press Scimilar, Oct. 12, 1976.

85 .Memphis, Tennessee, Code, Civil Service, chap. 12.

86.1bid., § 1 2 -1 8 .

8 7 . Fargarson Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 222..

8 8 . Hardy Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 229 .

8 9 . Fargarson Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 230 ; And see 
Memphis Code, §  12 - 6 ( 2).

Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp.

91. Ibid.

9 2 . Hardy Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 232 .

93 . Commercial Appeal, Aug. 7 , 1977, p. B -2 .

9 4 . Fargarson and Hardy Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 228.

9 5 . Hardy Testimony. Hearing Transcript, p. 227 . Note: figure 
IS as o f date o f  Commission Hearing, May 9 , 1977.

96.See discussion, chap. 6.

91 .Commercial Appeal, Aug. 10, 1977, p. 29.

9 8 .Wade Hardy, interview in Memphis, Apr. 2 8 , 1977.

99.1bid.

l(X).Robert Fargarson, interview in Memphis, May 5, 1977.

101 . T/te Police, p. 198.

102. Hugh Stanton, interview in Memphis, May 3, 1977.

103.Stanton Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 130.

10 4 .Ibid., p. 133.

105.Ibid., p. 139.

106. Ibid.

10 7 .Ibid., p. 128.

108.Ibid., pp. 12 8 -2 9 .

109.lbid„ p. 129.

1 10. Ibid.

111.Ibid., p. 132.

112.Robinson Interview.

1 13.See, The Police, p. 198.

I14.lbid.

1 l5,C ody Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. I 18 -19 .

116.“ W hoever under color o f  any law., statute, ordinance, regu­
lation, or custom , willfully subjects any inhabitant o f  any State, 
Territory, or District to the deprivation o f any rights, privileges.

or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws 
o f the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or 
penalties, on account o f such inhabitant being an alien, or by 
reason o f his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punish­
ment o f  citizens, shall be fined not more than $1 ,000 or im­
prisoned not more than one year, or both; and if death results 
shall be subjected to imprisonment for any term o f years or for 
life.”

117.The statistics cited originate from national statistics 
prepared for inclusion in the Annual Report o f the Attorney 
General. ^

1 18 .Statistics are not kept for the number o f complaints 
received that allege only police misconduct. According to W il­
liam H. Stapleton, U.S. Department o f  Justice, Civil Rights 
Division, the greater majority o f the complaints involve allega­
tions o f  criminal police misconduct. Telephone interview, Aug. 
2, 1977; and Drew S. Days, III, Assistant Attorney General, 
Civil Rights Division, letter to Mark G . Schneider, Aug. 17  ̂
1977. (hereafter cited as Days Letter).

1 19.Nancy Gunter, legal technician. Office o f U.S. Attorney, 
Western District o f  Tennessee, telephone interview Aug 5 1977. . g. J,

120.325 U.S. 91 , 107.

121. Cody Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. 120, 149 -50 .

122. Comm eraa/ Appeal, Aug. 18, 1977, p. 27. On Oct. 13, 
1977, a second indictment alleging beating o f a victim by a 
Memphis police officer was returned in the case o f United 
States V. Edwin Currie.

123. Commercray Appeal, Aug. 18, 1977, p. 27.

124.1bid.

125. The Civil Rights Attorney Fees Awards Act o f 1 9 7 6 " (42  
U.S.C. § 1 9 8 8 )  now authorizes a federal court, in its discretion 
to award the winning party to certain suits (e .g., 42  U.S.C. 
§1 9 8 3 ; this statute, which mirrors the federal criminal statute 
(18  U .S.C . §2 4 2 )  is the most frequently used law for civil 
redress o f  police misconduct) reasonable attorney’s fees as part 
o f the costs o f  bringing the suit. This law should increase the 
use o f federal courts for vindication o f rights. However, other 
obstacles to successful suit on police misconduct charges still 
prevail as stated.

126. The Police, p. 199.

\2~J.The Police, p. 32.

12 8 .Kramer Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp. 163 -64 .

129 .See also, Arnold Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, pp.
1 8 7 -2 2 2 ; Wharton Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, pp! 
3 5 ^4 5 ^^ ’ Testimony, Hearing Transcript, pp.

130 .Kramer Testimony, Hearing Transcript, p. 159 -60 .

lOGfl 79



Chapter 7

USE OF DEADLY FORCE

Tennessee law establishes the right of police o f­
ficers to use whatever force necessary, presumably 
even deadly force, to make an arrest. The law 
reads;

If, after notice of the intention to arrest the 
defendant, he either fiee or forceably resist, 
the officer may use all the necessary means to 
effect the arrest.'

The written policies of the Memphis Police De­
partment address an officer’s right to use force 
given certain restrictions. Those policies arc cited 
here in their entirety;

Use of Force; Officers arc confronted daily 
with situations where control must be exer­
cised to effect arrests and to protect the 
public safety. Control may be achieved 
through advice, warnings, and persuasion, or 
by the use of physical force. While the use of 
reasonable physical force may be necessary in 
situations which cannot be otherwise con­
trolled, force may not be resorted to unless 
other reasonable alternatives have been ex­
hausted or would clearly be ineffective under 
the particular circumstances. Officers are per­
mitted to use whatever force that is reasona­
ble and necessary to protect others or them­
selves from bodily harm.-*

Self Defense and Defense of Others; The law 
of justifiable homicide authorizes an officer to 
use deadly force when it is necessary to pro­
tect himself or others from what reasonably 
appears as an immediate threat o f great bodily 
harm or from imminent peril o f death. The 
policy o f the Department does not limit that 
law. Under certain specified conditions, deadly 
force may be exercised against a fleeing 
felon.’’ [emphasis added)

Nowhere in the department’s I’olicies and Regu­
lations arc those “ certain specified conditions" 
written. It might assume that conditions cited in 
the first paragraph, “ Use of Force”  apply. But that 
is not stated. The results of such broad State law 
and departmental policies appear to have been the 
frequent use of deadly force by Memphis police 
officers; use primarily employed against black

Memppians. The department’s own statistics ' 
show that in the two persons killed by Mem­
phis police were black men. In 1970, 1 I men were 
killed and 8 were black; in 1971 no one was 
killed; in 1972, 2 persons were killed during the 
first 14 days of the year and both were black 
(statistics for the remainiler of 1972 were not 
available). In 197.7, 5 persons were killed. MPD 
statistics for 197.7 did not list the victims’ race. Of 
the 7 persons killed m 1974, 5 were black; in 
1975, 8 men killed, 7 were black; in 1976, 4 men 
were killed, 2 were black. In 1977 in the course 
of 5 weeks, July I 7 to August I 7, 5 persons were 
killed by Memphis police and all were black.'’ Ex­
hibit 7 displays the race and sex of persons killed 
in MPD shootings from 1969 through 1976 and 
also the “ overt act or reason" given for the 
shootings in the MPD reports.

The MPD statistics for 1974, 1975, and 1976 re­
ported shootings of suspects that involved both in­
juries and deaths. A simple display of the number 
of persons injured in police shootings shows that 
blacks are the victims in numbers disproportionate 
to the size of the black population in Memphis and 
the numbers of blacks arrested. The race and sex 
of persons injured in police shootings in 1974, 
1975, and 1976 is shown in table 4.

Phillip Arnold, member of the board of directors 
of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennes­
see and an attorney, cited statistics which he said 
clearly showed that the frequent use of firearms by 
Memphis police affect blacks more than whites 
and is, in all probability, racially motivated;

...we looked at its [use of deadly force] appli­
cation and we found that 58 percent of the 
persons arrested in the city of Memphis are 
black; but of those persons, against whom 
deadly force was employed — that is, who the 
police shot at—87 percent were black.

We got a statistition...and his analysis was that 
there was only one chance in ten thousand 
mathematical probability that race was not the 
factor in these disparate statistics.”

19

191

19

19

19

19

1!

80

107fi



EXHIBIT 7

Report of Persons Killed In Shootings By Memphis Police 1969-1976

Year Type Call
1969

Overt Acf/Reason
Suspect’s

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1,
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

10.
11.

Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Still watch
Still watch
Unknown

Assault on citizen, attempted on officer 
Fleeing burglar 
Fleeing burglar
Fleeing armed robber, shot at officers 
Resisting arrest
Resisting arrest, pointed gun at officers 
Fleeing burglar
Fleeing armed robber, pointed gun at officers 
Fleeing scene of shooting 
Shot at officers 
Armed robber 
Armed robber 
Fleeing burglar 

No one killed in shootings by police officers in 1971 
(Statistics reported only for January 1-14 1972)

1. Unknown
2. Unknown
1. Shooting
2. Shooting
3. Armed person
4. High Speed Auto
5. Armed person
1. Burglary
2. Prowler
3. Hold-up
4. Assault
5. Prowler
6. Shooting
7. Unknown
1. Personal crime
2. Personal crime
3. Property crime
4. Property crime
5. Personal crime
6. Personal crime
7. Property crime
8. Personal crime
1. Property crime
2. Property crime
3. Personal crime
4. .. Personal crime

Fleeing burglar 
Fleeing—car theft 
Pointed rifle at officer 
Fired at officers 
Pointed rifle 
Unknown 
Shot officer 
Burglary 
Burglary 
AR
Pointed gun at officers
Burglary
Fired at officer
AR
Self defense 
Self defense 
Fleeing felon 
Fleeing felon 
Self defense 
Self defense 
Fleeing felon 
Self defense 
Fleeing felon 
Fleeing felon 
Self defense
Self defense

TOTAL: 39 persons killed, 39 males, 26 black, 8 white, 5 race unknown

Sex Race
M B
M B
M B
M W
M B
M W
M B
M B
M B
M W
M B
M B
M B

M B
M B
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
M B
M B
M W
M B
M B
M B
M W
M B
M B
M W
M B
M B
M B
M B
M B
M B
M B
M W
M W

'. Chapman, Septem-
October 3 1Q77 f h o c l ' ’ 'nspecior, memo to Police Director E. W. Chapman

f S i S  '°n ^ iT 3T Js n̂ t“ „ « e d ‘’in the’ S  re p o ts "  ” " ''" '’ '" ’

1071



'I

i it

 ̂ ' 
!

( i
J ! ii

,n:i
• i li

•r :

ii

Female Total
Black White Black White

1974 ■ 10 1 1 0 12
1975 11 3 2 0 16
1976 8 0 1 0 9
Total 29 4 4 0 37

An article by Gerald Robin in the Journal o f  
Criminal Law, Criminolof>y and I’olicc Science on a 
study of police use of firearms concluded that the 
frequent use of firearms is largely due to 
overemphasis on the danger in police work. The 
study cited statistics that showed the rate of police 
fatalities as 33 per 1 ()(),()()() officers compared to 
a death rate of 94 per 100,000 in mining, 76 per 
100,000 in construction, and 55 per 100,000 in 
agriculture.’

The report of the President’s Commission on 
Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice 
states, "It is essential that all departments formu­
late written firearms policies which clearly limit 
their use to situations o f strong and compelling 
need."" The guidelines recommended for firearms 
control, which were developeil by the Presiilential 
Commission after review of the policies of several 
police departments and discussions with numerous 
police administrators, are reprinted here in there 
entirety;

1. Deadly force should be restricted to the ap­
prehension of perpetrators who, in the course 
of their crime threateneil the use of detidly 
force, or if the officer believes there is a sub­
stantial risk that the person whose arrest is 
sought will cause death or serious bodily htirm 
if his apprehension is delayed. The use of 
firearms should be flatly prohibited in the ap­
prehension of misdemeanants, since the value 
of human life far outweighs the gravity ttf a 
misdemeanor.

2. Deadly force should never be used on mere 
suspicion that a crime, no matter how serious, 
was committed or that the person being pur­
sued committed the crime. An officer should 
either have witnessed the crime or should

have sufficient information to know, as a vir­
tual certainty, that the suspect committed an 
offense for which the use of deadly force is 
permissible.

3. Officers should not be permitted to fire at 
felony suspects when lesser force could he 
used; when the officer believes that the 
suspect can be apprehended reasonably soon 
thereafter without the use of deadly force; or 
when there is any substantial danger to in­
nocent bystanders. Although the requirement 
of using lesser force, when possible, is a legal 
rule, the other limitations are based on sound 
public policy. To risk the life of innocent per­
sons for the purpose of apprehending a felon 
cannot be justified.
4. Officers should never use warning shots for 
any purpose. Warning shots endanger the lives 
of bystanders, anti in addition, may prompt a 
suspect to return the fire. Further, officers 
should never fire from a moving vehicle.

5. Officers should be allowed to use any 
necessary force, including deadly force, to 
protect themselves or other persons from 
death or serious injury. In such cases, it is im­
material whether the attacker has committed 
a serious felony, a misdemeanor, or any criitie 
at all.

6. In ortler to enforce firearms use policies, 
department regulations should require a 
detailed written report on all discharges of 
firearms. All cases should he thoroughly in- 
vestigateil to determine whether the use of 
firearms was justified under the circum­
stances."

Police officers themselves would benefit from 
very specific firearms policies. They would be 
aware ot the kinds of circumstances where their 
use of firearms or of deadly force would be sup-

K2

1072.



4

ported by their police department. Without a very 
specific policy, as outlined above, the officer is 
vulnerable to the subjective interpretation of his or 
her police administrators whose interpretations 
may be inconsistent.

In 1972 Congressman Harold Ford of Memphis, 
then a State representative, introduced legislation 
(HB 1639) to replace the current Tennessee law 
that governs a police officer’s right to use all 
means necessary to effect the arrest.'® Mr. Ford’s 
bill included two of the major points made in the 
Presidential Commission guidelines (1 and 5).

The Memphis Police Department is not 
restricted by Tennessee law from promulgating 
detailed guidelines regarding the use of firearms 
and of deadly force. The law reads “ the officer 
may use all the necessary means....’ ’ It certainly 
does not compel an officer to use firearms or 
deadly force.

Notes to Chapter 7

1. Tenn. Code. Ann., ch. 40 , §808 .

2. City o f  Memphis, Memphis Police Department, Policies and 
Regulations, May 1975, p. 5.

3. Ibid., p. 9.

4 . Steve Cohen, police legal advisory, memorandum to Police 
Director E .W . Chapman, Sept. 8. 1977, and Lt. E. Brown, 
M PD staff inspector, memorandum to Police Director E W . 
Chapman, Oct. 3. 1977.

5. Commercial Appeal, Aug. 18, 1977, p. 1, and Aug. 19, 1977 
p. 25

6. Arnold Statement, Open Meeting Transcript, p. 192.

7. U.S. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and A d ­
ministration o f Justice, Task Force Report: The Police (1 9 6 7 ) , 
p. 189.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid., pp. 18 9 -9 0 .

10. Mike Honey, southern director. National Committee 
Against Repressive Legislation, to Concerned Individuals and 
Organizations in Tennes.sec, Feb. 29 , 1972.

83



PART 9: Excerpt from A
Community Concern; Po lice  
Use o f Deadly Force

1074



T» W'tf

THE CONCERNS OF THE POLICE FOUNDATION 
Patrick V. Murphy 

President

The Police Foundation has had a continuing interest in the study of 
police use of deadly force. The authority to use ‘ Je nios
distinctive characteristic of policing; how a police department uses 
force affects its relationship with the community arid its mission to 
provide humane, productive law enforcement. Lack of restraint i 
ihc use of force, particularly deadly force, is a telling ^>8" 
management and supervision of a police department By the same 
token, a police department which controls the use of force thi-oug 
clearly stated policies, training, and exacting supervision is almost
certainly an effective agency. . . , • r

To date, the foundation’s major effort in dealing with the 
deadly force has been support for the two years of research which l"d 
to publication of the foundation’s report. Po/uj Use o f  Dead^i 
Force, discussed in the following pages. Police Foundation board 
and staff believe this report is among the foundation s most 
significant efforts, not because the report is definitive, which it is not 
but because it has contributed to an important, growing debate on the 
issue of deadly force and to a rapidly developing body of research on

To further debate and research, the foundation is pleased to be able 
to contribute to this document the following literature review on 
police use of deadly force. This review marks the first comprehensive 
examination of empirical research available on the subject.

m -.

67

1075



SUM M ARY OF RESEARCH ON THE POLICE USE OF 
DEADLY FORCE

Cynthia G. Sulton and Phillip Cooper 
Program Dircdor and Researcher, The Police Foundation

In 1977, the Police Foundation published a report entitled Police 
Use o f  Deadly Force, which presented the results of research by 
Police Foundation staff and police officers from Washington, D.C., 
and Birmingham, Alabama.' The Police Foundation continues to 
view police use of deadly force as an important research topic worthy 
of further analysis. In continuance of this interest. Police Foundation 
staff have analyzed the empirical studies conducted on the topic, 
some of which were prepared subsequent to the Foundation’s report. 
An annotated bibliography on police use o f deadly force is presented 
as an appendix to this review.

This review summarizes several leading studies of police use of 
deadly force. Three types of data sets are analyzed in this review; 
national trend data; single-city data, which demonstrates the 
circumstances and ramifications of police use of deadly force in 
specific cities; multiple-city and state data, which permit comparisons 
among several cities and regions within a state. A few studies contain 
two or three of the data set types analyzed and therefore these studies 
appear in more than one section of the review. Finally, the common 
elements in the studies, are noted, particularly the significance of 
several generally recognized variables thought to characterize or 
explain police use of deadly force.

m

{■i.

National Trend Data

The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Division of 
Violent Statistics (U.S. Public Health Service) indicates that 3,082 
citizensdied between 1968 and 1976 asa result of'Megal intervention.” 
Included in the NCHS statistics are all reported civilian fatalities at 
the hands of law enforcement officers. The vast majority of these 
deaths were caused by firearms discharged by police officers. An 
average of 342 citizens were reported killed each year, with the 
percentage of deaths among nonwhites remaining almost constant at 
51 percent per year. These statistics can be contrasted with data for 
the periods 1960 to 1967 and 1950 to 1959. In the former period an 
average of 268 citizens were killed per yearfKobler, 1957a) and an 
average of 240 in the latter period (Robin, 1963). These data suggest 
that civilian fatalities at the hands of the police increased significantly 
during the 18 years reviewed (See Tables 1 and 2).

A second recognizable trend is that nonwhite Americans comprise 
between 47 and 50 percent of the fatally injured (NCHS, 1978; 
Harringet al., 1977; Kobler, 1975a; Kobler, 1975b; and Robin, 1963).

1076
69



TABLE 1
C ivilian  D eaths by L egal Intervention 1952-i969 

United  S i ates Public Health  Service
V l EAL S'EA EISI ICS

Year

Total
Civilian
Deaths

White Male 
Deaths

Number %

Nonwhite Male 
Deaths

Number %

1952 256 128 50 125 49
1953 255 124 48 130 51
1954 244 130 53 112 46
1955 227 111 49 114 50
1956 226 123 54 103 46
1957 228 119 52 109 48
1958 229 111 49 117 51
1959 227 109 48 117 52
I960 245 124 51 118 48
1961 237 132 56 103 43
1962 184 88 48 94 51
1963 242 111 46 129 53
1964 in 131 47 143 51
1965 271 154 57 117 43
1966 298 150 50 144 48
1967 387 200 52 182 47
1968 350 163 46 I8I 52
1969 354 160 45 190 54

Source: Arthur L. Koblcr, “ Police Homicide in a Dcmocracy"r

Female 
Deaths 

Number %

TABLE 2

C ivilian  D eaths by L egal Intervention i968-I976 
National C enter for H ealth Statistics

Total Civilian 
Deaths

White Civilian Nonwhite Civilian

Year
Deaths

Number %
Deaths

Number %
1968 343 159 46 184 54
1969 347 158 46 189 54
1970 329 154 47 176 53
1971 409 214 52 198 48
1972 296 132 45 164 55
1973 372 185 50 187 50
1974 370 183 49 187 51
1975 330 177 54 153 46
1976 286 146 51 140 49

Source: Unpublished NCHS statistics

i c n i IS)



“ Justifiable Homicides by Police” by Gerald D.
Robin^

As part of a study in which he collected extensive data relating to 
pohce^killings of criminals in Philadelphia, Gerald Robin conducted 
some analyses of national statistics on police. Using National Centcr 
of Health Statistics data, the author notes that natiotia y during tl 
neriod 1950 to 1959 the average number of citizens killed by po ice 
officers was S o .  Four4 years-1950, 1955, 1956, 1957-4he author 
obtained national data on the race and sex of fatal police victims. 
Forty-nine percent of the victims were black, and blacks were victims 
seve^ times as often as whites. All but 0.4 percent ot the victims were

" ’ considering concern for the occupational risks of police officers 
Robin analyzed fatality rates from Monthly Labor Review -and 
Uniform Crime Reports and concluded that the occupational risks o 
law enforcement have been exaggerated. The rate of occupationa 
fatalities per 100,000 workers in mining, agriculture, construction 
and transportation exceeded the rate for law enforcement. (SeeTable
3)

TABLE 3

O c c u p a t i o n a l  F a t a l i t i e s  p e r  loo.ooo E m p l o y e e s  
1955

Occupation

Mining 
Agriculture 
Contract Construction 

Manufacturing 
Transportation 

Public Utilities 

Trade
Finance, Service, Govt., Misc.

Law Enforcement

■AIL 1" « r . “ 7r

o fih e  Untied Slates. Colonial Times lo 1957 (Washington. B.C.. ), p.

‘ Calculated from Uniform Crime Reports.

“ A Garrison State in a ‘ Democratic’ Society” by 
Paul TakagF

In response to 1971 mass media reporting o f increasing 
“ assassinations” of law enforcement officers, Paul Takagi conducted 
a comparison study of police officers killed in the line of duty and 
civilians killed by the police. This article presents the findings and

Fatality
Rate per

No. o f No. of 100,000

Employees Fatalities Employees'

748,000 \ 700 93.58

6,730,000 3700 54.97

2,506.000 1900 75.81

16,552,000 2000 12.08

2,722,000 1200 44.08

1,335,000 200 14.98

10,728,000 1100 10.25

14,808,000 2100 14.18

167,862 55 32.76f

71
1078

1- .. ’*4 f r '.-rJ L . ' f .  . f t



I

conclusions o f that 1971 study.
Takagi reports that the FBI reported an increase in the number of 

police officers killed, from 55 in 1963 to 125 in 1971. During the same 
time period there was an increase of more than 50 percent in the totiil 
number of police officers. Consequently, there was no increase in the 
actual rate of death. The rate fluctuated from year to year, peaking in
1967 with 29.9 deaths per 100,000 law enforcement officers, but with 
no apparent trend. Takagi notes further that the number of agencies 
reporting data to the FBI has increased since 1963, suggesting that the 
increased number of reporting agencies has contributed to the 
increase in the number of reported police deaths.

Analyzing the number of deaths among male civilians 10 years old 
or older as a result of “ legal intervention of police,“ Takagi reports a 
gradual increase in the age-adjusted rate for the period 1962 to 1968. 
His comparison of civilian with police death rates shows

. . .  police to be victims of homicides at an annual rate of 
about 25 per hundred thousand/ while citizens are victims 
of killingsatthehandsof police at a rate ofO.5 per 100,000 
males ages ten and over, on the national level, and a rate 
of about 0.8 in California... (p. 29)

Examining the racial disparity of civilian deaths by “ legal 
intervention o f the police,” Takagi concludes.

Between I960 and 1968, police killed 1,188 Black males 
and 1,253 white males in a population in which about ten 
percent are Black. The rates of homicides due to police 
intervention increased over the years for both whites and 
Blacks, but remained consistently at least nine times 
higher for Blacks for the past 18 years, (p. 29)

Takagi maintains that arrest rates among blacks do not explain the 
disparate proportion of deaths in that group. He says that in 1964 and
1968 blacks constituted about 28 percent of total arrests and 51 
percent of the civilian deaths. Further, blacks accounted for 36 
percent of arrests for the major crimes— homicide, rape, robbery, 
aggravated assault, burglary, theft, and auto theft—in 1968 and less 
than 30 percent in 1964, a year when blacks constituted 5 1 percent of 
civilian deaths.

Looking at racial differences in specific ages groups, which he says 
are unlikely to contain “ desperate” criminals, Takagi concludes, “ In 
proportion to population, black youngsters and old men have been 
killed by police at a rate 15 to 30 times greater than that for whites of 
the same age.” (p. 30)

Takagi concludes that police killings are “ manifestations of 
racism" and the increase in law enforcement personnel demonstrates 
America’s movement toward a “garrison state.”

“The Management o f Police Killings” by Sid Harring,
Tony Platt, Richard Speiglman, and Paul Takagi^

In this article, Harring et al. present additional data updating the 
earlier Takagi data. The authors report that deaths by legal i-;

72 l)7n



intervention of police among white male civilians continued in the 
period 1969 to 1972ata ratcofO.2 per 100,000 white males 9 years old 
and older, while the black civilian death rate continued the upward 
trend started around 1962. 1 he highest black civilian death rate ol 2.4 
occurred in 1969. Kates lor both whites and blacks showed a notable 
decrease in 1972,0.18 and 1.81 respectively. Total civilian deaths lor 
1972 were 300, in contrast to412 in 1971. Racial breakdowns for 1973 
and 1974 were not available at the time this report was written, but 
the total civilian deaths for those years were376 and 375, respectively.

For the period 1972-1975 the authors find continued yearly 
fluctuation in the rate to be around 25 deaths per 100,000 police killed 
in the line of duty, with no discernible trend. The rate dropped in 1968 
from the reported high of 29.9 per 100,000 law enforcement officers in 
1967, “ but increased in 1970 and reached an all-time high of 31 deaths 
per 100,000 police officers in 1971.”

The article continues with a critical analysis of other studies of 
police killings o f civilians and an e.xamination o f“ the ideological and 
strategic premises underlying state efforts to manage police killings of 
civilians.” (p. 34)

“ Police Homicide in a Democrary” by Arthur L.
Kobler*

In this article, Kobler reports on the results of a 1970 research 
program which focused on records of about 1,500 civilians killed by 
police and 400 killings of police. Data sources included (1) the U.S. 
Public Health Service’s annual. Vital Statistics, for data on violent 
civilian deaths where police involvement was specified for the years 
1952 through 1969; (2) the FBl’sannual, Uniform Crime Reports, for 
the years 1960 through 1973; and (3) newspaper reports for the period 
1964 through 1969.

Using Vital Statistics data, Kobler reports a marked increase in 
civilians killed by police in recent years, an average of 237 for the 13- 
year period 1952 to 1964 and 332 for the 5-year period 1965 to 1969. 
Dividing Vital Statistics data into more comparable time intervals, 
the increase in civilian deaths remained apparent; an average of 242 
civilian deaths for the 3-year period 1952 to 1954; and for the 5-year 
periods 1955 to 1959, I960 to 1964, and 1965 to 1969, the average 
civilian deaths were 147, 297, and 332 respectively. According to FBI 
data, the number o f police killed has increased from an average of45 
for the 5-year period I960 to 1964 to an average of 67 for the 5-year 
period 1965 to 1969 and to an average of 116 for the 4-year period 
1970 to 1973.

Further analysis of the data which Kobler himself collected showed
Using the threat of death or severe injury to a person as 
criteria for Justifiability of homicide, information on 
about 1,500 incidents form' 1960 through 1970 suggests 
that two-fifths o f the killings were justifiable, one-fifth 
questionable, and two-fifths unjustifiable, (p. 165)

The remainder of the article deals with laws and administrative 
rules regarding police use of force, the absence of penalties for officer

73
1080

■



'A' /S;'

killings of civilians—coroner’s inquest, criminal prosecution and 
trial, and civil suits.

“ Figures (and Perhaps some Facts) on Police 
Killings of Civilians in the United States,
1965-1969” by Arthur L. Kobler’

This article contains the findings regarding fatal incidents 
involving police officers from a study on noncriminal homicides. The 
principal data source for these findings was newspaper reports 
provided by clipping services throughout the nation. By writing to 
officers, attorneys, etc., Kobler obtained data which augmented the 
newspaper data. He examined records on civilians killed by police in 
the 5-year period 1965 through 1969, excluding riot-related killings. 
Comparing his totals to Vital Statistics data, Kobler estimated that 
the 911 incidents analyzed represent 70 percent of the total 
occurrences. This comparison also suggested that Kobler’s data is 
overrepresentative of Pacific area occurrences.

Acknowledging that the data are poor and uncertain for statistical 
tests, Kobler presented the following findings;

The fatal incidents took place most often between9 p.m. and 3 a.m. 
(42 percent), on weekends (35 percent), in the last 6 months of the 
year (two-thirds).

Data on time, day, and month o f police officer deaths were 
strikingly similar to that on civilian deaths.

Three-quarters of the police killings of civilians occurred in urban 
areas, compared with 60 percent for police killed.

In urban areas, minority group members were 57 percent of the 
citizen victims and 57 percent of the killers of police.

In populations areas o f50,000 and smaller, white persons were the 
predominant victims (54 percent) and killers (56 percent).

For all areas, the racial distribution of victims was white, 43 
percent; Spanish-American, 13 percent; black, 42 percent; other 
(Asian and American Indian), 2 percent.

Almost half o f the persons killed were between the ages of 17 and 
27, with a mean of 29 and a median o f 25.5.

The group of civilians killed were younger than the group of 
civilians who killed police; the latter group had a mean age of 31 and 
median age o f 27.

The average age o f both black and Spanish-American victims was 
27, as compared to an average age o f 31 for white victims.

Prior to the fatal encounter, 30 percent of the victims were involved 
in no criminal activity or a misdemeanor; 27 percent were involved in 
property crimes; approximately 20 percent were involved in a 
dangerous felony, most commonly armed robbery; 10 percent were 
threatening others; 7 percent had assaulted others.

More than 30 percent of the incidents where police officers were 
killed began with a misdemeanor or less.

1081 74



After encountering the police, approximately one-half reportedly 
attacked the police and more than one-fourth were reportedly fleeing 
from the police.

One quarter of the victims had no weapons; half had a firearm; 15 
percent had a knife or sharp instrument.

Of the 530 armed victims, 24 percentf 125) either killed or injured a 
police officer and almost 60 percent (315) used their weapons in other 
menacing ways.

The racial distribution o f the police who killed civilians is white, 89 
percent; black 7 percent; Spanish-American, 4 percent.

The racial distribution of police killed is white, 86 percent; black, 
11 percent; Spanish-American, 3 percent.

Most ol police who killed and were killed by civilians had between 
I and 5 years of police experience and were onduty city patrol 
officers.

Seventy percent of the officers reportedly approached the subject 
because they saw or suspected a felony; while one-quarter saw or 
suspected a misdemeanor.

The predominant reasons for police killing the civilian was defense 
o f self from real of imminent danger (more than one-halO and 
prevention of escape of known or suspected felon (more than one- 
quarter).

One quarter of the victims were shot in the back and one-third in 
the head.

Although there were witnesses to 95 percent o f the fatal incidents, 
in only 20 percent were the witnesses independent bystanders as 
opposed to police officers and companions to the victims.

Single-City Data

“Justifiable Homicides by Police Officers” by 
Gerald D. Robin**

Robin analyzed 32 cases of police killings of civilians in 
Philadelphia between 1950 and 1960 (inclusive) to determine their 
justafiability.

The author reviewed all police killings of criminals in Philadelphia 
from 1950 to 1960 using data obtained from the books of the 
homicide unit of the Philadelphia Police Department. According to 
Robin, “ Extensive records were maintained for each case, detailing 
the circumstances under which the killings occurred, various 
characteristics o f the victim-offender, his previous criminal record if 
any, and interviews with witnesses to the homicide as well as friends 
and relatives o f the decedent.” (p. 226) Additionally, the author 
examined the testimony given at th6 medical examiner’s inquest, 
along with police interviews and reports, to create an accurate picture 
of the events surrounding each killing.

108 ,

m

75



'*■■';' n ‘̂Z- m  ‘tJ’r'S'ji

’j'-5v̂ ;wr>:V

*-4-v-̂ ' :>•

Robin collected data on the number of officers who, in the 
performance of their duty, shot and killed a criminal, as well as on the 
number of criminals who were shot and killed; race, age, marital 
status, occupation, instant offense, resistance to arrest, and criminal 
record of victims and offenders; and the time, place, and 
circumstances of the shooting, as well as whether the criminal had 
been warned.

The author found that 42 officers in performance of their duty had 
shot and killed 32 criminals; in 23 cases only 1 officer was responsible 
for the killing; 28 victims were black. Although during the time 
period studied, Philadelphia’s black population was 22 percent of the 
total population, blacks comprised 30.6 percent of the total arrests, 
37.5 percent of the arrests for Part 1 serious offenses, and 87.5 percent 
of the deaths by police officers. The rate of black victims killed 
relative to the total black population was found to be22 times greater 
than the comparable fatality rate among whites. The mean age for 
victims was 27.6 and half of the victims were less than 24 years old. 
The marital status of 27 victims was known to the researcher. Of 
these, 15 were single, 5 were married, 5 were separated, 1 was 
divorced, and 1 was a widower. Of the 30 victims about whom 
information could be obtained, 25 had jobs that required “ no special 
skills or training.” Of 32 victims 28 were shot either during the course 
of a crime, immediately after a crime, or in pursuit. Various degrees 
to resist arrest were used by 25 of the 32 victims. Seven fled from the 
scene of the crime. M ore than 75 percent of the victims had previous 
records; the average number of charges against each individual was 
4.9 for general offenses and 2 .1 for Part 1 offenses. Almost 72 percent 
of the incidents occurred between the hours of 9 p.m. and 9 a.m. 
Finally, in 28 of the 32 cases the victims were warned either verbally, 
by gunshot, or by both before they were killed.

The author relies on his findings to conclude that all the killings in 
Philadelphia were Justifiable.

The context within which the killings occurred, the 
serious crimes for which the V-O’s (victim-offenders) 
were being arrested, their realization of the possible 
consequences of resistance and flight, and the officer’s 
reliance upon fatal force as a last resort— all these things 
make it clear that criminals killed by police officers 
generally are responsible for their own death, (p. 230)

The Police and Their Use o f  Fatal Force in Chicago 
by Ralph Knoohuizen, Richard P. Fahey, and 
Deborah J. Palmer^

Knoohuizen et al. (1972) sought to determine patterns in the 
'conduct of Chicago police toward civilians by exaniining79 incidents 
in which civilians were killed by police in 1969 and 1970. The study 
sought to analyze the characteristics common to fatal force incidents 
in Chicago, to determine the extent of use and misuse of police 
firearms, and to determine the degree of accountability for police 
misconduct in Chicago.

1083
76



Data summarizing the incidents were obtained from newspaper 
clippings. The International Association of Chiefs o f Police provided 
data on Chicago police officer fatalities. Transcripts and 
supplemental information were obtained from the Cook County 
Coroner’s Office.

Knoohui/.en et al., noted several characteristics of the victims of 
Chicago police killings. Although black male citizens comprised 33 
percent of theChicago population, they accounted for70.9 percent of 
the fatalities of the incidents studied. Black females accounted for 3.9 
percent of the fatalities, white males 24.0 percent. (Spanish- 
Americans were tabulated as white American citizens in this 
investigation.) The death rate among blacks, 5.35 per 100,000 was 
found to be approximately 6.3 times greater than the white rate of
0.86 per 100,000. Although the proportion of black citizens arrested 
was found to be greater (55.4 percent of the arrest population as 
compared to 35.7 percent for white citizens), the death rates adjusted 
for arrest frequencies still indicate that the death rate for black 
citizens in Chicago is about twice that for white citizens. This 
conclusion is consistent with Robin’s evidence for Philadelphia 
(1963).

The analysis also indicated that 62 percent o f those killed were 
under 25 years of age, and that those under 25 were twice as likely to 
die from police action than those over 25; 80 percent of the officers 
involved were on duty and 20 percent were off duty; 65 of the 76 cases 
were determined by the coroner to be justifiable homicides; 9 cases 
were determined accidental; 1 was determined involuntary 
manslaughter; and 1 was determined murder.

On the basis of a subjective review of the newspaper accounts and 
coroner’s inquest records for each of the incidents, the researchers 
concluded that in 28 o f the 76 incidents investigated (37 percent), 
substantial evidence of misconduct existed. Further, they concluded 
that, in 10 of those 28 cases, there was a substantial liklihood of 
criminal misconduct on the part of the police officers.

The researchers concluded further that the interdependence of the 
four separate bodies authorized to review incidents in which police 
kill a civilian (police department. State’s attorney, coroner, and 
internal affairs division) comprises effective scrutiny of police use of 
fatal force. The researchers say

w

. . .  the system for reviewing police use o f fatal force 
suffers from two defects which combine to compromise 
the integrity of the review process. The agencies in the 
system have a close working relationship, an arrangement 
which precludes independent examination within the 
system; the review proceedings are conducted almost 
entirely out of view of the public, an arrangement which 
precludes independent examination from without.(p. 72)

1084
77



“ Killings by Chicago Police, 1969-70: An Empirical 
Study” by Richard Harding and Richard P.
Fahey'*'

Richard Harding and Richard Fahey examined killings by 
Chicago police olTiccrs during 1969 ami 1970, the same period 
studied by Knoohui/en et al. Harding and Fahey also critically 
analyzed the Illinois criminal justice system's failure to eontrol 
questionable police conduct and suggested more effective control 
measures.

The authors were able to investigate 85 killings for which the 
Chicago Police Department acknowledged responsibility. Sources of 
information included inquest transcripts and other public data, as 
well as police descriptions of the incident, witne.ss testimony, and 
coroner reports.

The analysis revealed that the death rate for Spanish-Americans 
was highest, at 4.5 per 100,000 population; black citizens followed, 
with 2.67 per 100,000 population; and white citizens had a 
significantly lower rate of 0.34 per 100.000 population. Clearly, the 
disparity in death rates between whites and nonwhites is significant. 
The study categorizes the incidence of felony arrest{ murder, robbery, 
aggravated assault, and weapons offenses) by race. Black citizens 
were found to account for 73.3 percent of the arrest population for 
the felony offenses and 74.7 percent of the fatality victims. White 
citizens accounted for 19.5 percent of the felony arrests and 19 
percent of the police fatal force victims. Spanish-American citizens 
accounted for 7.2 percent of the arrests and 6.3 percent of the 
fatalities. Finally, the authors reported that 68.0 percent of those 
arrested for violent crimes were under 24 years of age and that age 
group constituted 64.6 percent of the citizens killed by the police. 
These statistics are similar to other statistics comparing arrest and 
fatality (Milton, 1977; Kobler, 1975).

The authors criticize the criminal justice system’s ability to hold 
police accountable for killing citizens for the following reasons; ( 1 ) 
The State’s attorney is a politician under pressure from his 
constituent to convict criminals and to let police officers do their job 
unencumbered; (2) the States attorney is a police officer of sorts 
insofar as he shares police standards; and (3 ) the function of the 
State’s attorney requires cooperation with the police, thus diluting his 
incentive to prosecute police officers vigorously.

An Analysis o f  248 Persons Killed by New York 
City Policemen by Betty Jenkins and Adrienne 
Faison

The purpose of this study was to determine the number of youths 
21-years-old and under who were killed by New York City police 
officers for the years 1970 to 1973 and to determine in each case the 
victim’s age and ethnic origin, the location of the incident, and the 
ethnic origin of the police officer(s) involved.

w

l o s s

78



I

Jenkins and Faison investigated 248 cases using both the New 
York Times newspaper and the New York Police Department 
firearms/discharge assault reports for supplemental information. 
Characteristics recorded from the newspaper source included age and 
ethnic origin of the victim, ethnic origin of the police officer, and 
geographic location o( the incident.

Of the 248 individuals killed by police while involved in alleged 
criminal activity, 73 percent were minority group members: 52 
percent were black and 21 percent were Hispanic, Only 10 percent 
were white. White police officers killed 96 black and 4  Hispanic 
civilians. Black and H ispanic police officers combined killed only two 
white citizens. Between 1970 and 1973 black officers constituted 6 
percent of the NYPD and killed 9 percent of all black victims of 
police, 18 percent of all Hispanic police victims, and only 4 percent of 
all white police victims. Similarly, Hispanic police officers were 1 
percent o f NYPD and accounted for 2 percent of the black civilian 
deaths, 6  percent of the Hispanic civilian deaths, and 4  percent o f the 
white civilian deaths.

The majority of the slain civilians were black or Hispanicand were 
under 30 years of age. Nearly half the incidents analyzed involved 
white police officers and a large proportion occurred in ghetto areas. 
During the period studied, the number of deaths among blacks 
declined, as did the number of deaths attributed to white patrol 
officers, but this phenomenon was accompanied by an increase in the 
number of unknown ethnicity” of slain civilians and involved 
officers.

A Study o f  the Use o f  Firearms hy Philadelphia 
Policemen from  1970 through 1974 prepared by the 
Public Interest Law Center o f Philadelphia 
(PlLCOP)i2

In 1975, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia(PILCOP) 
investigated 236 incidents of police use of firearms for the 5-year 

. period 1970 to 1974, According to the' authors, the study was 
intended to provide an overview of the use of deadly force by 
Philadelphia police officers.

Researchers scanned newspaper articles from the four major 
Philadelphia papers: the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Bulletin, the 
Daily News, and the Tribune for fatal incidents involving the police. 
Information recorded included the names of citizens and police 
officers, race, juvenile status if applicable, previous record if 
applicable, and duty status of officer. Other factors included location 
o f circumstances, fatality or injury, type of crime, victim armed or 
unarmed, resistance toarrestf victim fleeing or confrontation), victim 
shot during or after confrontation, accidental or intentional 
shooting, type and number ol verbal warnings.

Researchers collected data on each vari'able for each year studied 
and aggregated the data for all 5 years. The researchers found that, of 
the 236 incidents di.scovered, 126 victims were armed, and 52 of these 
armed victims were killed. O f those shot, most (41) were in the act of

79
1080



committing or had committed armed robbery. One hundred five of 
the 126 armed victims allegedly confronted the police. Regarding the 
105 who confronted the police, 88 victims were shot during the 
confrontation and 17 were shot after the confrontation. Among the 
126 armed victims, 45 allegedly fled, 15 of whom were killed. There 
were 10 juvenile armed victims. Off-duty police ollicers were involved 
in 2 1  of the 126 incidents involving armed suspects.

Simlarly, from 1970 to 1974, 110 of 236 incidents involved 
unarmed victims: 29 were killed, 39 “allegedly confronted the police,” 
and 64 allegedly fled. Of the 64 unarmed fleeing victims, 15 victims 
were killed. Off-duty police officers were involved in 25 unarmed 
incidents. The greatest number of unarmed victims were accused ol 
burglary. There were 22 unarmed juvenile victims. The discussion 
and analysis include both the aggregate data and the year-by-year 
statistics.

The study made several conclusions. First, use of fatal force 
appeared to be worsening in the time period studied. 1  hirty-six 
incidents occurred in 1970,30 in 1971,45 in 1972,55 in 1973, and 70 in 
1974. From 1973 to 1974 shootings by police officers increased 27.3 
percent. Of the civilians shot, 65.7 percent were wounded and 34.3 
percent were killed. Off-duty police involvement appears to be 
significant. Off-duty officers accounted for 19.5 percent of the 
shootings during the5-year period. Of the victims, 53.4 percent were 
armed. A significant proportion (14.3 percent) of the victims 
commited no crime. Finally, the review process appears to be 
inadequate. O f 170 incidents from 1970 to 1974, only 6 (3.5 percent) 
of the cases were formally brought before the attention of the review 
board and in all circumstances the officers’ actions were vindicated.

The researchers cite 73 police officers identified in the PILCOP 
police cross-reference records of incidents of alleged misconduct. 
They condemn the police department for its failure to discipline 
officers who the researchers allege have misued a firearm. 1  hey call 
for a discussion between the police department and the community of 
the problems which were outlined in the report in order to resolve 
these problems.

'̂ • 1

“ Shots Fired: An Examination of New York City 
Police Firearms Discharges” by James Joseph 
Fyfe.'J

In his study of firearms discharges by New York City police, Fyfe 
pursues three research objectives: (1) To describe the phenomenon; 
(2 ) to analyze the effect of direct organizational interventions upon 
shooting discretion; and (3) to analyze the effects of indirectly related 
organizational variables on police shootings. Fyfe’s data sources 
included New York City Police Department (NYPD) records of all 
reported incidents between January 1, 1971, and December3l, 1975, 
involving discharges of police firearms and/ or assaults on police by 
persons who were armed with deadly weapons or dangerous 
instruments and who inflicted serious physical injury on police 
officers; and NYPD personnel records including characteristics of

1087.
80



involved officers. The data analyzed are not a sample, but rather the 
total population of shooting incidents and “ officer shooters” in the 
NYPD over a 5-year period.

Fyfe employed a modified form of the department’s Firearms 
Discharge/Assault Report (FD A R ) to conduct incident-specific 
analyses. To conduct officer-specific analyses, he used a second form 
for each officer who had reported discharging a firearm and/ or being 
the subject of a serious assault.

Although Fyfe also examined animal shootings and suicides, this 
summary concerns his analysis of shootings involving “ opponents,” 
the main concern of his study. In analyzing shooting incidents 
involving opponents, Fyfe found that the primary police officer was 
on duty in uniform in 52.1 percent; the primary police officer was on 
duty in civilian clothes in 26.4 percent; and the primary police officer 
was off duty in 21.5 percent.

Fyfe confirmed a hypothesis that the geographic distribution of 
firearms discharge/assault incidents over New York City’s police 
precincts correlate closely with general “ police hazard rates” for 
precincts (NYPD equation consisting of measures gauging the need 
for uniform personnel-reported indoor and outdoor crimes of 
violence and all complaints). He concluded that New York City, like 
Los Angeles, is composed .o f a few “ free fire zones” and several 
“sleepy hollows” (Farrell, 1977, p. 72).

After examining the variables of age and race o f opponents in 
police shooting incidents, Fyfe concluded

. . .  while police shooting opponents are generally young 
and a greater proportion of the Black population is 
young. Black males in all age groups are considerably 
more liable to become police shooting opponents than are 
their White/Hispanic contemporaries.

Ofthe2,149 opponents whose race and age were reported, 51 percent 
were 23 or younger. Of 1,878 shooting opponents o f all ages, 19 2 
percent were white, 57.8 percent were black, and 22.9 percent were 
Hispanic.

Also in the section o f the research related to race and age of 
opponents, Fyfe concluded that the disproportionate number of 
blacks among police shooting opponents is explained by the larger 
number o f black opponents reportedly armed with guns and involved 
in robberies. Of the black opponents, 61 percent were armed with 
handguns, machine guns, rifles, or shotguns, as compared with 5 3  7 
percent o f the Hispanic and 35.4 percent o f the white opponents. 
Further, 45.8 percent o f the black opponents were reportedly 
involved in robberies as a precipitating event, compared with 26.3 
percent of the Hispanic and 23.4 percent of the white opponents.

Another interesting finding concerns the race o f opponents in 
shooting incidents where the police officers were injured or killed. 
Police officers were injured in 16.6 percent of the encounters with 
black opponents.

. . .  proportionally more officers are injured in 
encounters with Whites (2 2 . 8  percent) or Hispanics(l8 .0

108H
-----------5T—

i- .jpqi



. A„* ■̂ii.-f >f''̂  
■'*

y ir 'H ’ - ■•'#-:>|'i: 

t-•■ ‘ * I ♦ *
- /  >t4̂ --Jf. !<■

V- ■; .' t, •-•

percent). Proportionally more officers are killed in the 
line of duty by Blacks (1.2 percent) than Whites (.8  
percent) or by Hispanics (.7 percent), (p. 137)

After examining the relationship between the sex of police 
shooting opponents and the type of incident, Fyfe concluded

1. Firearms Discharge/Assault Incidents involving 
female opponents are significantly more often precipi­
tated by non-crime related events than are those involving 
male opponents.
2. The most severe consequences o f Firearms Discharge/ 
Assault Incidents involving lone female opponents are 
generated by confrontation between off-duty officers and 
females with whom these officers have been previously 
acquainted, (p. 158)

Fyfe found that most of the female opponents were involved in 
incidents along with male opponents and that no shooting incident 
precipitated by a robbery or burglary involved'a lone female 
opponent.

In analyzing officer race and police shootings, Fyfe tested and 
affirmed the hypothesis that black and Hispanic officers have a 
higher rate o f involvement in police shooting than white officers. The 
shooting rates of black, Hispanic, and white officers were 207 per 
1,000, 177.5 per 1,000, and 114 per 1,000 respectively.

In an effort to explain these rates, Fyfe concluded

. . .  that the major reason for the disproportionate 
shooting rate of on-duty black and Hispanic police 
officers and detectives is their disproportionate assign­
ment to department units andi those areas of the city in 
which the likelihood of police shooting is greatest, (p. 190) ’

Further, Fyfe found that minority officers seem to become involved 
in a disproportionate number o f off-duty shootings because they 
reside m high hazard precincts in greater proportions than do white 
officers.

More than four in ten Black and Hispanic off-duty 
shooters (49.7 and 40.0 percent, respectively) reside in A 
Precincts, while only one in twenty (5.7 percent) o f our 
White shooters do. (p. 211)

Fyfe attempted to measure the impact o f direct organizational 
interventions on police shooting incidents. Examining the Firearms 
D^charge Review Board (FDRB), Fyfe found that 70.8 percent of 
FDRBs 2,155 dispositions and findings were “ within law and 
department guidelines.”

Fyfe hypothesized that negative FDRB dispositions and findings 
would be greatest among incidents which officers initiated and off- 
duty incidents, especially those occurring outside of the city or in bars 
and grill.s. Fyfe’s findings affirmed the hypothesis with the exception 
of the impact of incidents occurring in bars and grills. Incidents 
involving proactive uniformed officers resulted in administrative

1080



f n S  ” '  '̂ ■‘ h greater frequency than did incidents

n S e  FDRm'T "  '”''■ ‘-•“y ->■"-< .n

S 4  n errlT  o .5 '̂'‘ ''"'■"i n.adans within the city and
off dS?v S i!  >ncidents within the city. Incidents involving

- " ‘I did not result inmore frequent FDRB negative dispositions and findings

histoTy on liirF D R R  ^^ootingrr disposition and findings. O f the incidents
Z l 7  I T "  " " "  ”  P=r«n. were t o J J S t  b

Within guidelines as compared to 70.5 percent of the incidents 
nvolving officers with no prior shooting history

N YPn c S  .■ ® department order which established
f^ L d  a 29 9 H administrative review procedures. He
tound a 29.9 percent decrease m the weekly mean of officers reported 
discharging their firearms after the issuance o f T.O.P. 237 He found 
important changes in officers’ reported reasons for discharging

of “ defense o f life” shootings increasedtnd 
both the weekly mean and percentage of “ prevent/ttminate S r ”

wounded and killed also decreased after the issuance of T O P 0 3 7

“ 8 ^ ! S S r narcotics enforcement policy from 
Fvfon 1 ‘ o lengthy investigations o r L h I r Z T '

level d ie n te le  "  • > .  M ) ” "  ' ™ " '

“ ■>’ I’ ' " ' "  ■Peidents involving

■ rob L iL - L r e X '" ? d ' ' ,  " ‘ I'P'
Shootings ” fn 5n7 t4 precipitant of New York City police 
involved in’ n o l iS 'c S S a t t e m p t s  to generalize about the officers 
states police shooting incidents. Looking at officer rank, Fyfe 
r  r k' ' “̂ P^'^'sors fire their guns far less often th a n S
their subordinates; when they do fire their guns, however they are
^hnoS^ K very similar to those which characterize
shooting by non-supervisory officers.” (p. 422-24) He finds that

officprc A  P °  ‘ ^® Î’ t̂Jting incidents than are whiteofficers. Analyzing police officer shooter characteristics bv rate of 
opponent fatality, Fyfe concludes that black plainsc othes off ce?s 
are involved twice as often as black u n ifo rm e d S te  ^nd 
uniformed and plainclothes officers. The FDRB disposition^and 

dings show that shooting incidents involving white black and 
H, pa„,b o f t o r ,  arg found .o be justifiable i„ expected p ro p o L u s  

In discussing opponents involved in police shootings, Fyfe offers
oU ^F a lone black male between 21 and 29 years
old. Fyfe finds also that white, black, and Hispanic opponents are
thafth^'^h inhabited by their own race and
hat the shootings are overwhelmingly intraracial. He finds further

83 1090



that

Minority opponents—especially Blacks—are far more 
often armed with guns when they confront the police than 
are Whites. Concomitantly, wc find blacks are far more 
often in the company of others in these situations; that 
lone H ispanics, who are generally older than most of our 
types, frequently employ knives against police; and that 
Whites are frequently involved in situations in which they 
employ vehicles to assualt and/or flee from police, (p.
483)

The wide range of data and findings in the Fyfe study are 
attributable to the unique research opportunity of the open access to 
NYPD data.

The Use o f  Deadly Force By Boston Police 
Personnel prepared by Planning and Research 
Division, Boston Police Department''*

In this report, the Planning and Research Division of the Boston 
Police Department endeavored objectively to review the policies, 
rules, and regulations governing application of deadly force by its 
members. As a part of this effort, 210 Boston police firearms 
discharges during the period 1970 to 1973 were studied.

Although not all firearm discharges reports were available, 
researchers examined 37 from 1970,62 from 1971,70 from 1972, and 
41 from 1973. For analysis purposes, researchers categorized the 210 
discharges as follows; 102 at a fleeing felon, 74 at an assailant, and 34 
miscellaneous. The offenses which most frequently precipitated 
shooting at fleeing felons were breaking and entering, 31.4 percent; 
robbery, 18 percent; and auto theft, 15.7 percent. In the fleeing felon 
category, 57 of the 102 discharges were actually directed at the 
suspect, 40 of these discharges were “ for assistance,” and 5 were 
warning shots. In the fleeing felon group, 2 1 . 6  percent apparently 
were armed with deadly weapons.

O f the 74 shooting incidents resulting from assault and battery on a 
police officer, the most frequent initial violations were larceny 
(usually of an auto), 25.7 percent; traffic violations, 20.3 percent; and 
robberies, 13.5 percent. Analysis revealed that o f the74 incidents, the 
type of weapons used by assailants were automobile, 44.6 percent; 
firearm, 27.0 percent; knife, 21.6 percent; and physical force, 5.4 
percent.

O f the 34 miscellaneous shooting incidents, 32.4 percent involved 
assault, without battery, against a police officer, and 26.5 percent 
were “ accidental discharges.”

Another interesting finding is that “Those shooting incidents that 
involved suspects resulted in 78 being captured uninjured, another43 
being wounded, and 5 fatalities. A total of 58 suspects escaped.” (p. 9)

The report also reviewed firearm discharge policies and review 
procedures in Boston and other large cities departments, as well as 
provided a legal prospective on the issue o f police use of deadly force.

1091 84



Multiple City Data

^ 0 7 7 , 0 ^  ftomicUtcs in California.
Q. . '’ y orCriminal.lustice
> lati.stics. Division ol l.aw l•;^^orccment, Calilornia 
Uepartment of Justice'^

This study was conducted at the request o f a California lecislative 

slndrt d n ! a " i "  “ “  The

years of age; all were shot to death, 1 2  by handguns.
1 he report analyzes 169 homicides by police in 1971 and 1972 

Sixty S.X percent of the police homicidL and 62.5 percent o f the
felony crimes occurred m southern California, as compared with 14 8 
and 23.0 percent of the San Francisco Bay Area.

d i f f k u l S ' h e ' * ^ - d i s c u s s i o n  of the ailticultics the re.searchers encountered in the data Only 5 5  cases
were correctly reported in both police summaries and vital sSistics

summaries. There were 68 reported in both sources btt not a s c S
t h a r - 'r  statistics. The researchers conclude
hat dependence on a single source would result in a sizable

Bureau dfCH 2) As a result of this finding, the
reliable ?uturrcoum s"‘ ‘"  —

tha^tTnereem 'f s r ' '  --e^earchers report
pereenlasr of ‘ ^e largest
f n v e s t S L s  Pal misdemeanorinvestigations. Patrol activities account for 75 percent o f the“ Dolice
homicides” and detective operations 15 percent. ^

hmdings regarding the circumstances surrounding suspect death-i
e r c l', S c c 'J 'L r  hours^or d a X :  Wpercent occur between 9 p.m. and 3 a.m.). More than one-third took

jidsutfciT?,*"” ' " " ™v»r, sand suffered between one and three wounds.
sh o 7 s1 h a tT 8 2 ?n °^  consequences of the “ police homicides” 
snows that in 82.2 percent o f the incidents there was no legal -irtinn
were filed I n 'lT l f  were civil sufts, whichwere tiled in 13 percent of the cases.” (p. 2)

Police and Their Use o f  Fata! Force in Chicago
n  K u ,̂ Richard P. Fahey, andDeborah J. Palmer*^

_ Group’s report included a comparison of
d f ^ l l p h S  f  with killings in four ofher major

C W a?n ?  i'"r ""d  Detroit. ■'
Chicago ranked first in the rate o f citizen fatalities per hundred

1092
85



thousand population; 42 percent greater than the next city, 
Philadelphia. Chicago also ranked first in the rate ol civilian tenths 
per 1 , 0 0 0  olTiccrs, second in the rale ol civilian deaths pci - 0 ,<H»l 
arrests, and second in the rate of olTieer deaths per 1 ,000 ollieers.(See 
rablc4)

TABLE 4

R atio of C ivilian  D eaths from Police 
Actions to Population, Arrests, and Officers  in 

F ive L arge U.S. C ities—July i970-M arch i97i

City

New York 

Chicago 

Los Angeles 
Philadelphia 

Detroit

Number of Death Rate Death Rate Civilian Death

Civilians per 100,000 per 20,000 Rate per 1,000

Killed Population Arrests Officers

21 o n 0.79 0.66

32 0.95 1.21 2.53

8 0.28 0.32 1.18

13 0.67 1.28 1,67

4 0,26 0.25 0.77

Police Use o f  Deadly Force by Catherine H.
Milton, Jeanne Wahl Halleck, James Lardner, and 
Gary L. Albrecht.”

Milton et al, investigated police use of deadly force in seven cuies: 
Birmingham, Ala., Detroit, Mich., Indianapolis, Ind., Katyas Oty, 
M o., Oakland, Calif., Portland, Ore., and Washington, D.C. The 
study was conducted to raise issues and identify factors police 
administrators should consider in developing or reformul^ating 
department policies about the use of deadly force, specifically

^'"^In^ch of the seven cities, the researchers examined the record of 
shootings by police officers over a period of time, ranging frorn 1 . 
years in Detroit to 3 years in Kansas City. Data sources included (1) 
review of shooting incident reports, (2 ) department regulations, ( ) 
procedures for the use of firearms, and (4) patrol car nde-along
observations. , ■ .u

Using an aggregate sample of 320 shootings from the 7 cities, the
researchers present several interesting findings.

96 (30 percent) were fatal shootings.
308 (98 percent) of the subjects shot by the police were known to be 

male.
168 (58 percent) o f the shooting victims were between the ages of 19 

and 29.
7 9  percent of all shooting victims were black.
57 percent of civilians shot were armed, 45 percent with guns.

1Q93.
86



102 (32 percent) of the precipitating incidents were disturbance 
calls; 6 6  ( 2 1  percent) were robberies.

55 (17 percent) of the shooting incidents involved off-duty officers 
and 58 (18 percent) involved onduty plainclothes officers.

Almost 92 percent o f shooting incidents in all cities except Detroit 
were found to be justified.

There is no consistent relationship between shooting rates and 
changes in index and violent crime rates.

A comparison of the circumstances surrounding the shootings of 
civilians and police fatalities shows that, although robberies 
constitute a high-risk situation for both groups, disturbance calls 
constitute a greater risk.

Shooting rates varied from a high in Birmingham to a low in 
Portland. (See Table 5)

TABLE 5

R a t e s  o f  P o l i c e  S h o o t i n g s  o f  C i v i l i a n s , 1974

City and 
Population

Number of 
Shootings

Rate of 
Shootings 

Per 100,000 
People

Number of* 
Officers

Rate of 
Shootings 
Per 1,000 
Officers

Portland
(378,134) 6 1.6 714 4.2
Washington, D C. 
(733,801) 40 5.5 4,937 6.0
Indianapolis
(509,000{) 28 5.5 1,110 7.2
Oakland
(345,880) 10 2.9 722 9.6
Kansas City 
(487,799) 10 2.1 1,310 12.2
Detroit
(1,386,817) 77 5.6 5,575 21.8
Birmingham
(295,686) 25 8.5 637 25.0

JThe figure refers to police district population.
•Figures are derived from 1973 UCR report and 1973 police data from seven sample cities.

The study presents the statutory and common law history of police 
use of deadly force, as well as new codes such as the Model Penal 
Code. The authors discuss the diversity of internal policies and in 
strictness o f policy guidelines, and use brief case studies to define 
circumstances which may Justify the use of force. Among other 
recommendations, the authors recommend monitoring and altering 
personnel policies to identify violence-prone officers, developing a 
firearm policy which stresses use only im.se^-^fense, defense of

87

L4#>



f Z i - : ' - ' r  i  ' ^ '  V - '  - ■

* ' <v • ••.T.>'<5. .i ■ r ■<•.■ ; . '• *r /  »• ; •-

.■>.•'■" ** /■' •'. • ' . *̂11
'.■■•' .i

others, apprehension of potentially dangerous felons if no other 
lesser means are available and if there is no significant risk to 
innocent bystanders (Basic Model Penal Code Approach); 
prohibiting firing at moving vehicles; prohibiting display or drawing 
of firearms unless dangerous circumstances warrant; developing 
specific policies for the use of shotguns and long guns; developing 
specific guidelines for off-duty police officers; providing extended 
firearms training for all officers; requiring immediate reporting to the 
radio dispatcher for any use of weapon; establishing rotating firearm 
review boards, separate from the department’s internal affairs 
division and empowered to call civilian witnesses to establish the 
propriety of police conduct; and administering punishment based on 
the particulars of the case.

“ Varieties of Police Policy: A Study of Police Policy 
Regarding the Use of Deadly Force in Los Angeles 
County” by Gerald F. Uelman"*

Uelman’s purpose is to extend the debate about the most effective 
means of controlling police behavior from preoccupation with 
external methods of control; i.e., evidentiary exclusionary rules and 
civil tort liability. Toward this end, Uelman proposes a study of the 
formulation, promulgation, and enforcement of police policy 
regarding the use of deadly force in the 50 independent police 
departments in the Los Angeles metropolitan area.

The methodology used in this study had four stages; (1) extensive 
interviews with chiefs of police or other designated administrative 
police officials regarding use of deadly force policy formulation and 
its interpretation and enforcement in five hypothetical situations (all 
within justifiable homicide provisions of California F’ enal Code); (2) 
review of written policies; (3) statistics regarding the characteristics 
and dispositions of all firearm di.scharges for the 2 year period, 1970 
to 1971; and (4) interviews with three police officers in selected 
departments, using the same five hypothetical situations presented to 
chiefs and administrative officials to test the officers’ familiarity with 
policy and reactions to typical stress situations.

Uelman discusses at length the relationship of police policy to state 
laws regulating the use of deadly force and the resulting disparity 
among police departmental guidelines in Los Angeles County. In 
order to analyze department policy in greater depth, Uelman 
categorized the chiefs’ o f police and administrative officials’ 
responses to the five hypothetical situations into five levels of 
restrictiveness. This categorization shows no patterns when levels of 
restrictiveness are compared with department size and character of 
the community. A slight tendency for more restrictive policies 
appears in categories o f cities with higher collective arrest rates, but 
the relationship is suspect because of wide disparity among the 
individual cities’ arrest rates. Uelman therefore concludes that the 
diversity in the chiefs’ o f police personal philosophies is the major 
factor which accounts for the wide disparity in policy. That police 
chiefs heavily influence the policy formulation process was evidenced 
by two of Uelman’s findings: (I) the departments with the fewest

m

fiV.

1095 88



Vs ••.'li'--■»• ■'.

yvi'i *r .̂

m -

changes in policy were administered by chiefs with relative longevity; 
and conversely, (2 ) the most frequent explanation for a change in 
policy was the appointment of a new chief.

Uelman goes to great lengths to describe the processes of 
formulation, promulgation, interpretation, and enforcement of 
department policy regarding police use of deadly force. For the latter 
process of enforcement of deadly force policy, Uelman examined 
statistical information on police shooting incidents found to be 
outside of policy. Twelve percent of the shootings that occurred 
countrywide during 1970 and 1971 were declared outside policy. 
There did not seem to be much correlation between category of 
restrictiveness of department policy and the rate o f shootings outside 
of policy. Analysis of disciplinary actions revealed infrequent 
disposition o f severe sanctions for officers involved in shootings 
outside of policy. In the 2 -year period, only one officer was referred 
for criminal prosecution, two officers were discharged, two were 
suspended, nine were reprimanded; and four received no discipline. 
The reasons for the infrequent imposition o f severe sanctions include 
the following; severe discipline is reserved for incidents with most 
serious consequences, such as wounding or killing o f a suspect by a 
police officer. Also cited were such bureaucratic difficulties as the 
evidentiary requirements of the possible civil service board appeal. 
The final reason given was “ the specter of civil liability.”

In an effort to assess the effectiveness o f department policy in 
controlling police behavior, Uelman conducted a series of 
comparisons of statistics on firearm discharges and officer reactions 
to hypothetical stress situations. The results were inconsistent.

The statistical data reflected a direct relationship between 
the restrictiveness of policy and the number of actual 
shooting incidents; the hypothetical testing, however, 
while disclosing a strong relationship between the 
officer’s perception of policy and his reaction to 
hypothetical situations, did not reflect a relationship 
between the actual policy and the officer’s reaction, (p. 4 4 )

In an effort to explain this inconsistency, Uelmen analyzed 1970 and 
1971 statistical information on the breakdown o f firearm discharges 
related to self-defense or fleeing felons as either within or outside 
department policy. He found a strong correlation between 
restrictiveness of policy and the rate of firearm discharges per 
thousand felony arrests. The departments in the least restrictive 
categories had twice the rate of the departments in the most restrictive 
category.

Uelmen also found great disparity in perception o f department 
policy regarding use of deadly force among officers in the same 
department, as well as disparity between officers’ and chiefs’ 
perceptions. However, most of the officers’ reactions to the 
hypothetical situations coincided with their perceptions of 
department policy. Given the vast distortion of perceptions of policy, 
the departments with the most restrictive policies had more officers 
responding that they would shoot in the hypothetical situations than

109G



'-tr

iPf'-

departments with less restrictive policies.
Analysis of officer characteristics had interesting results; Older, 

more experienced and less educated officers responded that they 
would shoot in the hypothetical situations less often than their 
younger, less experienced, and more educated colleagues.

In conclusion, Uelmen describes the diversity in police policy 
regarding the use of deadly force, a difference he believes can be 
measured in human lives. Also of concern to Uelmen is the disparity 
in interpretation of policy within individual departments. In response 
to these problems, Uelmen recommends a Policy Appraisal Review 
Board “ empowered to establish statewide policy governing the use of 
force by police officers, and to enforce that policy through 
investigations, hearings, and a wide range of administrative 
sanctions.” (p. 63) The envisioned result of the establishment of such 
a board would be policy uniformity and control of individual 
discretion.

“ Justifiable Homicides by Police” by Gerald D.
Robin''*

Robin also conducted multiple city analyses. He requested 
comparative data on homicides from 17 selected cities and was able to 
analyze data from 9 cities that responded, along with data from 
Philadelphia.

Using the information obtained from the 9 responding cities, the 
author found that the median age of the victim was 28, and 61.7 
percent were black.

Robin presents data on the citizen death rate by city (table 6 ), the 
distribution o f justifiable police homicides by city (Table 7), 
justifiable police homicides per 1 0 , 0 0 0  officers (Table 8 ), and average 
annual rate of officers responsible for deaths of criminals per 1 0 , 0 0 0  

officers by city (Table 9).

m -

TABLE 6

R a t e s  o f  B l a c k  a n d  W h i t e  D e c e d e n t s , b y  C i t y

City

Akron

Chicago

Kansas City, Mo.

Miami

Buffalo

Philadelphia

Boston

Milwaukee

Black White B;W Ratio

Rates per 
1,000,000 Pop.

16.1 2.7 5.8 to I

16.1 2.1 7.4 to 1

17.0 2.2 7.5 to 1

24.4 2.7 8.8 to 1

7.1 .5 12.2 to 1

5.4 .2 21.9 to I

3.2 .1 25.2 to 1

13.5 ,4 29.5 to 1

1097
90

-
W



‘.'I-*'

The author concludes that there are the following major certain 
trends: The death rate for blacks killed by police officers is 6 to 20 
times greater than the rate for whites in the 10 majorcities studied; the 
victims were overwhelmingly male and relatively young. Cities varied 
greatly with respect to death rates.

TABLE 7

D istribution of J ustifiable Hom icides by C ities 
AND Average R ate per i .ooo.ooo

City 1955 Pop.
J.P.H,
1950-60

X Annual 
Rate per 
1,000,000 

Pop.

Boston 749,320 3 .40

Buffalo 556,445 7 1.07

Milwaukee 689,358 10 1.32

Philadelphia 2,037,058 32 1.42

Washington, D C. 783,067 26 3.06
Cincinnati 503,274 23 4.17
Kansas City, Mo. 466,080 23 4.50
Akron 282,478 14 4.60
Chicago 3,585,683 191 4.85

Miami 270,482 21 7.06

TABLE 8

J ustifiable Police Hom icide per
10,000 O f f ic e r s

Annual
Police Rate per
Force* 10,000

City (1955) Officers

Boston 2835 1.05

Buffalo 1260 4.76
Milwaukee 1635 5.50
Philadelphia 4763 6.08

Washington, D.C. 2253 10.65
Chicago 7720 22.53
Cincinnati 846 24.82

Kansas City, Mo. 593 35.41

Miami 498 38.15
Akron 268 48.50

•Source; Uniform Crime Reports,

91 1098



TABLE 9

AVERAGE Annual R ate of Officers  R esponsible 
FOR Deaths of C riminals per 10,000 Offic er s , 

BY C ity

City

Boston

Buffalo

Milwaukee

Philadelphia

Washington, D.C,

Chicago

Cincinnati

Kansas City, Mo,

Miami
Akron

Conclusion

The studies reviewed in this article provide consensus on at least a 
few conclusions. They concur that the number of civilian deaths by 
legal intervention of the police is increasing and that the death rates 
for blacks and Hispanics remain disproportionate to the numbers ot 
blacks and Hispanics in the general population. They generally 
acknowledge that most police shootings of civilians occur at night in 
urban ghetto areas and involve white, onduty patrol officers and 
minority male civilians between the ages of 19 and 29. However, the 
studies provide several opposing explanations of the rising nurnber o 
fatal shooting and the disproportionate number of black and 
Hispanic victims.

Fyfe and Uelman seem to believe that the dangerousness of the 
police job explains the increased number of civilian deaths, pointing 
to increased numbers of felony crimes. Fyfe cites the large proportion 
of shooting opponents in his New York City study who were armed 
with guns or knives at the time of the incident. On the other hand, 
Takagi and Robin seriously question the assumption of danger m the 
police job. Robin noted that the fatality rate for law enforcement is 
lower than the rates for such occupations as mining, transportation, 
agriculture, and construction. Takagi found no upward trend in 
police deqth rates to accompany the upward trend in civilian rates.

Fyfe suggests that the disproportionate number of blacks shot in 
New York City is caused by the fact that a larger number and 
proportion of blacks than whites and Hispanics involved in the 
shooting incidents were armed and/ or participating in robberies and, 
therefore, presented the greatest danger to police. Milton et al„ 
explain that although the percentage of black shooting victirns is 
disproportionately high in comparison with percentages of blacks in

921093 .



p.:̂

vV;trtr̂ 4-:;»r;

the total population, that percentage corresponds to black arrest 
rates for Index crimes. Barring et al., took issue with the Milton 
explanation, citing the continuously climbing black civilian death 
rate in comparison with a steady rate for whites. The lindings ol 
Takagi (1974), Robin (1963), and Knoohuizen et al (1972) also 
contradict the Milton explanation. Takagi found that blacks made 
up 38 percent of the arrests for major crimes but 51 percent of the 
civilian deaths. Even more stark a difference was reported by Robin, 
who found that blacks accounted for 30.6 percent of the total arrests 
and 37.5 percent of the arrests for Index crimes, but 87.5 percent of 
the civilian deaths. Similarly, Knoohuizen et al. reported that the 
death rate for blacks, adjusted for arrest frequencies, indicates that it 
is twice the adjusted'rate for whites. The Harding et al., analysis of the 
same data analyzed by Knoohuizen disputes the Knoohuizen finding. 
Harding reported that the percentages of black, Hispanic, and white 
felony arrests mirror the respective percentages of black, Hispanic, 
and white civilian deaths.

An interesting and perhaps important finding in the PILCOP, 
Knoohuizen et al., Milton et al., and Fyfe studies in the significant 
involvement of off-duty police officers in shooting incidents. These 
studies reported that between 17 and 20 percent of the officers 
involved were off duty at the time of the incident. Fyfe and M ilton et 
al. also reported significant involvement in shooting incidents by 
onduty plainclothes officers.

Another interesting finding reported in both the Jenkins and 
Faison and the Fyfe studies was the higher rate of involvement in 
shooting incidents by black and Hispanic police officers as corn pa red 
with white officers although blacks were involved in a significantly 
lower number. Fyfe offered as explanation for the disproportionate 
involvement of black and Hispanic police officers in shootings their 
corresponding disproportionate assignment to and residence in high 
hazard geographical areas.

Generally, the studies reviewed found that there was usually no 
legal action in relation to police shootings. (Fyfe, 1978; Milton et al., 
1977; California Department of Justice, 1974; Uleman, 1973; and 
PILCOP, 1974). Further, Fyfe and Uelman attempted to measure the 
impact of restrictive police department policy regarding the use of 
deadly force and concluded that restrictive policies accompanied by 
strong enforcement did reduce the incidence of police shootings.

The studies reviewed in this article provide analyses of the 
characteristics of police shooting incidents, as well as police 
department and general criminal justice system responses to the 
incidents. The analyses give some insight in the national scope of the 
problem and understanding the specific situations in selected cities. 
The quality of the various research efforts vary because of limitations 
in methodology and data sources, but the sum of the findings are, at 
the very least, suggestive of some trends.

m

93
I l O Q .



REFERENCES

1 Catherine II, Milton, Jeanne Wahl Halleck, James I.ardner and Gary
L. Albrecht, Police Use of Pcacllv lorcc. Washington, D C.: 1 olicc
Foundation, 1977 (NCJ 41735).* _

2 Arthur L Robler, "Police Homicide in a Democracy, Journal oj
. V .  31 n. I , Winter 1975a, pp. 163-184 (NCJ 31845).

3. Gerald D. Robin, “Justifiable Homicides by Pohee Officer^
of Criminal Law. Criminology, and Police Science, 1963 (NCJ 15 ).
Reprinted in Samuel G. Chapman, Police Pairo R e f  mgs 2d 
Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1972, pp. 511-523 (NCJ 01974).

4. PaulTakagi,“A Garrison State in a'Democratic’ Society, Crtmeand 
5ociWyu.vt/Ve, Spring-Summer 1974, pp. 27-33.

5. Sid Marring, Tony Platt, Richard Speiglman, and Paul Takagi The 
Management of Police Killings," Crime and Social Jusitcc. n.8,1 all-Wintcr
1977, pp. 34-43 (NCJ 44416).

6. Kobler, “ Police Homicide.”
7 ____ “ Figures (and Perhaps some Facts) on Police Killings of Civilians

in the U nited States, 1965-1969," Journal o f Social Issues, v. 31, n. 1, W inter 
1975b, pp. 185-191 (NCJ 31846).

8. Robin, “Justifiable Homicides.”
9. Ralph Knoohuizen, Richard P. Fahey, and Deborah J. Paln^r, The 

Police and Their Use of Fatal Force in Chicago, Evanston, Illinois: Chicago 
Law Enforcement Study Group, 1972 (NCJ 12792).

10. Richard Harding and Richard P. Fahey, “ Killings by Chicago Police,
1969-70: An Empirical Study,” California Law Review, v. 46, n.2,
March 1973, pp. 284-315 (NCJ 14395).

11 Betty Jen kins and Adrienne Faison, An Analysis of248 Persons R'Red
bv New York City Policemen, New York: New York Metropolitan Applied 
Research Center, Inc., 1974. __

12 Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia(PILCOP), A Study o f the 
Use o f Firearms h v Philadelphia Policemen from 1970 throughout 1974. 
April 1, 1975.13 James Joseph Fyfe, “Shots Fired: An Examination of New York City
Police Firearms Discharges,” unpublished dissertation. State U niversity ot 
New York, Albany, 1978. r̂ . . . -n.

14. Boston Police Department, Planning and Research Division, 
of Deadly Force by Boston Police Personnel, May 3, 1974 (NCJ 26010).
- 15 California Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement,
Bureau of Criminal Justice Statistics, Peace Officer Involoved Homicides in 
California. 1971-1972. 1974 (NCJ 18786).

16. Knoohui/.en et al.. Police Use of Fatal Force.
17. MWxon ei a\„ Police Use of Deadly Force.
18. Gerald F. Uelmen, “Varieties of Police Policy; A Study of Police 

Policy Regarding the Use of Deadly Force in Los Angeles County,’ Loyola 
of Los Angeles Law Review, v. 6, 1973, pp. 1-61.

19. Robin, “Justifiable Homicides.”

W -

94 1101

■ "v;: J'f-



BIBLIOGRAPHY

m

Bassiouni, M.C. “ Use of Force in Riots.” In his The Law o f  Dissent 
and Riots. (NCJ 01764) Springfield. III.; Charles C. Thomas, 1971 
2 pp. (NCJ 02033)
This is a presentation of The Chicago Bar Association’s report on 
the use of force by law enforcement agencies according to Illinois 
Statute.

Bauer, J. L. Chicago Police Department— Office o f  Professional 
Standards— A One Year Analysis. Evanston, III.: Chicago Law 
Enforcement Study Group, 1976. 78 pp. (NCJ 32534)
The Office of Professional Standards, the Chicago Police Depart­
ment’s agency for investigating complaints of excessive use offeree 
by police, has been un.satisfactory in its performance, according to 
the author.

Bittner, E. “ Capacity to Use Force as the Core of the Police Role.” 
In Skolnick, J. H., and Gray, T. C., eds. Police in America, 1975. 
(NCJ 19813) Boston, Mass.: Little Brown, 1975.8 pp.(NCJ I98I8) 
A new definition of the police role is offered in which the policeare 
viewed as the mechanism for the distribution of situationally justi­
fied force in society instead of as agents of law enforcement.

BJelajac, J. M. Madison (Wisconsin)— Recommended Policy Guide­
lines fo r  the U.se o f  Deadly Force. Madison, Wis.; University of 
Wisconsin Law School, 1972. 55 pp. (NCJ 13677)
Guidelines are presented focusing on situations in which the need 
for deadly force arises as the police perform essentially routine, 
daily tasks—primarily in one-to-one situations.

Boston Police Department. Use o f  Deadly Force hv Boston Police 
Personnel. Boston, Mass. 1974. 56 pp. (NCJ 26010)
The firearms policy and review procedures of the Boston Police 
Department are compared with those of other major police depart­
ments; Boston Police firearm discharges from 1970-1973 are 
categorized.

California Department of Justice Bureau of Criminal Statistics. 
Peace Officer Involved Homicides in California, 1971-1972. 
Sacramento, Calif., 1974. 7 pp. (NCJ 18786)
Tabular data on both homicides of peace officers and homicides by 
police officers are presented, together with a brief summary of 
statistical findings.

95 i i o ;



Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Canadian Civil Liherties 
Association— Submissions to the Task Force on Policinf' in 
Ontario. Toronto, Canada, 1973. 28 pp. (NCJ 28110) 
Recommendations and suggestions are presented for the improved 
delivery of police services in Ontario, concentrating on police 
use of force and due process rights.

Chapman, S. G. Police Firearms Use Policy. Washington, D.C.; U .S. 
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration 
of Justice, 1967. 50 pp. (NCJ 07861)
Guidelines for the writing of rules and regulations governing the 
use of deadly force by policemen are presented.

Creeden, C. T. Development o f  Police Regulations and Training fo r  
the Use ofSidearms. Washington, D. C.; U.S. Department of the 
Army, 1974. 8 pp. (NCJ 29844)
This discussion of the historical development of the use of sidearms 
by police is divided into two periods— the early period, 1900-1934, 
and the current period, 1935 to present.

Cunningham, Lorinne. “ A Little Closer to Perfection.” e/saforum- 
46. 1978. pp. 25-28. (NCJ 52132
Efforts of an Ad Hoc Group, formed in August 1977, to improve
police-community relations in Memphis,Tennessee, are described. 
High point was a conference and workshops dealing with such 
matters as police use of force, domestic crisis intervention, police 
internal affairs, and communication between police and commun­
ity.

Day, S. C. Shooting the Fleeing Felon— State o f  the Law. B ost^  
Mass.: Warran, Gorham and Lamont, Inc., 1978. 26 pp. (iNCJ 
49455)
The author examines the question of when a police officer or 
private citizen is privileged to use deadly force to stop a suspected 
criminal who might otherwise escape.

Farris, L. “ Substantive Due Process and the Use of Deadly Force 
Against the Fleeing Felon— Wiley v. Memphis Police Department 
and Mattis v. Schnarr. "Capital University Law Review, v. 7, n. 3, 
1978. 10 pp. (NCJ 47472)
Two contradictory opinions, reached by the Sixth and Eighth Cir­
cuit Courts of Appeals, on the use of deadly force by law enforce­
ment officers to prevent a felonious escape are discussed.

Flemming, Arthur S. “ Investigating Police Practices.” ejsa forum- 
46, 1978. pp. 15-17. (NCJ 52130)
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is conducting an investiga­
tion of police misconduct, ranging from verbal abuse to use of 
deadly force. Commission’s goals include reform of police depart­
ment policies, external review mechanisms, and legislative and

m '

1103
96

*r>'

F̂ -1



policy changes on the national level.

Fyfe, James J. Police Deadly Force in New York City: Some Implica­
tions fo r  Police and Community Action. U npublished paper, n. d 
15 pp. (NCJ 53594)
The author states that police agencies can reduce deadly force use 
by developing clear policies and review procedures, monitoring 
police performance, providing better training programs, and, 
with society’s approval, equipping officers with weapons capable 
of temporarily immobilizing without killing.

Geller, William A. Deadly Force Research by Public Interest 
Groups: The Sources and Availability o f  Information. Evanston, 
111.; Chicago Law Enforcement Study Group, 1978. 12 pp 
(NCJ 53593)
Efforts o f the Chicago Law Enforcement Study Group to obtain 
material on police use of deadly force are outlined. Sources cited 
include police department officials, literature reviews, news- 
clippings, coroner’s records, citizen groups, and State’s Attorney’s 
records.

Goldkamp, J.S. Minorities as Victims o f  Police Shootings— Inter­
pretations o f  Racial Disproportionality and Police Use o f  Deadly 
Force. Denver, Colo.: Institute for Court Management, 1976 
15 pp. (NCJ 40099)
Two perspectives are examined which are frequently involved 
when racial disproportionality is being interpreted— either in the 
realm o f police killings or in the realm o f arrest rates for 
crimes o f violence.

Marring, S.; Platt, T.; Speiglman, R.; and Takagi, P. “ Management 
of Police Killings.” Crime and Social Justice, n. 8, Fall-Winter 
1977. pp. 34-43. (NCJ 44416)
A critical analysis is presented o f research on police killings of 
civilians in the United States, and conclusions are drawn regarding 
the management of police violence.

Harvie, R. A. Police Officer’s Use o f  Force— Law and Liability. 
Chicago, 111.: University o f Illinois, n. d. 24 pp. MICROFICHE 
(NCJ 19412)
Illinois criminal statutes and case law relating to the use of 
deadly force by a peace officer are presented and discussed.

Hubs, M. Seattle (WasI\ington)— Police Use o f  Deadly Force. 
Seattle, Wash.: Seattle City Council, 1978. 15 pp. (NCJ 48659) 
Various aspects of the effort initiated by the city government of 
Seattle to define and limit police use of deadly force— when and 
under what circumstances police officers may shoot— are detailed.

Kania, R.R., and Mackey, W.C. “ Police Violence as a Function of

irw"'

i

97 1104



Community Characteristics.” Criminology, v. 15, n. 1, May 1977. 
pp. 27-48. (NCJ 42109)
The authors find that existing models concerning police violence 
are not designed to explain variations among the states in the rates 
of police use of deadly force.

Katz, B.S., aifd Edgner, D.O. Los Angeles County District At­
torney’s Less-ljttha! Weapons Task Force. Aberdeen Proving 
Ground, Md.; U.S. Department of the Army, 1976.31 pp. (NCJ 
38670)
This report presents the findings of the Los Angeles County 
District Attorney’s Office Task Force on less-lethal weapons, 
covering research and evaluation, wound ballistics, legislation, and 
public information.

McCreedy, K. R., and Hague, J. L. Administrative and Legal As­
pects o f  a Policy to Limit the Use o f  Firearms by Police Officers. 
Gaithersburg, Md.: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 
1975. 5 pp. (NCJ 26136)
An examination is made of laws relating to the use of deadly force 
and influences that groups such as the police, courts, and city 
government may have on firearms policy decisions; a restrictive 
policy is recommended.

___________ Aspects o f  a Policy to Limit the Use o f  Firearms. Austin,
Tex.: Texas Police Association, 1975. 7 pp. (NCJ 18681)
The legal framework within which policy decisions concerning the 
use of deadly force must be made is discussed in relation to avail­
able alternative policies.

Nelligan, K. E. Constitutional Law— Police Officer Who Shoots 
Fleeing Felon Protected from  42 U.S.C., 1983 Action by State 
Privilege Rule—Jones v. Marshall, 528 F ID 132 (2d Cir. 1975). 
Boston, Mass.: Suffolk University, 1976. 18 pp. (NCJ 37240)
An analysis is presented o f a Federal Court of Appeals decision in 
Jones V. Marshall (2d cir. 1975) determining the privilege of a 
police officer to use deadly force in effecting the arrest of a 
suspected felon.

Pompa, Gilbert G. “ A Major and Most Pressing Concern.” ejsa  
forum-46, 1978. pp. 10-14. (NCJ 52129)
A general discussion of issues pertinent to police use of deadly 
force is presented, with emphasis on the nature of the problem, its 
effect on police-minority community relations, and efforts to 
achieve a solution.

Ranck, Lee. “ We Hire Our Officers from the Human Race.” ej sa 
forum-46, 1978. pp. 29-34. (NCJ 52133)
A revised firearms policy that has tightened controls on police use 
o f deadly force in Prince George’s County, Maryland, is examined.

98
1 1



Written generally from the police point of view, the article includes 
a caution from the Chief of Police that the revised policy is flexible 
rather than absolute since police officers are human beings subject 
to the usual human frailties.

Rhine, B. Kill or Be Killed— Use of Deadly Force in the RiotSitua- 
tion. 'In Bassiouni, M.C.,ed. The Law o f  Dissent and Riots (NCJ 
01764) Springfield, 111.; Charles C. Thomas, 1971. 52 pp (NCJ

An investigation into the use of deadly force in the Detroit riot 
and recommendations regulating such usage are presented.

Sands, J.M. Civil Liability o f  Government fo r  Inadequate Police 
Firearms Training. Unpublished paper, October 15, 1972 19 on 
(NCJ 16215)
A review is presented of appellate court decisions holding State 
and local governments liable for misuse of firearms by their police 
officers due to inadequate training, with suggestions for preventing 
such liability.

Stone, D. “ On the Question of Repression— An Analysis o f Repres- 
J Community.” Journal on

Fic itfN cTm f)'  '■

An analysis IS presented of police repression of the black commun- 
ny in America as a reaction of monopoly capitalists to a national 
and international economic crisis resulting from a loss of markets 
and resources in underdeveloped nations.

Tange, D. E. Model Firearms Training Program fo r  All Police 
A g^ cies Can One Be Devised? Master’s thesis. City University 
of New York, 1974. 219 pp. (NCJ 25234)  ̂ ^
Findings of a study conducted to examine the present firearms

the Federal
Bureau of Investigation to determine whether a model police fire­
arms program can be devised are reviewed.

Police. Prisons, and Violence. Lexington 
Mass.: D.C. Health, 1977. 148 pp. (NCJ 44297) ^‘"gton,

L°al w'ith^rn? violence in prisons, and efforts to
deal with and reduce future conflict are examined.

Wallen, LM . Professional and Bureaucratic Process o f  Organiza- 
tional Central-Internal Discipline in the Los Angeles Police 
Department. Doctoral dissertation. University of California at 
Los Angeles, 1976. 353 pp. (NCJ 42040)
At the descriptive level, a major purpose of this study is to delineate

external) the processes by 
which police malpractice in Los Angeles is handled

99
I I  O B

Fr-



Wilson, J. V. Deadly Force. A Report to the 79th lACP Annual 
Conference, Salt Lake City. Gaithersburg, Md.: International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, 1972. 3 pp. (NCJ 07517)
This article reviews guidelines and recommendations relating to 
police practices and policies on the use of firearms.

Wright, E. J. Police Handguns and Deadly Force— A Special Report 
to the Governor o f  the State o f  New York, Hon. Hugh L. Carey, 
February 1976. Albany, N.Y.: New York State Division of Crim­
inal Justice Services, 1978. 180 pp. MICROFICHE (NCJ 46256) 
The necessity of the use of the .357 magnum handgun and of 
deadly force by New York State troopers is examined, and the 
study’s findings and recommendations are reported.

f t

1107

^  U^. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 197D 0 - 201-380 ( 1821) ^  J QQ



PART 10: Compilation o f
regulations governing use 
o f deadly force in fo r ty -  
f iv e  metropolitan Po lice  
Departments

1108



C I T Y  OF A L B U Q U E R Q U E CMif y or '̂oi ict 

808 V STOVLR

P O L I C E  D e p a r t m e n t

401 MARQUETTE NW 
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO !!7in?

August 30, 1977

Mr. W il l iam A. G e l le r  
Research D i rec to r
Chicago Law Enforcement Study Group 
109 North Dearborn S t ree t ,  Suite 303 
Chicago, I l l i n o i s  60602

Dear Mr. Ge l le r :

In rep ly  to your l e t t e r  o f  August 24, 1977, the fo l low ing  information 
covers the period from August 1, 1974, to th i s  date.

During th i s  period, there were e ight  s i tua t ion s  which required o f f i c e r s  
o f  th is  department to u t i l i z e  a f i rearm in the course o f  performing 
t h e i r  du t ie s .  As a r e su l t  of  these s i t u a t io n s ,  three persons received 
fa ta l  gunshot wounds, and f i v e  received non-fatal wounds. During th is  
same period, three o f f i c e r s  o f  t h i s  department received gunshot wounds 
whi le  on duty, a l l  non- fa ta l .

The use o f  deadly force by o f f i c e r s  o f  th i s  department i s  governed by 
Standard Operating Procedures, Sect ion 320.06. A copy of  th i s  sect ion 
i s  enclosed.

I f  I can be o f  fu r the r  ass is tance,  please do not hes i ta te  to contact me,

BVS/pb



r-jSO.C'ij In  U'lO p e r f o r m a n c e  of hir; cKiUos and  aftem a l l  iritiic r  i \  , r n , ’ 
rrie-.m-j o f  app ro hcn s . io n  h iv e  b een  w e iy h e d ,  .111 o l f i r " i -  r 
ucc- d e a d ly  fot'e.cn

.al>!

A .  / \ n  ^ . f l ic e r  m a y  di'avv and i.'SO f i is  f i f 'o a r m  vd'.criever Iv.' :!■ 1
it n a c e s e a r y  f o r  h ie  own r;d\rcty e.r ffie cab  (;! . .n ' l i i i  e .

I'.. I'o e'ff. -ct an n t ' r r s t  wile n fie I i -̂e 1 c a s o n a b lc  1 . I 'l .a  In  b li 
I f .at a  ''.Luipoct hnr. comrriiLl-tf l or- a t le m c ilo d  to i n i m r i i t  r  
feloi'.y in v o lv i r r j  the u se  o r  tfiia a l t  ne-d u se  n  <:■ .-.dly !f 1 ■

C .  I f  an o f f i c e r ,  in the p e r fo rm ia n c e  of h is  d u ‘ !, !•, tf. vi«.
of a m u r d e r o u s  ass ;. i' lt,  hit i?, not  r r 'q u i r c d  to i r t r e a t  bt;l 
n ia y  s ta n d  f i i ' j  qtajurid and dt-fend h i m s e l f  f ' .a  n tri lie pow ; 
of u-.inq d e a d ly  fo r c e  n p a in s t  l iis a t .r .a i la i ' i t . I lie m l '  1 ■!' 
r .e l f -d c .fcn se  is  a p p l i c a b le ,  t ' t f j t i rd lr r i r ,  cif th r  ai| - t . r  ;.t>: el 
the a s s a i l a n t .

IJ . Wh-'-n an  a n i m a l  is  m o r t a l l y  in ju ro t l  o r  p r r  st n ts  c l e a r
a r r l  p r e s  nt clancjcr to I tu m an  s a fe t y .  T h e  t.-r j. t a r e a  ! a ■■ 
bi tl ir h ea d  unless, p o s s ib i l i t v  ol r a u i c s  c x ir  t' .

i t .  T a r c ic t  p trac t ico  a t  an  a p p ro v e d  ranpio.

f-'. K ( ; r  le t ja l  r e c r e a t i o n  p u r p o s e s .

1 1 1 -2 7

\
\

1 1  in



pfl
liiT fH

F u i ; r o N
COUNTY

ATI ASIA

P O L IC E  D E P A R T M E N T  

183  C E N T R A L  A V E N U E , S.W. 3 0 3 0 3  

4 0 4 -5 7 2 -3 2 1 1

CO U N TY COM M ISSIONERS:

Chatrm aru  GoocivA/yn Cates 
View Ch. j irn>an J O W y a t t
D is t r ic t  1 
D is t r ic t  2 
D is t r ic t  4 
D is t r ic t  6 
D is t r i c t  7

M i l t o n  Farr is  
C nar l ie  B ro w n  
T o m  L o w e  
H. D. D odson  
R. H. Jo h n s to n

July 6 , 1977

Mr. William A. Geller 
Research Director
QilCAGO LAW ENTORCEMENT STUDY GROUP 
109 North Dearborn Street 
Suite 303
Chicago, I llin o is  60602 

Dear Mr. Geller:

In reference to your le tter  dated July 5, 1977, inquiring about 
the nurrber of shootings by Police Officers of this Departnent, 
this Department is  only two years old.

We have had to shoot only one pierson -  a shoulder wound vhich 
was non-fatal, since the beginning o f this Police Department.

We also have had only one O fficer shot during the sane period of  
time.

You also inquired as to the administrative rules or policies to 
the u^e o f deadly force by Officers o f this Departnent. The policy  
of this Department is  -  the only time an O fficer is  pcrrrritted to use 
deadly force is  in defense o f his ovn l i f e ,  in chtense of a third 
person's l i f e ,  or to prevent a forcible felony from being cormdtted.

I f  this Department can provide further information, or be of  
assistance in any way, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Chester 
Chief o f Police

l J X : b d h

i n i



Atlanta, Georgia .

(Officer Lou Lombardi, Atlanta Police Department, 
Planning and Research; additional materials provided by 
Ronald A. Carter, Research Analyst, Metropolitan 
Atlanta Crime Commission)

Atlanta has experienced liigh levels of violence recently, in its crime rate, 

its number of police officers Idlled and injured, and its increase in shootings by 

police officers. Of die nine cities surveyed, Atlanta had tlie highest ci'iminal 

liomicide rate and rate of assaults on police, die fifdi highest aggravated assault 

rate, and a high number of both police and civilian deaths.

The Atlanta Police Department firearms policy is in accord vidi the Georgia 

law; a police officer can fire his weapon only in defense of his ovm or another

person's life or to stop the pex'petration of a forceful felony. In addition, no warning 

shots are allowed. A complicating and not yet resolved prohibition of die policy is 

tiiat it is no longer legal to shoot a fleeing felon; the courts have not yet decided when 

the perpetration of a felonj’ has ended and die felon is fleeing, however. The police 

officers are at this time confused by the law.

Every time a police officer fires his weapon, a report goes to die department's 

internal investigation division. After its investigation of the incident and a determina­

tion of justified or unjustified, internal investigation dien sends the unjustified cases 

to die Cliief. The Chief administers die disciplinary action (loss of days, suspension, 

e tc .). If criminal proceedings develop, the case is turned over to the District 

Attorney's office.
1113











‘ ■C--

e%’
srm ssS

iis^aSs

C H A P T E R  I
GENERAL ORDER M -78). 

FIREARMS DISCHARGE POLICE

A. F IR E A R M S  D IS C H A R G E  POLIC Y

An officer is equipped wi^h a f.rearrr, to defend ►'•mself or others 
against deadly pnysicai force. Ihe threat of irr.rr.,nent use c‘ deadly
physical force or to prevent serious pnysiral injury Hci.N‘'ver v.hpna 
firearm is used by an officer, it must be the real ^3 t cn that the 
death of another human being mav occ^f Such use o ' ' rearn.s must 
be strictly guided by adherence to a c!^*ar and knc.v '' po"Cv The 
following policy shall govern such usebv members cf t^e 3 'r-^mgnam 
Police Department

1 A police officer should not discharge a firearm m the l ne 
ol duty unless ail other reasonable alternatives of 
apprehension have been exhausted and the safety of 
innocent bystanders is not threatened.

2. The use of deadly force by a police officer may be 
considered warranted when necessary 
a To make an arrest or to prevent the escape from 

custody of a person whom the off'cer has reasonable 
cause to believe
( 1 ) has committed or attempted tocom m .t a felony 

involving the use of deadly phyS'cal fc 'ce. or
(2 ) IS a ttem p ting  to escape apprehens ion  or 

custody by the use of deadly phyS'cai force, or

(3 ) has indicated mat he is IikeU to enda'^ger 
human life or to n 'lx i  serious p'^^s caf miury 
unless apprehenceo w ithout delay

b To defend h.mself or a tn-rd person 'rom  wh.it t^e 
oM.cer has reasonable cause to bo'ie^e is t-'*- .mrr.» 
nent use of deadly physical force 

c To make an arrest of a person whom tr'e c*f cer has 
reasonable cause to believe has committed the 
burglary of a res-dence place of business. C" jrch , or 
public bu 1 tmg An ofr cer may not use dea'j y force



m m '

rrn :S lu"' ^*0 !'J t'i*- ' jw!S
d-.’C-dv'i to S' o .? '  jc :s  

J  ! il‘:i r

in t^e qppre^-ns'on o' a person sus:j***.te<J :? 
LurqlaM/ioy a school ur'V^s tne . js{.e«,l h;i> u .eO cr 
threatens .mm<neri us^' of deaJ!> f-ifce 

3 Just’f'cat.on for Ihe use of a 
k n o w n  hv !^io o : f iC ‘ -r r»-*cr- 
unKoovvr to tbe officer canno* Pe co!". C 
deJermiring jus; fication t*'e sopcting 

■i VV*̂  c love r d poi.cc officer a.scha''gos a w-^ai^n. po<.w»: 
ccr^T iun it-T ’C-ns and tno off wOr s nT,n -(}.are sup-;rvscf 
must be notified as soon as poss bie 

CLARIFICATION OF TERMS
5 Deaoiv Phys.cai Force r^eans pCivsica" force whicn 

under the crcunb iances i"' wncr-. r* is used is read •,
capao'e Cf causing deatn or Se'ious iriiury Usif'Q a deaaiy 
Weapon or a danyemus irstfum»-r^t to ih re iie n  .n 
tim idate or pnysicaiiy harm another const tu ies use of 

Deadly Physical Force
6  ■ Reasonaple cause to oeleve ' is defined as a set of fac’ s

whicr' would lead a trained po lxe  officer of orOiP.ir-, 
caution and prudence artmg im partirilly and w-tnout 
prejudice under the samt: s.milar c ir'u rrs tances to
conscientiously reach a concius-on

B. G U ID E L IN E S  TO S PE C IF IC  S IT U A T IO N S

BURGLARY
VVner*. dsmg deadly force to make an a 'rest of someone w*^on f '  
o ffice ' has reasor'.abie cause to bei:eve has committed tn 
burgia'v of a home or business, an c ff cer must use restraint an 
sojCid .udgment An officer may pr^.s._,me that anyone burglar r
m e a n''rT !e  o r I'usiness S a rm e d  and p o s e s  d threat to  h jm a ' '

but an off cer ma* use deadly force only as a last i*surt 

Bury a'leS o* schools a'e usuaiiv dcr'e by unar med 'uven.les an< 
the'isfore. an officer w ill not usr- dead-v force to maKP an arre* t c 
a pe'Spn suspected o fb u rg ljr i^  nya  su'’'0 ol unless the officer ■~a 
reasonable cause to believe tr'at tne suspect 
fa) nas cerrm itted or attempted to com.mit a felony involvmy tn 

use of aeaciy physical force or

(b) ts a tte m p tin g  to  e scap e  a p p re h e n s io n  o r c u s to d y  by th e  use  
o f d e a d ly  p h y s ic a l fo rce , or

(c) th re a te n s  im m in e n t use  o t deadU  phvS 'ca t fo rc e  a g a m s t t ^ e  
o ff ic e r  Of a th  'd  p e rs o n

LARCENY
An office ' w ill not use deadly pt ySicai force wn.en tne felony 
comm, ii-id is a o'Ceny of any Kind ^n'oss me office ' “ as 
reasonable cause to believe tf'at the suspect 
(a) has cu'omitted or a’ tempied to commit a larceny invO'V.ny 

the use of dead v physical force or 
fb) *s atte'^pting to escape apprehension cr custody bv the - 'e  

of deadly physical force, or
<C) IS l ik - ly  to  e n d a n g e r h u m a n  life  or to  m fi:c t s e n o u s  phvS :a i 

in ju r ,  u n le s s  a p p re h e n d e d  w it h o u t  d e la y , or

(d) th re a te n s  im m in e n t use  o f d e a d ly  p n v s  c a i fo rc e  a ga m st tn e  
o ff ic e r  or 3 th ird  p e rso n .

When the force used by the suspect is not deadly physical force, 
then the off cer w ill use only the force necessary to apprehend me 
suspect short of deadly physical force

MOVING VEHICLES
An oflicer w ill not discharge his weaoon at a moving veh :;e 
regardless of whemer the officer is on foot or -r. a movng venicie 
unless t 'e  ofheer "as reasonable c.tuse to believe f a t  t"e  
suspect
'ai has committed or attempted to commnit a ‘elony invo'vmg me 

use of oeaci'v pn^s-cal force, or 
lb) s attu-m: tmg tu esc.:ce appren. 'is icn  cr cusmd, bv me 

cT d -jd lv  pnyS'Ca. force cr
'Ci t' ''.•. ■‘-ns ."''••m.er'.t ibe of Tepidly c ' .s eal force- aga rs t t*'e 

o'f.Cer ur .1 tn*'d person
Before "•?  olf'Cer d'SenargeS 'I'S wespcn ne m-jbf be Sure t'^at 
innocent rvstand»"s and inncce'it occupants ot car a'e '̂ 'A 
threaten-id Shoot.ng from a mcv.rg .•er' cle s particu ar:y 
dang.;rous to bvst.mders and rare'v e fe c t \ 
firearm is d-sccufa'j“ d

Such use -f a

3

r'A. ...* .



L>y=>

s ®

S5?1ii

’̂"•SsgSSfe..

'M m

I s c *
ui>e o< '̂ ‘r̂ d:, i>̂ivi>'C3i fof:c

S£^:2

JUVErgiLES
An officer »v II Tiake s;:eci3 l efforrs to aoprphend juveniles 
.•. tn o jt  use 0 < ciojdlv ;<-vS‘s,3 i force and v..iJ not shoot at a 
.uv«n'io h n up ifss off cer h.is reasor.jp -r cause to bt;ii»?vv 
l‘'.j! t"’-̂ ,̂ »* n' .■

t̂ 'Cl O' a "e '’ 'ptcfJ tc ccrrm .t j ‘e: -.ny mvolv-ny th.y
or

ehension cr custody by the usefb' 'S at!«*'T':;:in<i tu escape a: 
cf do.■•d̂ • p'^ys'cal force or

c) IS i-ne . to endanger hyrran i<̂ e or lo tnfl.ct serious physical.
in ;u ry  u ~ ie s s  oppre^^endeC  w t h o u t  de lav or 

Cl  tn 'e a te n s  im m in e n t u se  o ‘ d ea d ly  p h y s ic a l fo rc e  ag^ens t the  
o ff-C '* ' “ r 3 th i rd  p e rs o n  

5 h o s t a g e s

Crim inals .vno use nostages to effect tne i' escape are desperate 
lod'yid-ials '/.ho, if aMovv-d to escape w ill pose a continuing 
threat to tn-sir hostage and to the public at large Assurance by thp 
C'lmT'dl that a hostage w ill be released unharmed is a 
-nean-nql-^ss promise Tre department does not have the ability to 
protect the safety of a hostage / .  no is allowed to be removed from 
the presence of officers The safety of hostages can be best 
assured py Ke .̂-ping them in tre  presence of officers and by 
preventing irie if removal by the suspect 0 ‘ f'cers should use 
every ver ea and tactical tool at the :' d soosal to secure the arrest 
of the suspect w ithout harming the postage Hov./ever. officers 
snouid realize that e«ceptiona! sdootions could arise where 
cons.aered ’ udgment m.ght d-ctate allow-ng rem.oval of a 
■~ostage. sum  as w -.-re  tntfre is im minent and probable danger to
a large g'Oup of persons

• The Tact Unit should be notif.ed and dispatched to the scene 
immediateiy- ar>d upon arrival they w ill to'<e command of the 
S'tuaron

S U M M A R Y
In  s u r rm a ry .  p r io r  to  th e  u se  o f a fire a rm , a n  o ff  c e r s h o u ld  e.nerc-se 
eve ry  p o s s ib le  c a u tio n , e x h a u s t a ll re a s o n a d e  a lte rn a tiv e s , and 
p ro te c t th e  safe:-,' o f a ll b v s ’ a n r te rs  W h e n  an  o ff ic e r  m u s t use  a 
w e a p o n , n e  w  II be s u p p o r te d  by tn e  d ^^p a rtm e n t a n d  h e  w rit n o t be 
c r it ic .z e d  fo r  th 'S  d e c is io n  w h e n  th e  s ta n d a rd s  m th is  p o lic y  have  been  
fo l lc / .e d  In  c 'o s m g . it s h o U d  a qa  n be n o te d  th a t

AN OFFICER IS NOT PERMITTED TO USE DEADLY 
SIMPLY TO APPREHEND A FLEEING FELON EXCEPT 
SITUATIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE.

FORCE 
IN THE

t r



# c

m

C H AP TER  II
FIREARMS DISCHARGE REVIEW COMMITTEE

F IR E A R M S  D IS C H A R G E  R E V IE W  C O M M IT T E E
In orde^ t^d l polire o ff’Cer may be pfOp‘'rlv trametJ and g lided m t‘'e  
use ot Ceadly pnvsica' force every f.res'm  cJiscnarge wdl be reviewed 
by a Df-paarnental Firearms Discharge Review Committee 
This corT'mif’ ee w ill be composed of other police officers w ith  field 
e'DcrienC'', wno can fairly etam ine another officer s act:or>s Police 
personnel of tne following rank w ill be on the comm.ttee

1 One Captain who may vote only ir> the event of a tie
2 Ore Lieutenant
3 Two Sergeants
4 Three Officers

This committee w ill be convened w ithin  72 hours to review any 
firearri! d scharge by Birmingham Police officers including non^^^ 
effective discharges and discharg--’ s by Birmingham officers ass igne^^^ 
to other law enforcement agencies Only discharges made d u rm ^ y ^  
auihoriied training and practice w ill not be reviewed •  ^
At the commit'ee meetings. Internal A ffairs w ill present the f in d in g s ^ ’  
of Its mdenendent •nvesiigation of the incident At the discretion ^ 
the committee other information may be reauested and persons may 
be caded before tne committee On the basis of information 
presentee tne committee w ill determine that the discharge was one 
of the following 

In Ppi-cmg 
Out cf Pci'Cy 
Accidental

The ppi c»: off c*'r vvnose discharge of a weapon is bemg reviewed w ill 
have tnt- r c ''t 'O he present dunng the part o' the comm.ttee rreetmg 
in w h x ^  .''terr- al A ffairs ma<es 'ts report and w.ll have the rigm to 
’espon.j t; repc'T
In maMng I's deC'S-on com.mittoe vvtM ca 'e '^ liv  e^amme the 
officers a - '- ^ s  to determinp if they were cons.stent w ith  the 
Depaan^e-.l 3 f .irarr- D sc^.arge Pol.cv 5 GuiCsIi.'es Tre fellow.ng 
quest.ons w. : he'p t^em make such a Oeterm.nation

1 -A o j d a trained do .ce o'f.cer of o 'dinary caution and 
Dr^,>.'-.ce, act n.g m'Dariiady and witr^out orejud ce under

I



C H APTER
g e n e r a l  o r d e r  '9-731. REVISED OCTOBER 76 

SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH 
INVOLVING POLICE OFFICERS

SU BJ:  G E N E R A L  O R D E R  9 -7 3  
(R E V ISE D  O C TO BE R  18. 1 9 76 ) .

S E R IO U S  IN J U R Y  OR D E AT H  
IN V O L V IN G  POLICE OFFICERS

Purpose The purpo<ie Orcer is to estabitsh a procedjre fcr
incidents concern ng ser cus injury or death involving police ofl ce'’S

This'Oraer sna'i consist of t ’'e  fo 'lc ’.vmg numbered sub sections 
I Injury or Death In'licted b> ®olice Officer 

Injury or Dea*n Inflicted on Pc.ice Officer 
HI Nev.s Media lr fo "n a tio n  Procedure

INJURY OR DEATH INFLICTED BY POLICE OFFICER 

A Serious Injury to Citizen by Police CM
Vtfhen any c tizen  is wounded or seriously injured b y ^ ^ ^  
police officer, on or off duty, where such injury results m 
death, or possible death, the following personnel w ill t f f *  f  
notified
a The Pank.ng Uniform Division Officer The ranking 

Uniform Division officer w ill proceed to the scene 
and take charge of the Uniform personnel m the 
protection of the crime scene, crowd control, preser­
vation o’ evidence, notifying the evidence techni­
cian, arrest of suspects, and any other necessary 
duties
Tne D iviS 'onjI Deputy Chief or Bureau Comn'ander 
of the officer involved
The Commander of the Internal A f’ airs Section 
The Internal Affairs Investigator The Internal A f­
fairs Invest-gato 'w  il proceed to the scene and make 
an independent investigation of tne inciCent He 
shall Submit a repen of his findings througn the 
Commander of tne Internal A ffairs Bureau, in ­
cluding a copy of the offense report to the Chief of 
Pol.ee
The Staff Duly Officer The Staff Duty Officer will



procf»H3 to ;^c scene and e»ert s;3 "  supers 's<on ove' 
the invesi'^at'on He w ill command, control, ariclco- 
Ofdinate all phases of the investigation and make a 
'epoM of tr»e inc dent to the Cn ef of Po'ice w itnm  
t w e n : , fo u r  "o u 'S

Chief of Police The Chief of Poi.ce w ill be notified 
immed ^telv -f at all possible

Note The S ta ff Duty O fficer s d'-fmed as the 
des'gnated on-ca'I officer of theChicf s 
Staff during hours wnen the Chief is off 
duty

be c a lle d me
2 Homicide Detect'ves

Homicide Deti^'Ci-ve on ca 
folicw ing cond-t''.ns e<ist
3 Death has occuTed as a result of poi'ce action 
b A serious iniu'v has occurred that could possibly 

result IP death as a result of police action 
C A request mat Hormcde be called by tne Internal 

AHairs Invest gator assigned to mvest-gate the inci­
dent
Tr.e Homicide Investigator w ill be responsible for

1 Assuming c ~troi of the investigation
2 Not’fvn g  tn*; Coroner, if necessary
3  Co'^piet-ng nec*»ssarv depart.mental report 

♦Cf ms
3 The r a r u  rg  off 'Cer on duty m the C o'^m uncations 

O jcm  w 'l je  respcnsbi^ for notify.ng ail personnel 
abov' wi.r-n net.fir'd to do so b\ the f i r s :  s u p e r 'o r  o f f ic e r  
cn the scene
a Persenne: n-,'.h»?d vĵ o are required to comn- to the 

scene n':3v er-ct to ren a n awav ^ov»ever. suc^ 
persu'-r’ i:! A ^eep tht-mseives rfo r'- 'ed  cn the 
P’ u j ' - s i  ut me ip v  s: g.Jti'<n 

0 T’ e s-per or u h „ ..r n ^narge o* f 'e  S«,».me w il 
Control t''e  ’'sir hi r and duties of cn Out . personnel 
WHO are pre “ nt

il INJURY OR DEATH INFLICTED ON POLICE OFFICERS 
A The sam.e procedur*® v.ili be followed wh-en officers are 

victims With V'e fo'icw-inq exceptions

; 0

t Hom'Ci'Jc Detectives w iii be ca'ted m all mcidents 
resulting in deatri or ser<cus injur> .nft cTed on poi ce 
officers

^ 2 Tne Common cations Ro >m will notJv the Poi ce
Chaplain, wfio v^.ll m jke *>, —5;^;* available to me of­
ficer s family

3 The Communications Rocr^ a -II nct fv the r j r k ir g  o f­
fice' on duty m the d*strict wne*-. me officer s fam.iy 
lives

a The ranking officer v.ill not fy the officer's fam.iy m 
person,

b The rank ng officer w ill provide all necessary 
assistance to the family

c In me even; the officer lives outside me Cdy, me 
nearest ranking BirmmgnarTi police off'cer w il oe 
sent

4 Under no circumstances w ill the officer's family be 
notified except by a personal visit

111. NEWS M EDIA INFORM ATION PROCEDURE

A The Staff Duty Officer w ill be respohsible for d ssem nating
available information 10  news media at the scene, c o n s is te n t(^ ^  
w ith  good investigative practice 

B The Public Information Officer w ill be responsible for d is­
seminating available information to the news media m ie’ er 
stages of the investigation ^



C H A P T E R  IV
RULES AND REGULATIONS 3.1 1.9 and 3 43,1 - 
3 43 15 Arrests and Au lhortred  Use of Firearms

A, RULES A N D  R E G U L A T IO N S  - A R R E S T S

3 .1 1 .  ARRE S TS :
3.11 1. RISK INVOLVED:
Members shall distinguish between foolhardnsess a rc  courage m 
making arrests, and investigating susoicious persons ie a certain 
degree of risk is involved m all pchce service off-cers should not 
unnecessarily jeopardize their 'ives. or the eves of otners Since tneir 
purpose is to apprehend criminals, they shall suf^tmon assistance 
when unaided arrest seems unlike'y, or dangerous 

3 1 1 3  Unnecessary Force;
Members shall not use unnecessary force or vicler'.ce m making an 
arrest or dealing w ith a prisoner or any person Mem.bers shall not 
strike or use any other form of physical force on a prisoner or other 
person except when necessary to prevent the escape from custooy of 
a person w rom  the officer has reasonable cause to believe

(a) has comm.tted or attempted to com m t a felony 
involving the use of deadly physical force, or

(b) IS attempting to escape apprehension or custody by 
the use of deadly physical force, or

(c) has incicated that he is likely to encanger numan life 
or to inflict serious physical injorv unless ap­
prehended w ithout delay, or in seif defense, or to 
overcome actual physical resistance, or to prevent 
Violence to another person Ho'wever, he must be 
firm, resolute, and energetic m exercising the 
necessary means to properly perform his duty

3 1 1 5  DEGREE OF FORCE TO BE USED IN MAKING AN 
ARREST:

In rr:« ing  an anest. an ofhee' must be care'ul not to submit h.s 
pf Sur'er to any greater sever t» or indignity than is recess3'’y ic efteci 
f 'e  a'rest and bnng the prisoner safely to n e  poi.ee Ouiidmg for 
bocki'-g
The statutes require the officer to do h-s duty at a-1 hazards but m the 
performance of h.s duty tney require him to be as considerate as

1 J

?3trJ



W m

lawful derrands all musi suarr,:i Tt-o ott.cer .s .  a
and armed w in  n e  power 10  corroe sue" su s
3 1 1 7  r e p o r t  t o  EE M ADE ON ANY FORCE USED.

Wheraever „  IS necessary to use am unusual
means, said member shall repori same «  P°”  ^

n e  ar.esl repon on the case Snould ne have -o use phy Sica, furce o

in terfer ing wi th  an officer and or assau.i ,  as 1 . - c - Y

3 1 1 9  PERSONS TO BE SEARCHED:

or damage fo property V.nert ma- ng ^ ^ s 'e «  .n  :< 3 "
prisoner carefully and ^ ; ' ; ' ; ^ " ' \ ' : , ’ ^ '% ': : : r e r c a n n c t  be

iH '; e : ^ n ^ o « - : ^ h :T y ! , n r u ^ l ll ; - ^ ^
prisoner.

3 .4 3 . f i r e a r m s  A N D  W E A P O N S :

3  4 3  1 a u t h o r iz e d  USE;

A member shall not draw or disp'ay his ^ ' X ' - s
or official inspection A member s"ould neyer d aw 
f,rearm unless he plans to and is ready to use u
A member may rfisenarge h.s - a r m  m c o ^ e c t . ^ d h  the p e H .^  

T o ^w m " r^ s o n s "  r c " tm .::,;:c :s ,'a s  author red by law and Huies

" ^ " T to defend himself from death or serious in,ury or

felonious assauU
,b, At the pistol range for target practice or when 

autfronzed for training purposes

To luM a senouslv wounded or dangerous amr^.ai 
when oiher disoos'tion ts impractical fonly) on 
authorization from a Superior Officer, if t.me perm ts 

To defend another person, unlawfully attacked, from 
death or serious ‘njury, when other means have 
failed
To give an alarm or to call for assistance for an 
impor'ant purpose wnen no other means can be 
used

3 43 3 UNAUTHORIZED USE;
Firing into the air or ground in an attempt to halt a 
fleeing crim inal is dangerous to innocent persons 
and is a great personal and official risk to the officer 

A member shall not fire upon, or as a warning to. a 
person wno has been ordered to hall because of a 
mere suspicion, and who. w ithout making any ^  
resistance, simply runs away to avoid arrest I
A member shall not d.scharge his revolyer to o f fe e t j^ ^  | 
an arrest or to stop the flight of a person who has 
committed a misdemeanor ^
If the person suspected of a misdemeanor becomes a ^  ^  
dangerous assailant, or if an attempt is made to 
rescue by violence any prisoner, even though charg­
ed w ith  only a misdemeanor the situation changes 
instantly The officer must meet force w ith  force, and 
to us*' his revolver only as a last means of protecting 
himself or his prisoner from death or serious injury i$ 
acting w ith in  the law 

3 43 5 REPORT OF USE:
A member who discharges his service revolyer accidentally or inten- 
tionaily (encept at firearms rangel shall maYe a verbal report to his 
Superior Olficer and notify Police Communications es srjon as Cir­
cumstances w ill permit, and shall file a w ritten  reorrrt w th h s 
Commanding OHicei as soon as practical therealter. describ ryg the 
circumstances in detail under which the l.reaim  was d.sch.rged

3 43 7 LOADING. UNLOADING
Members shall not clean, display, load or unload meir firearms at amr 
place m a police bu*kJ 'g •*cepi

10

Idf

le)

(3)

lb)

(0

(d)

m m .

T v . " "  V -r '^ t  y - s  -



W 4
m

f #

k ^ '

(a) When ordered by a Superior Officer for inspection 
purposes

(b) In the p stol range and tnen only v.hen shooting 
under supervision of a Superior Officer or training 
officer

3 43 .9 . CARE OF FIREARMS.
AM members must keep the revolver issued to them or earned by them 
cleaned and oiled and free from rust or corrosion, and in perfect firing 
condition at all times Any officer who is careless or negligent in the 
care or use of the service revolver wMl be subject to disciplinary action 

3 43 n  USE OF NIGHTSTICKS:

Unnecessary, excessive, or brutal use of the nightstick in subduing a 
prisoner is forbidden It w ill be used w ith  discretion and common 
sense, and then only as a "come along" when necessary or as a 
defensive weapon when attacked.

3 .43 .13 . RECEIVING LOADED FIREARM S — EVIDENCE: 

Upon receiving a loaded firearm for any reason, a member of the 
Department shall immediately unload same. If the firearm  Is to be 
used as evidence, great care should be taken to preserve fingerprints, 
and the unloading done so as not to damage or contaminate the 
breech or the cartridge being unloaded. The firearm, if it is to be 
handled, shall be handled by the grips — never put anything into the 
barrel or wrap loosely m paper or cloth.

3 .4 3 .1 5 . SHOTGUN IN CURISER:

Whenever the shotgun is earned in a cruiser and its immediate use is 
not anticipated, it shall be placed in the gun holder (provided m 
uniform cars) w ith  the safety ON and bolt FORWARD, and the 
chamber empty



n

BIRMINGHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT 

INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM

DATE; March 1 4 ,  19 75

TO: A l l  Sworn P e rso n n el

FROM; James C, P a r s o n s ,  C h i e f  o f  P o l i c e

SUBJ: C h i e f ' s  D i r e c t i v e  3 - 7 5 ,  Firearm Use P o l i c y

S''?hr,ise’’of“ irea™s J  guidance to officers

I .  POLICY

However, when a f i r e a r m  i s  used by an o f f i c e r  i'r
r e a l i z a t i o n  t h a t  t h e  d e a t h  n f  c j n m o  m u s t  b e  w i t h  t h e

for the use of L  offil^^ lirea?™*̂ ?, ?" '?y • Justification
JO sSoo?!-^-ts°LCo™ -IoK

pS£i€Sl£SH«be aware that, even in the rare iases wLrl the Ase
xea.sori3.ble a p p ea rs  n e c e s s a r v  -r-icV /-̂ -p j f i r e a r m s
sh ou ld  be m iS m iz I d ? ^ ' '^ ^ " ^ ' '^ ’ p e rso n

I I .  GUIDELINES FOR USE OF FIREARMS

''^ - '^ i P t :a s o n "a “ jrap p ea% “ s‘ '‘ ° " e : s a ^ ^ ^
e x e r c i l l d  W h e n  I l l ^ ? I a s L a b l e ^ a l t e r S t ^

■ L^o- ? o -L ro ^? L -“a v t^

1126



C h i e f ' s  D i r e c t i v e  3 - 7 5
P^iga T^vo

I t  i s  not  p r a c t i c a l  to enumerate s p e c i f i c  f e l o n i e s  and s t a t e  
w ith  c e r t a i n t y  t h a t  the  escap e  o f  the p e r p e t r a t o r  must be 
p r e v e n te d  at  a l l  c o s t s ,  or t h a t  th e r e  are o t h e r  f e l o n i o u s  
cr im es  where the p e r p e t r a t o r  must be a l lo w e d  to  escap e  
r a t h e r  than to  sh o o t  him. Such d e c i s i o n s  are  based upon 
sound judgem ent,  not  a r b i t r a r y  c h e c k l i s t s .

B. J u v e n i l e  Felony S u s p e c t s . An o f f i c e r  g e n e r a l l y  sh ou ld  n o t  
s h o o t  at  a f l e e i n g  f e l o n  whom he has r e a s o n a b le  grounds to  
b e l i e v e  i s  a j u v e n i l e .  However, when the escap e  o f  such a 
s u s p e c t  can r e a s o n a b ly  be e x p e c t e d  to  pose a s e r i o u s  t h r e a t
to  the  l i f e  o f  another  p e r s o n ,  t h e n ,  under t h e s e  c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,  
an o f f i c e r  may s h o o t  to  p r e v e n t  the escape  o f  such p e r s o n .
T h is  s e c t i o n  does not  l i m i t  an o f f i c e r ' s  r i g h t  o f  s e l f - d e f e n s e  
o r  h i s  d e f e n s e  o f  o t h e r s  whose l i v e s  he r e a s o n a b ly  b e l i e v e s  
are  i n  imminent p e r i l .

C. H o s t a g e s . C r im in a ls  who use  h o s t a g e s  to  e f f e c t  t h e i r  e sc a p e  
a re  d e s p e r a t e  i n d i v i d u a l s  who, i f  a l lo w e d  to  e s c a p e ,  w i l l  
p o se  a c o n t i n u i n g  t h r e a t  to  t h e i r  h o sta g e  and to  th e  p u b l i c  
a t  l a r g e .  A ssu ran ce  t h a t  a h o s t a g e  w i l l  be r e l e a s e d  unharmed 
i s  a m e a n in g le s s  p r o m is e .  The department does not  have the  
a b i l i t y  to  p r o t e c t  the s a f e t y  o f  a h o s ta g e  who i s  a l lo w e d  to  
be removed from the p r e s e n c e  o f  o f f i c e r s .  The s a f e t y  o f  
h o s t a g e s  can be b e s t  a s s u r e d  by keeping them in  the  p r e s e n c e  
o f  o f f i c e r s  and by p r e v e n t i n g  t h e i r  removal by the s u s p e c t .  
O f f i c e r s  should  use  e v e ry  v e r b a l  and t a c t i c a l  t o o l  a t  t h e i r  
d i s p o s a l  to  s e c u r e  the a r r e s t  o f  the  s u s p e c t  w ith o u t  harming  
th e  h o s t a g e .  However, o f f i c e r s  should  r e a l i z e  t h a t  e x c e p ­
t i o n a l  s i u t a t i o n s  c o u ld  a r i s e  where c o n s i d e r e d  judgement  
m ight d i c t a t e  a l lo w i n g  rem oval  o f  a h o s t a g e ,  such as where  
th e re *  i s  imminent and p r o b a b le  danger to  a l a r g e  group o f  
p e r s o n s .

D. In summary, ev ery  p o s s i b l e  c o n s i d e r a t i o n  sh ou ld  be taken  
p r i o r  to the u se  o f  a f i r e a r m ,  and i f  an o f f i c e r  b e l i e v e s  
t h a t ,  under e x i s t i n g  c o n d i t i o n s ,  he should  n o t  use  a f i r e a r m  
t o  apprehend a f e l o n ,  he w i l l  n o t  be c r i t i c i z e d  or d i s c i p l i n e d  
f o r  t h i s  d e c i s i o n ,  and h i ^ _ ^ e c i s i o n  to  empl9y) e v e r y  o t h e r  
means to  e f f e c t  an a r r e s '

\  A n
dr i  o

:h i'e f o f  P o l i

JCP/adm
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 2 4 ,
RECISIONS: None

1127



I\ < V I\. J,-)

322 F i re a rm s-  -  Use o f - - B v  Offi .

1.
' c r s . h  / j  (

The term " d i s p l a y "  s h a l l  be used ,  to  d e s c r i l )e  the un-  
h o l s t e r i n g  o r _ h r a n d i s h i n g  o f  a l e t h a l  f i r e a r m  during

" l e t h a l  f i r e a r m "  s h a l l  be used to  d e s c r i b e  
t h a t  i s  lo a d e d  w i t h  ammunition d e s ig n e d  to

3 .

4 .

5
6

7 .

the conduct o f  p o l i c e  b u s i n e s s .
The term " '  
a f i r e a r m  
k i l l  .
L e t h a l  weapons s h a l l  be d i s p l a y e d  o n l y  in  a d e f e n s i v e  
manner,
A l e t h a l  f i r e a r m  may be d i s p l a y e d  o n ly  i f  the o f f i c e r  
f e e l s  i s ,  o r  may become, n e c e s s a r y  in the
d e f e n s e  oT kzis. h r  a n o t h e r ' s  l i f e ,  or  under the n r o -  
v i s i o n s  o f  I'R 3 2 3 .  ^
L e t h a l  f i r e a r m s  s h a l l  n ot  be d i s c h a r g e d  as a w a rn in e .  
L e t h a l  f i r e a r m s  s h a l l  not  be p o i n t e d  a t  a person  in  
an a t te m p t  a t  a p p r e h e n s io n  u n l e s s  the o f f i c e r  has  
r e a s o n a b l e  c a u se  to  b e l i e v e  the  person  f a l l s  w i t h i n  
th e  purview o f  PR 3 2 3 .
O f f i c e r s  s h a l l  n ot  u n n e c e s s a r i l y  d i s p l a y  any f i r e a r m  
n-i any p u b l i c  p l a c e  o r  c a r e l e s s l y  handle  a f i r e a r m  
at  any t im e .

e x p e c t e d  to
t ke p o l i c e  a c t i o n  as under PR 270  when

i n f l u e n c e  o f  a l c o h o l  as d e f i n e d  in S e c t i o n  
2 3 1 26  o f  the C a l i f o r n i a  V e h i c l e  Code,  a n d /o r  o t h e r  
drugs
"D ry  S n a p p in g "  o f  weapons in the H a l l  o f  J u s t i c e  
be c o n f i n e d  to  the r a n g e .  _________________

( 'Revised 5Llxciv---l ' - - t 9 7 5 )

s h a l l

l R̂ 323 r e a r m s- - D i s c harge o f - -W h c n  P e r m i t t e d . O f f i c e r s  s h a l l  
n o t  d i s c h a r g e  f i r e a r m s  in c o n n e c t i o n  w ith  p o l i c e  duty  
e x c e p t  under the f o l l o w i n g  c i r c u m s t a n c e s .

1 .
2 .

Or
3.
4 .
5 .

At an approved ran ge .
s e r i o u s l y  wounded or  d a n g e ro u s ,  when 

o t h e r  d i s p o s i t i o n  i s  i m p r a c t i c a l .

when a l l  o t h e r  r e a s o n a b le  means have f a i l e d .
In the n e c e s s a r y  d e f e n s e  o f  the o f f i c e i ' * s  l i f e .
In the  n e c e s s a r y  d e f e n s e  o f  the l i f e  o f  a n o t h e r  person  
To apprehend a iCiOWN f e l o n  x.hen th e o f f i c e r  has r e a ­
s o n a b le  ca u se  tB b e l i e ^ a ^ b £ ‘ ii^5y be armed and may -b.5 an 
immediate t h r e a t  to  l i f e .  pece:

( 'Revised Fc4MrT :aiy—1,—

^ ^^^eairns—* —O isc l ia ro p P i^  i.
a ffroarm a e c ld~nta l lv  or f n i l  f  Any o f f i c e r  who discharges
function s h a i r m a v fa n  ° L  " h l l e  performing any po l ic e
cumstances w i l l  permit, and sha l l  O f f i c e r  as soon as c i r -
o f f i d e r  as soon as p ra c t ic a l  T f  a  ̂  ̂ w r i t ten  reportwith ones superior 
resu lt  o f  an o f f i c e ?  cH ‘ person is  injured or k i l l e d  as a
iu te ly  r e - a L L n e S  L  =haU be immed-
C o ^ a L o r  ass is tan t  to the o f f i o e f s  Division

working d^ys, c ? L L ? r o ? " d ° ? c r r
' T i 2 H ~  L -3^ °"



'[B © O te C D [P © 0 0 (E(B

RULE'S AND REGULATIONS

See. 1

July 14, 1975

RULE NO. 303 

Section 1 

DEADLY FORCE

This ™ ie  is  issued to provide guidelines and regulations goveminp the 
use o f deadly force by members of the Department and to establish  
procedures for the orderly investigation of firearm discharges under 
street conditions. Its provisions are effective  immediately, '^upersedinc 
a l l  previously issued rules, regulations, orders, bu lletin s, and directives 
regarding the use of firearms or other deadly force by Boston Police o fficers.

regulations in the Department, i t  is understood 
tnat they u i l l  not lik ely  cover every conceivable situation that may 
arise. Mien the provisions of this iiile are found to be inconnlete or 

a particular set o f circiniLstonces, o fficers are expected 
to act with intelligence and sound judgment, attending to the sp ir it  
above the le tte r  o f the rule.

DEFINITIONS; For the purpose o f this rule, the following definitions  
w ill apply:

I ^ ^ ^ f o ^  is  ^ a t  degree o f force lik ely  to result in death or great 
r a n y  i n j i y .  The discharge of a firearm toward a person constitutes 
the use of deadly force, even i f  there is no e.xpress intent to k i l l  or 
cause great bodily injury.

Great bodily injury means bodily injury which creates a substantial
or^lnsq lik e ly  to cause serious, permanent disfigureincnt
or lo ss , 01 extended inpairmcnt of the function o f any bodily nenrber 
or orgcin*

°*' includes circiunstunces
i^der which (1) such a danger exists in re a litv , or 121 such a danrer

a c t S 'e S s t e ^ e  d iL ffir ir ; its

Predcnce to^ ts using cautious, discreet or shrewd action and havin'- 
ue regard tor the rights o f citizens while maintaining an awareness of 

the respon sib ilities o f acting as a police o ffic e r .

^asonableness is  moderate and/or fa ir  action, within reason, suitable  
to the confrontation.

The fin a l decisions as to the reasonableness and prudence o f a police  
action L^all be determined on a case-by-case basis by those members of 
the Department called upon to judge the propriety o f a fellow o ff ic e r 's  
actions. Such judpients may not con flict with the ex-pressed provisions 
o f this or any other rule o f order

1 2 H



• 303
.tions 2

c .  2

’!?C 2 2 2 2 2 5 3

Street Condi_tiorts arc a l l  those in wMch an o ffice r  is  rendering police services 
as opposed to attending a training course, m intaining equipment, or encaeine 
in purely administrative fimctions wluch do not bring him into public contact.

GlLNldhVL CONSIDERATIONS: The primary purpose for which each sworn member of
the Department is  issued a firearm and trained in its  use is  the protection of  
l i  c and limb, his own and that o f every other person needing such protection. 
Mthough the firearm is a necessary tool for present day policing, the 

estructive potential i t  carries mandates that i t  be used discriminately and 
within clearly  defined lim its . Tliis m le  establishes those lim its.

In the interests o f personal safety, police officers must seek to gain and 
maintain advantage over persons kno\m or suspected to be armed. Such an 

edge nuay take the fomi of numerical siqieriority of manpower and firepower 
or that o f an o fficer  staying "one junp ahead" o f a subject lik e ly  to produce 
a weapon; but the o ffic e r  seeking to m intain  the advantage over'a subject 
suspected o f being anred is  in a d iff ic u lt  position. He must prepare to use 
his iirearn shoidd i t  be necessary, yet show the restraint required to ensure 
the propriety oi his actions. The situation demands the utmost a b ility  to 
think clea rly , quickly, and decisively , and to use a firearm in a safe and 
eiiectiv e  manner.

Tlie lioston Police Department recognizes i t s  legal duty to protect the rights of 
a ll  individirils to due process of law and a fa ir  t r ia l ,  and its  memliers are 
thereby boimd to refrain fiom any use o f force that unnecessarily tends to 
administer pimishiurnt at the hands of a police o ffice r . The responsibility for 
puiiishmcntof criminal acts rests solely  with duly constituted courts of law 
and penal institutions and is  by no means extended to the police.

roiMl ING FIREARMS: O fficers shall avoid pointing firearms at persons in
ciicimiistances i^dor which discharge would not be clearly ju stifia b le . However 

involving a strong p o ssib ility  of great danger ( e .g . ,  searching 
a building pursuant to a burglar alarm or approaching a business establisliment 
on report o f a robbery in progress, e tc .j  the o ffice r  should carry his weapon 
in a position that l^all fa c ilita te  its  speedy and safe use. V.liile an o ffice r  
siiould not point h p  weapon unless ho is  prepared to use i t ,  the fact that 
he has done so obviously should not be interpreted as an obligation to fir e .

Disai/\RGE OF FIPd'.MyvlS: The law permits police officers to use physical force
in tlie performance o f their duties, but only to the degree required to over­
come unlawful resistance. This doctrine o f "minimum use o f force" applies 
to the use o f fireanns as well as to that o f non-lethal force. Also, because 
o . their destructive p oten tial, tlie use o f firearms must be further restricted  
to tlie pui-pose for which they are issued, that o f protecting l i fe  and lim.b.
^ e  discharge of a firearm under street conditions by a member o f the 
Department is  permissible only when there are no less drastic means available.

A. To defend himself or another from an unlav/ful attack which 
he has reasonable cause to believe could result in death or 
great bodily injury, or

1130



/

See. 7

Sec. 8

Sec. 9

Sec. 10

-T< ■»7rvyi;t̂ iin; .̂. -

RlJI.n KD. 303 

Sections 5 - 1 0

Sec. 5

Sec. 6

B.

C.

lo  apprehend a fleeing felon when the o ffic e r  knows 
as a_virtual certainty, (1) that the subject has 
comutted a felony during the conmission o f wiiich he 
in flic ted  or threatened to in f lic t  deadly force 
’upon the victim , and (2) that there is substantial 
risk that the felon in question w ill cause death or 
groat bodily injury i f  his apprehension is  delayed, or

To k i l l  a dangerous animal or one so badlv injured 
that humanit)- requires its  removal from further 
suffering.

c^im l^ ''^  comiutted or that a particular person has coinmitted a

^ N T L E S : i^dcr the laws of the ComaxDnwealth, persons uvier the are
 ̂ nonmally proceeded against as delinciuent

children, and their records are lik e ly  to be expunged uî on their 
reaching adulthood. .\n o fficer  of this nepartment'shall therefore

a  ̂ except when no less drastic means are avail'.h l-

.-mJ p ro p e k i  in ?hc” rca
bystaSdoJs that t l ir e  ia no danger to

W/\R.\ING SllOTS A\T) SIGNALS: Fireanas shall not be used as a sicnalino

S v r s i g ™ i f : r H o " :r m ° k = n “ - " ° ‘  s ^ ^ a s a L ■ ;a ^ c c ^ o ^ '‘ ;S
thlt S ^ f f L e ^  mnv ^ .flee in g  subject to stop. This does not mean
k i l l  or dit-ahlp if^ i t discharge his revolver without the intent to
c o n v in c in i " f iL n  > judgnvent he has no alternate method of
h iJ ^ ilf  n r  ̂ ^^lo to defendhim self, 01 others, i f  the potential threat is not discontinued.

t e h i S e ^ e S ^ t h e ^ n r r ' ' '^  shall not be discharged at or from a moving 
an oenmanJ nf H IS being threatened with deadly force by ^
shonldTo n '  ̂ vehicle. Under such circumstances, o fficers
^lould be oiware o f the usual in a b ility  o f revolver fire  to penctra^rihn  
rrctal 01 glass surfaces of an automobile. Revolver fire  cannot be 
depended upon to stop a noving vehicle. he

PnitMISSIELi: U-E\P0NS ANT) AM-IUNITION: O fficers shall carry on duty only
ueapons and amimanition authorized by the Denartmont. S p L ia l Capons 
e .g . ,  shotguns, r i f le s ,  automatic weapons, e t c . ,  are not nonmally^ ’

1131



A
.sc­

ion

fc .

303
11 - 12

^ j'' i w f »< p ^ y  M uxr T T -^  V •••'».','i r w  
imJi yiftiif'

11

c. 12

issued. However, such weapons as are authorized by the Department for special 
operations nviy be selectively  issued by the Duty Supervisor i f ,  in his opinion, 
they are necessaiy to ensure the safety and effectiveness of police operatibns. 
O fficers armed with special weapons in such circumstances shall use those 
weapons in accordance with the provisions o f this rule as well as any additional 
guidelines issued at the time.

D'̂ TORTING FIERAK'l DISCIi-\RGES: An o ffic e r  discharging a firearm under street
conditions sh all, as soon as possible, take the necessaiy steps to report 
the discharge. An on-duty o fficer  w ill notify his immediate superior as well 
as tiie o ffic e r  in charge of the d istr ic t in which the event occurred, and w ill 
submit tlie necessary reports without undue delay. An off-duty o fficer  
discharging a firearm inside the c ity  w ill notify his om commanding o fficer  
and the o fficer in charge of the d istr ic t in which the event took place and 
w ill submit the necessaiy reports, without undue delay, to the supeindsor 
im^cstigating the discharge. An off-duty o ffice r  discharging a Department 
fircann outside the city  udll notify  his oun commanding o ffic e r  and w ill 
submit the necessary reports without imiduc delay. A ll discharges require 
the submission of iin Incident Report containing, in addition to the regular 
infonnation, the o ff ic e r 's  duty status (on duty or o ff  duty) at the time of  
the incident, the model and serial nuriier o f the weapon, t!ie numl̂ er of 
shots fired , and the reason for tlie discliarge. Cases in v.'hich an o fficer  
fires at a person require also that tlie o fficer  report the numlier of shots 
( i f  any) fired by the subject, the distance between the subject and himself 
wlien the f ir s t  shot was fired , and wlio fired the f ir s t  shot. A ll these jioints 
of infonnation w ill lie included in the narrative portion o f the Incident Report.

INVESTIGMION OF FIRLVRM DISCH-XRGES: The manner in whidi police officers use
tlieir fireanns is  an extremely c r itic a l issue to the Department, one in wliich 
the community and the courts allow l i t t le  margin for error. To ensure that 
proper control in this area is  maintained, a ll  discharges under street conditions 
w ill be thoroughly investigated for the puiqiose of detemrining the extent to 
wliich they comply with Department policy, hlien a firearm is  discharged by 
an on-duty o ffic e r , his conumuiding o ffice r  w ill be responsible for in itiatin g  
an investigation. I f  the o ffice r  involved was o ff  duty at the time of a 
discharge within the c ity , the o fficer  in charge of the d istric t in which the 
event occurred w ill in itia te  the investigation. For off-duty discharges of  
Department firearms occurring outside the c ity , the investigation w ill be 
in itiated  by the conunanding o fficer  of the o ffice r  involved.

Ul̂ on receiving n otification  of a firearm discharge by an o ffic e r , the commanding 
officer  responsible for in itiatin g  an investigation w ill assign a supervisor 
to investigate. hTen possible, tlic involved o ff ic e r 's  immediate su{oervisor 
w ill be assigned; however, i f  the o fficer  involved is o ff  duty at the time of  
the discharge, or i f  his suiiervisor is otherwise not available, another 
su}icrvisor w ill be assigned.

The investigating super\dsor shall respond to the scene o f the discharge as 
expeditiously as possible and shall there conduct an investigation to determine 
the facts o f the incident and the extent to whicli the discharge complied with 
Department policy, nie supervisor w ill submit Ins finding to tlie coiiuwinding 
o fficer  who in itiated  the investigation who, within 24 hours of the incident,

i .  1  o

\
J



n

wr"»»T»

Sec. 13

Sec. 14

rule no. 305

Sections 13 - 14

r r is

r t f f  i " ' ’=stigativo report, along noth his o m i  recoirrondations 
Comiussioner. ,\ny infonnation obtained later ivil] be 

subnutted in a suriplementary report. Die Chainnan of the Fircarmf 
RoyioK Board (see Section 14) also w ill receive a copy o f a n  r ^ r t s
pertaining to firearms discharges.

PERSONS INJIJRED OR KILLED: IVhen a person is wounded or k illed  as a
I h T l \  1 "" application of deadly force by a member o f the ^ p a r L n t

in\estigation by a street supervisor w ill be augmented by an 
on scene investigation by the Internal A ffairs Division. ^

FIREAÎ HSDISaL-X.RGERE\qBV BOARD: As an additional investigative resource 
theie w ill be a seven-member Firearms Discharge Review Board comnosed ’ 
o f the Superintendent-in-Cliief or his designee, who w ill sJn’ e a?^ 
Chaimin; the deputy superintendent in charge o f the area to which the

not under ihe Jo,m'an^^
Field^sJj^-^"'^^ deputies, a deputy sqierintendent from the Bureau of

sc^locbd f S f e f c i t f  f : t “ do
related to the officer by affinity, consanguinity ofIS op U o m

^le Firearms Discharge Review Board w ill review not only disch-rees of  
rcanns, but also the subsequent actions o f siqierior officers'vbo

r ?  S L is s io n e ,me iX3ard w ill seek to determine the extent to which both artivitinc-
coirqilied or failed  to comply with Department p o l i c i e s ^ d  J Jns

provided to the Board, as needed, by the Internal 

resourcefas ln v J s ? i S ? i r s t a f f ^ f o t

° L p P ° " s  pertaining to a fircanas discharge, the Chain,nn

nectssaiyy Tlie Firearms Discharge Review Board w ill investigate

t^ r fe r ^ r e o i 't in S iH o 'n s !'^ ™  ^

I'he Board w-ill receive a ll  reports submitted in relation to a firearms 
schaige and may c a ll and interview any person who can give infoimntion

1133



c. 15

16

17

pertinent to the inquiry. Members o f the Department must appear and give 
infonnation i f  called; however, before being questioned by the lioard, members 
shall be advised of their right to witlihold infonnation lik e ly  to result in 
the f i lin g  of criminal charges against them or that may be used as evidence 
against them in a court o f law. Tlus docs not abridge the Department's right 
to require members to answer a ll  questions relevant to their o f f ic ia l actions; 
however, inaccordance with Silverio vs. Justices o f the Municipal Court, City 
o f lioston, information obtained througli such administrative questioning can not 
be used to criminally prosecute the member providing the infoimation.

Copies of a l l  reports relating to a discharge incident w ill be routed to the 
Office of the Commissioner, Internal A ffa irs , Personnel, the B allistician  and 
the Chairman of the Pirearr.is Discharge Review Board. A copy of the Board's 
report to the Commissioner w ill be made available to the o fficer whose actions 
arc reviewed. A ll related reports, including those generated by the proceedings 
or inquiries of the Firearms Discharge Review Board, w ill be maintained in 
separate f i le s  by the Intenial A ffa irs Division.

DISPOSiriON: U{)on receiving the F.D.R.B. report pertaining to a firearms discharge
and investigation, tlie Commissioner may accept and act uĵ on its  recommendations 
in tota l or in j'lart, or lie may return the report to the Board with a request 
for further infonnation or c la rific a tio n . In either case, the authority and 
responsibility for fin al Departmental disposition of a fiream s discharge 
case rests solely  with the Commissioner.

TRAINING AND QUALIFIQMION: In the use o f a fircami, ineptitude can be as 
disastrous as indiscretion. Police o fficers  in this Department, therefore, 
w ill be held accountable for proficiency as well as compliance with policy  
in tlie use of fireanns. A ll sworn members o f tlie Department are responsible 
for maintaining a minimum level o f expertise in the use and handling o f a l l  
firearms approved for their carrying. S p ecifica lly , sworn members w ill 
qualify at least once a year with a score of 60°o or higher, using the firearm 
normally carried on duty. An o ffice r  who fa i ls  to qualify w ill be allowed 
30 days to bring liis score up to a qualifying level and, fa ilin g  to do so, vd.ll 
be temporarily reassigned to intensive training at the police range until 
qualification is  achieved. An o ffice r  who after 60 days of such intensive 
training has s t i l l  fa iled  to qualify w ill be subject to reevaluation.

SECURITi AND MMNTEN.'VN'CE OF FIRE/XR̂ IS: Members shall take reasonable precautions
to ensure tliat weapons issued them by the Department are protected against 
misuse, f̂cmbers are also responsible for keeping their issued fireaims clean 
and in good working order.



PART 4: Preliminary Report
o f  Mr. C. H. Cole, Chief 
Inspector, Invest igat ive  
Services Bureau, Memphis 
Po l ice  Department

7 9 S



HOMICIDE SECTION 
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS UNIT 
INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES BUREAU 
MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT 

MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
January 18, 1972

Mr. C. H. Cole, Chief Inspector 
Investigative Services Bureau 
Memphis Police Department
Dear Sir:

PRELIMINARY REPORT

At approximately 10:30 p.m, on Wednesday, January 12, 1972, Eddie Hugh 
Madison, male Negro, 14, of 35 East Davant, Walter Lee Williams, male 
Negro, age 17, of 127 West Frank, Jerry Lee Wilkins, male Negro, 15, of 
120 West Dempster, and Lynell Wilkins, male Negro, 14, of 162 West 
Frank, stole a 1952 white over blue four door Pontiac Catalina, bearing 
Tennessee 1971 license 1-E7340, VIII 362-D5351. These male Negroes stole 
this car from 62 East Norwood. The car belonged to Elije Renfroe, male 
Negro, 36 of same address. After the four male Negroes rode around for 
a short while in this car, Lynell Wilkins and Jerry Lee Wilkins got out 
of the car near Gage and Florida leaving Walter Lee Williams and Eddie 
Hugh Madison in the car alone. Eddie Lee Madison was driving the car 
at approximately 11:00 p.m.going west on Gage at Shelby, where he continu­
ed West at which point police officers E. R, Fedrlck and L. P. Davidson 
in Baker-12 recognized the car as being stolen from a previous, broad­
cast placed on the air by the dispatcher which included Che license num­
ber. Officers Fedrick and Davidson followed this stolen car west to 
Florida where the stolen car stopped behind another car at the stop sign. 
When the police officers attempted to apprehend Che two male Negroes,
Eddie Hugh Madison jumped from the car and fled sout.i across Gage and 
down Florida Street. Several shots were fired at Madiscn by Officer 
Fedrick using a shotgun loaded with buckshot. Madison was struck by two 
of these shotgun pellets and after running down the sidewalk south on 
Florida for approximately seventy-five feet, he collapsed oh the sidewalk 
and was transported to the John Gaston Hospital a few alnirtes later 
where he was pronounced dead at 11:49 p.m., January 12, 1972.
At approximately 10:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 12, 1972, Patrolman 
E. R. Fedrick and Patrolman L. P. Davidson, while working the 4:00 p.m. ' 
to 2:00 a.m. shift, in Squad Car Baker-12, were sent on a complaiiit call' 
by the police dispatcher to 1686 Kansas, apartment 2. While these offi­
cers were on this call, Charlie-12, another squad car, operated by Patrol­
men J. C. Boswell and R. K. Cates, which also over-laps this same dis­
trict at this particular time of night, were sent on another call in 
this same district. The time of this call was 10:45 p.m. The dispatch­
er, J. D. Williams, told the officers the nature of the call was a car 
theft, which had just occurred at 62 East Norwood. He told them that 
the stolen car was a 1952 white over blue Pontiac, Tennessee 1971 license 
lE-7340. These officers proceeded to 62 East Norwood and took a theft 
report of this 1962 white over blue Pontiac, belonging to ELIje Renfros 
of the Norwood address. The VIN number of this car was verified as being 
362D5351. These officers then phoned this report in to the Recording 
Center before leaving 62 East Norwood.
In the meantime Baker-12 with officers Fedrick and Davidson completed 
their call at 1686 Kansas. These officers got back into service at 10;^^ 
p.m. Before getting into service they had heard part of the broadcast 
on the stolen 1962 Pontiac taken from 62 East Norwood. However, they 
were not sure of the color on the car, therefore, they asked the dispatch= 
er to verify the color on the stolen car. Another dispatcher, Mike 
Christopher, repeated the color on the stolen Pontiac, telling the offi­
cers that it was a white over blue 1962 Pontiac, Tennessee license 1-E7340. 
The tine was now 10:,^ p.m. Officers Fedrick and Davidson now started 
cruising, looking for the stolen Pontiac.
A few minutes later, which was approximately 11:00 p.m., these officers 
were cruising south on .Shelby approaching Gage with Patrolman Davidson 
under the wheel. As they approached Cage Avenue, they saw a 1962 Pontiac



white over blue approaching the same Intersection, going west on GAge.
These officers allowed the Pontiac to go through the Intersection, then 
they f, j.l In behind It, also going west on Cage, toward Florida Street, 
with Florida Street being only one long block west of Shelby Street.
After observing that this Pontiac was bearing TENnessee license 1-E7340, 
and was the stolen car, which had been broadcast a few minutes earlier, 
they then notified the dispatcher that they were west on Gage behind 
the stolen auto. The time was 11:00 p.ra. These officers proceeded be­
hind this car to Florida Street where the stolen car came to a stop be­
hind another car which had stopped for a stop sign before entering 
Florida Street. Patrolman Davidson stopped the squad car directly be­hind the stolen Pontiac.
j,Fntrolman Fedrick had gotten the ,12 guage pump shotgun which was loaded.
’with four rounds of 00 buckshot, ;hich is a police issued. Fedrick jumped 
from the squad car and ran to the passenger side of the stolen car. He' 
pointed the shotgun at the two occupants who were two male Negroes tell­
ing them that they were under arrest and to get out of the car with their hands up.
The male Negro who was driving the stolen car Immediately jumped from 
the driver’s side Into the street and started running south across Gage 
to the Florida Street sidewalk being the east side of Florida. Patrol­
man Fedrick yelled "Halt" three times to this fleeing male Negro; when 
the male Negro made no effort to halt. Patrolman Fedrick fired a warning 
shot from the shotgun which was several feet above the head of the flee­
ing male Negro, who still refused to stop. Patrolman Fedrick then fired 
a second shot at the male Negro who still did not stop and continued to 
run. Fedrick then fired a third shot at the male Negro as he rounded 
the corner going south on Florida. Fedrick lost sight of the male Negro and thought that he had made good his escape.
While Patrolman Fedrick was firing the shotgun, at the fleeing male Negro, 
his partner. Patrolman Davidson had also pulled his .38 calibre revolver 
and yelled for the male Negro to halt, then fired one shot at this sub­
ject as he was fleeing,.but apparently did not hit him.
In the meantime, the other male Negro who was still in the stolen cat 
had moved over into the driver’s position and had taken the wheel, 
apparently for the purpose of driving the car away. When Patrolman 
Fedrick turned from firing at the first male Negro, he saw the stolen 
car moving across Florida Street, headed west. He turned and fired his remaining round from the shotgun into the rear glass of the stolen 
Pontiac causing the rear window to shatter. Fedrick then pulled his 
38 calibre service revolver and while running toward the car on the passen­
ger side, he fired one shot from the revolver into the rear door glass, 
also causing this window to shatter. The male Negro inside the car laid 
down in the floorboard and the stolen auto ran up on the street curb and 
across the sidewalk on the northwest corner of Florida and Gage, where 
it came to a rest with the right rear wheel still on the street gutter.
The male Negro inside the car surrendered and was placed under arrest 
for the Auto Theft Bureau. He was later learned to be Halter Lee Williams 
age 17 of 127 West Frank. Although two shots were fired into the car Williams was not hit or injured in any way.
While Patrolman Fedrick was getting the second male Ne’gro from the stolen 
auto. Patrolman Davidson ran south on Florida Street in the direction 
which the fleeing male Negro had gone. Davidson found that the male Nevro 
had been shot and had collapsed on the sidewalk apprcrinately twenty-five 
yards south of Gage Street. Seeing that the male Negro was seriously 
Injured, these officers immediately called for an ambulance. They later 
identified this male Negro as Eddie Hugh MADISON, age 14, of 35 East Davant.

Page 2 - Prellciinary Report on Eddie Hugh Madison, male Negro, 14.

This shooting and apprehension occurred within a three minute time lapse, 
which was between 11:00 p.m. and 11:03 p.m. This can be proven because 
of the fact that the replay of the dispatchers’ tape shov/s that Baker-12 
reported following the stolen automobile west on Gage toward Florida 
Street from Shelby at 11:00 p.m. They called for an ambulance at 11:03 
p.m. The next time the dispatcher gave the time it was 11:07 p.m. and 
Baker-12 had checked the third time with the dispatcher to see if an

8 0 0



Page 3 - Preliminary Report on Eddie Hugh Madison, male Negro, 14. 

ambulance was on the way. '
Immediately after this shooting, several other cquad cars who had been 
sent to assist, arrived on the scene. These cars were Baker-50, operat­
ed by Lieutenant H. S. Schultz, Charlie-50, operatea by Lieutenant T. H. 
Smith, Charlle-51, operated by Lieutenant H. T. York, Charlie-115, 
operated by Captain C. E. Watts, Baker-11, operated by Patrolmen M. E. 
White and Patrolman J. W. Jeter, also Baker-18, operated by Patrolman 
C. P. Action and Patrolman L. S. Reeves. IT was Patrolman Action and 
Patrolman Reeves who transported Walter Lee Williams to Juvenile Court 
shortly after his arrest.
Shortly after other police cars arrived on the scene, a city fire depart­
ment ambulance arrived and rushed the victim, Eddie Hugh Madison, to the 
John Gaston Hospital. The officers on the scene then called for Homicide 
Officers, Crime Scene Of fleers , and the Internal Affairs investigating 
officers. They protected the scene and awaited the arrival of the in­
vestigating officers.
On Wednesday, January 12, 1972, at approximately 11:12 p.m.. Homicide 
Detectives J. A. Dungan and H. E. Randle, were in the Homicide Office 
along with Lieutenant B. G. Hinson and Detective C. A. Gregory, when 
they received a phone call from police dispatcher Thompson, who advised 
them that police officers had recovered a stolen car at Florida and 
Gage, which had been occupied by two male Negroes; also that during the 
apprehension, one of the male Negroes had gotten shot by the arresting 
officers. Dispatcher Thompson also advised that Homicide Officers were 
needed at the scene. Detectives Dungan and Randle informed Lieutenant 
Hinson of the incident, then proceeded to Florida and Gage, arriving 
there at 11:27 p.m.
When Detectives Dungan alid Randle arrived on the scene, they observed 
several police cars and police officers about the intersection of Florida 
and Gage. They also noticed a 1962 white over blue four door Pontiac, 
Catalina, bearing Tennessee 1971 plates, 1-E7340, which was on the north­
west corner of the intersection. This car had run over the curb and was 
sitting across the sidewalk with both front wheels and the left rear 
wheel on or across the sidewalk. The right rear wheel was in the street 
gutter, but was on top of the grating that covers the street sewer just 
a few feet north of the street Intersection. The'lights of the car were 
on bright and the motor was still running. The right front door was 
standing open and the right rear door glass and the car's rear window 
had been shot out. This car's front end was pointed in a slight north­
western direction toward a house on the corner which numbers 8 West Gage.
Lieutenant Sc hultz. Lieutenant Smith, Lieutenant York and Captain Watts 
were still on the scene. Patrolman E. R. Fedrlck and Patrolman L. P. 
Davidson were standing by the stolen automobile and Patrolman H. E. WHITE 
and Patrolman J. W. Jeter of Baker-11 were standing by on the sldew'alk 
on the east side of Florida which was several yards south of Gage. This 
was the spot where the victim, Eddie Hugh Madison had fallen, after being 
sho t.
Homicide Detectives Dungan and Randle talked with Patrolman Davidson and' 
Patrolman Fedrick and were told that a few minutes before 11:00 p.m., 
the dispatcher had sent Charlie-12 to 62 East Norwood in regards to a 
white over blue 1962 Pontiac, which had just been stolen from that loca­
tion, and which was later broadcast to them as bearing license number 
1-E7340. They revealed that they were cruising for this car when they 
spotted it going west on Gage at Shelby. They had gotten behind the 
car which was occupied by two male Negroes and had advised the dispatcher 
that they were behind the car, and when they reached the intersection 
of Florida and Gage, the stolen car had stopped behind a car which had 
stopped for this stop sign, before going into Florida Street. They stat­
ed the car in front then turned south on Florida. Officer Fedrick had 
gotten out of the squad car and approached the occupants of the stolen 
car on the right hand side. He had also brought from the squad car the 
.12 guage pump shotgun loaded with four rounds of 00 buckshot. They 
told the Homicide officers that Che driver of the stolen vehicle leaped 
out on the driver's side after being Cold he was under arrest and ran 
across Gage to the sidewalk heading south on Florida.

801



Patrolman Fedrick had yelled for the fleeing subject to halt several 
times, and when he did not do so, he had fired one shot high over the 
head of the fleeing subject. The male Negro still did not stop and 
Fedrick had fired a second shot which struck the corner of the building.
He was not sure if the subject was struck with the second shot but he 
continued to run around the corner south on Florida and Patrolman 
Fedrick had fired a third shot from the shotgun, as the male Negro went 
out of sight from him around the corner. Also, Patrolman Davidson re­
vealed that he had fired one shot from his service revolver during the 
time Fedrick was firing the shotgun. While the shots were being fired 
at the fleeing male Negro, the other male Negro had remained in the car, 
but had slid over under the steering wheel, and the Pontiac was continu­
ing west across Florida.
Patrolman Fedrick then related that he ran a few steps toward Che stolen 
car and fired the remaining fourth round of 00 buckshot into the rear 
glass of the stolen car. He then ran after the car, drawing his revolver 
and fired one round into the rear door glass, causing it to break. The 
car continued on across Florida, jumped the curb on the northwest corner 
and Patrolman Fedrick had gotten to the car and heard the male Negro 
occupant who t/as laying on the floorboard indicate that he was surrender­
ing. He then opened the right frontdoor and arrested the male Negro 
who identified himself as Walter Lee Williams, age 17.
Patrolman Davidson had run around the corner of the building south on 
Florida to check for the fleeing male Negro and found that he had been 
critically Injured and had collapsed on the sidewalk. Patrolman Davidson 
related that he then ran to the squad car and called for an ambulance 
and stood by at the scene until the ambulance arrived. They noted that 
at the time of the shooting they had seen no one in the street in any 
direction, but shortly after the shooting, it appeared to then that 
approximately two hundred people had gathered around the area.
The Homicide Detectives then talked with Lieutenant K. T. York, lieutenant 
i n  -ommand, and the immediate superior of Patrolmen Fedrick and Davidson. 
He :old them that Patrolman J. C. Boswell and Patrolman R. K. Cates 
assigned to Charlie-12, had answered a call to 62 East Norwood whera. they 
had taken an auto theft report from Ellje Renfroe, male Negro, 36, of 
that address, phone 774-3597, which was in regards to his 1962 white 
over blue, four door Pontiac, Catalina, having been stolen in front of 
his house at approximately 10:30 p.m. on that day. The theft had been 
discovered by Renfroe's 17 year old step-son, David Chattraan, who had 
actually observed the car being stolen and driven away,by what he 
thought to be five male Negroes. The owner, Renfroe, had produced owner­
ship papers according to Lieutenant York and Patrolman Boswell had taken 
the theft report and phoned it in to the Recording Center at 11:07 p.m. 
which is filed under R. & I. number 532-008.
After these officers had been interviewed. Lieutenant York and the two 
officers Fedrick and Davidson, showed the Homicide Officers where the 
shooting had occurred, which was on Gage Avenue just east of Florida.
There was noted to be a stop sign at the intersection which stops the 
west bound traffic on Gage. On the northwest corner of this intersection 
was a two-story building and across the street on the southeast corner 
Is a building which is occupied by Kaplan Furniture Company, which has 
the number 2194 Florida. The Homicide Investigating officers' in^?esti- 
gatlon reveals that Patrolman Fedrick fired the first three shots from 
the shotgun,that the male Negro was fleeing across the street and was 
almost at the corner of the Kaplan Furniture Company. Patrolman Fedrick 
was standing at a point four to five feet east of the east curb of 
Florida and fired at an angle. The first shot went high and it was 
observed that this load of buckshot had struck the north wall.of the 
Kaplan Furniture Company approximately ten feet above the ground. These 
pellets struck a window which was covered with wood^ the windov; was 
approximately six feet east of the sidewalk, and ten feet above the 
ground. All nine of the pellets had gone through the wood window and 
passed into the Kaplan Furniture Store. The HOMlclde investigation re­
vealed that the second shot from Fedrick's shotgun was fired as the 
male Negro was near the corner of the building. The Homicide officers 
were able to count eight (8) freshly Indented marks on the brick wall

Page A - Preliminary Report on Eddie Hugh Madison, male Negro, 14.

Q >



that appeared to have been struck by buckshot. Theresas a small chip 
of brick which had been knocked loose from one of Che brick on the 
corner of Che building; this part of the brick was lying nn the sidewalk. 
These officers noted that approximately twenty-five yards south of the 
south curbline of Gage, on the sidewalk at the south property line of 
the Kaplan Furniture Company, and just at the edge of the next business, 
which is the South Memphis Cleaners at 2196 Florida, was a blood spot, 
approximately one foot by two foot. There were chalk markings made 
around this blood spot which Indicated that the victim's head had come 
to a rest at the base of the wall which Indicated that his feet extend­
ed out across the sidewalk in a northwestward angle. These chalk marks 
had been made by Officers onthe scene prior to Che removal of the victim while an ambulance was en route.
Approximately six feet north of this large blood spot was a small blood 
spot which also had been circled with chalk; approximately three feet 
north of this blood spot was another spot which had also been circled wlthchalk.
The Homicide investigation further revealed that Patrolman Fedrlck's 
third shot had been fired from the same point as the first two. The 
examination of the scene revealed that the three spent shotgun shells 
had been ejected from the pump shotgun and had fallen into the storm 
sewer next to where Fedrick was standing when he fired the shots, which 
was on the northeast cornerc£ Gage and Florida. The investigation also 
revealed that before Fedrick fired the fourth shot, at the moving stolen 
car, that he had moved out to the edge of Florida Street, and after the 
fourth shot,,the shell had also been ejected but could not be found and 
was possibly removed from the scene by someone in the crowd that, had gathered around Che scene.
Homicide officers could not determine where Patrolman Davidspn's .38 
calibre slug had landed but they were of the opinion that the pistol 
shot fired by him might have struck the victim. The victim's injuries 
which were determined through Detective, C. J. Harrell and Detective 
R. I.. Hannah's part of the investigation, will be written into this report later.
Further examination of the 1962 Pontiac by Detectives Dungan and Randle, 
revealed that in addition to the rear glass and right rear door glass 
being shot out, that the back of the front seat had numerous holes, which 
could have been caused by a shotgun pellet or flying glass. It is un­
known where Patrolman Fedrlck's pistol shot came Co rest in th'e car. It 
was observed that there were' two holes in the front seat just to the' 
right of where the driver was sitting. These holes appeared to be fresh. - 
The motor of the car was still running and the lights were on bright.
These officers noted that the ignition switch which is the type chat is 
turned on and off with a key only, was on but there was no key in the 
Ignition. It was later learned that the ignition was faulty and could 
be turned on and off with a pointed object or any other key, which was later done in removing the car.
It should also be noted that the South Memphis Cleaners which is 2196 
Florida and is part of a continuous building, is where the victim had 
fallen to the sidewalk, which is next door to the Mallory Heights Laund- 
rette, which carries Che number of 2198 Florida. Homicide officers did 
not observe any damage to either of these three buildings along the 
front, which Includes Kaplan Furniture, South Memphis Cleaners and Mallory Heights Laundrette.
Homicide Detectives noted that on the west side of Florida, south of Cage, 
the first business place was Kaplan Discount Store, which has the num­
ber 2191 Florida. Adjoining this on the south is Moore's Barber and 
Beauty, having the number 2193 Florida. Next to this is a record shop, 
being 2195 Florida. Next is Engleberg's Grocery, 2197 Florida, joined 
by Oser's Department Store, which is 2201 Florida. Next is an alley 
which runs west off Florida, south of this alley is the Toast-of-Town 
Lounge, and Sundry; then the Southslde Cafe. The investigation revealed 
Chat at the time of this shooting, all of the businesses were closed with 
the exception of the Toast-of-the Town Sundry and the Southslde Cafe.

Page 5 - Preliminary Report on Eddie Hugh Madison, male Negro, 14.

8 o : i



The front of the buildings at this locatiin were examined but no evidence 
could be found that any of these buildings had been struck by bullets or 
shotgun pellets. However, Homicide Detectives did locate a 1963 two door 
Cadillac, white in color bearing Tennessee license 1-S7098 v;hich was 
parked heading south on Florida in front of Oser's which was just north 
of the alley to Che west curb of Florida. The left front tire of this 
auto was flat. The owner, Lorece Thompson, male Negro, age 38, of 2248 
Devoy, phone 523 1539, was located inside Che Toast of Tovm Sundry. He 
Cold the officers that he was an Auxiliary Probation Officer with the 
Juvenile Court, and that he works part time at the Toast of Town. He 
also revealed that he parked his car at the spot where it was noticed by 
the officers at approximately 6 p.m. then when he learned about the 
shooting he went outside and noticed his tire was flat.
The officers noticed that the tire had what appeared Co be a small puncture 
in thelower part of the tire which was located in the rear part which would 
be in line of fire from where Officer Fedric and Officer Davidson were shoot 
ing from. Thompson told theofficers that he would take the tire and have it 
repaired and if there was a bullet or pellet in the tire that he would hold 
the slug and notify the Homicide office.
The inrestigating officers had been unable to obtain names of any witnesses 
to this shooting. The only witnesses on -the scene at the time of the shoot­
ing which the officers knew about were the occupants of the car which was 
stopped for the stop sign at Gage and Florida just before the shooting oc­
curred. However, the names and whereabouts of the occupants of this car 
are unknown.
Lt. B. G. Hinson had been contacted by phone from the scene by Detective 
Dungan. Lt. Hinson had informed Dungan that he had Checked with the 
hospital and that the victim, Eddie Hugh Madison, had expired. Lt. Hinson, 
Acting Bureau Commander, in charge of Che Homicide Office, on this partlcula 
night, also arrived on the scene a short time later to assist with the in­
vestigation. Also Lt. G. E. Jordan and Detective J. F. McQuarry arrived on 
the scene to help with the investigation.
Crime Scene Officers Detective C. J. Harrell and Detective R. L. Hannah 
who had arrived on the scene, began their processing of the scene shortly 
after their arrival which was 11:39 p.m. These officers observed the shot 
pattern in the brick wall on the north side of the Kaplan Furniture Company 
which was made by the second shot from Fedrlck's shotgun. They counted eight 
marks where the pellets had struck at this location. They measured the 
distance from the ground up and found it to be three and one half feet, fror 
the ground to the shot pattern. They also noticed a piece of brick broken 
from the corner of the building a few inches higher and a few inches west 
of the main shot pattern. The spot where the piece of brick was broken off 
had been struck by a pellet and the measurement here was four feet from Che 
ground to this broken brick. They also measured the distance from where 
officer Fedrick was standing when the shots were fired to the approximate 
location of where the victim was when shot. They found this distance to be 
thirty-five feet. These officers measured the distance from the corner of 
the building to the large blood spot where the victim had fallen and found 
this distance to be forty-eight feet. They also measured the distance from 
where the squad car was stopped at the time of the shooting to where the 
blood spot was on the sidewalk on Florida and found this distance to be - 
seventy-five feet. The distance from the Florida Street curb to where the 
squad car was sitting on Gage at the time of the shooting was twenty-five 
feet. Gage Street at this intersection, measures twenty-seven feet and 
Florida Street, fifty-four feet wide.
The Crime Scene Officers also processed the stolen Fontiac which had not 
been moved from where it had come to rest. They also took measurements 
from different points from where the car was sitting. The measurements 
showed that the car was sitting twelve feet north of the north curb of 
Gage on the west side of Florida Street. They noted that Che car was part­
ly in the yard on Che east side of the residence near the intersection 
which has bhe nurabtr 8 West Gage. The auto was found to be seventy-nine 
feet from the northeast corner of the intersection of Florida and Gage.
While at the scene the crome scene officers made photographs of the entire 
area showing the stolen car where it came to rest after the shooting.

Page 6 r- Preliminary Report on Eddie Hugh Madison, male Negro, 14.

804



These photographs shows the brick wall of Kaplan Furniture Store where 
one load of buckshot had struck. One photograph shows the blood spots on 
the sidewalk where the victim fell. Another photograph shows the boarded 
up window which is ten feet above the pound, where the first load of buck 
shot had. struck. A photographs shows the 63 Cacillac belonging to Lorece 
Thouias which was found to have a flat tire. The photographs also show 
the street drainage sev;er where three of the spent shotgun shells landed 
after being ejected from Fedrick's shotgun. The photographs show the 
side walk on the east side of Florida which is the flight route taken by 
the victim, Eddie Madison. These officers also dusted for prints and 
photographed the glass windows at 2196 Florida where the victim fell after 
being shot. There will be more written later in this report in regards to 
the processing of this glass.
It should be noted that the shotgun shells were found in the sewer on the 
north side of Gage just east of Florida Street. These spent shells were 
photographed prior to their removal after the heavy iron grating had been 
removed. These shotgun shells were reaoved after being photographed by 
the crime scene officers then later tagged as evidence under property 
receipt number A40348. Crime scene officers also drew a diagraiof the entire 
scene in this diagram they Included measurements and pinpointed all evidence in this diagram.
After the crime scene officers finished processing the stolen auto was then 
towed to the city lot by a city wrecker. At approximately 2 a.m. on Thurs­
day, January 13, 1972, while at the city lot it was processed for finger 
prints by the sane crime scene officers. These officers v;ere successful in 
lifting several prints. However, these orints have not been checked against 
any of the male negroes Involved in this car theft, due to the fact that the 
were under eighteen years of age.
At 3:16 a.m. on Thursday, January 13, 1972, these same two crime scene of­
ficers arrived at the morgue. They photographed the body of Eddie Madison 
showing the wounds on the body and the fact for 1 den11ficat ion purposes.
A check of the body revealed that the victim had two small holes in the 
upper part of the back on the right side, which measured forty-nine inches 
from the right heel. There were also two small holes in the upper portion 
of the back on the left side, which measured forty-eight inches from the 
left heel. These officers measured the victim in length and found that he 
measured sixty-four Inches, however, it should be noted that Dr. James Bell, 
Assistant Shelby County Medical Examiner, later measured the victim and 
found that he was sisty-six inches long. The crime scene officers also 
collected the clothing worn by the victim which consisted of a pair of black 
and white striped pants, a black jacket, a pair of blue socks, a pair of 
white shorts, a pair of brown shoes, a brown leather belt, and a brown 
sweater. These officers also received the personal property of the victim 
which was turned over tothem by Patrolman M. E. Bibbs, who was on duty at th 
John Gaston Hospital. This property consisted of a one dollar and fifty-twc 
cent laundry ticket which had the name of South Memphis Cleaners and Laundry 
2196 Florida. This ticket was dated January 12, 1972. The victim also had a 
black comb, a cob pipe, a partial pack of Kool Cigarettes, a Vicks Inhaler, 
and three small match books. The clothing was tagged in the property room 
by these crime scene officers as evidence under receipt number A40345.
These officers later rendered a full report of their on the scene processing 
their processing of the stolen auto and their processing at the morgue. Thi 
report including photographs and diagrams will be a part of this preliminary 
report.
While at the scene Homicide Detectives Dungan and Randle learned that the 
male Negro, Walter Lee Williams, had already been turned over to Patrolmen 
Reeves and Acton in squad car 13 for transportation to Juvenile Court. They 
also learned that no force was used to affect the arrest on Williams and he had received no injuries of any type.
Although, it was not written into the supplement rendered by Detectives 
Dungan and Randle in regards to the check of their pistols and ammunition 
while at the scene, however, the writer talked to rtt , Dungan about this 
and Det. Dungan told the writer that he personally checked the pistols of 
both Fedric and Davidson and also noted tint they had their necessary extra 
rounds of anmunttlon, while at the seme. He said that a check of their 
plstold revealed five live rounds in each pistol and one spent hull in 
each pistol.

Page 7 - Prelirainary Report on Eddie Hugh Madison, male Hegro, 14

80 :



Inspector Duke Vincent of the Internal Affairs Bureau, was also at the 
scene of this shooting during the investigation and he requested from the 
Homicide Office that he be furnished a copy of all the paper work that was involved in this investigation.
Prior to the Homicide Officers leaving the scene after they finished their 
investigation, they called for a fire pumper. When the pumper arrived on 
the scene the blood on the sidewalk v;here the victim fell was washed from the sidewalk.

Page 8 - Preliminary Report on Eddie Hugh Madison, male Negro, 14.

Patrolman Fedrick and Patrolman Davidson reported to the Homicide Section 
immediately after the investigation at the scene had been completed. These 
officers were advised of their rights by the homicide detectives prior to 
giving written statements. Written statements were then taken from eacli 
of them regarding recovery of the auto and the apprehension and shooting of 
Eddie Madison. Their written statements are a part of this file and are 
self-explanatory. The spent round was removed from each of the officers' 
service revolver while in the Homicide Section, then placed in to separate 
envelopes and after being narked, they were tagged as evidence under receipt 
number A40346. The serial number was taken from each of the officer's re­
volvers and written into their statements. Along with the serial number and description of the shotguns used in this shooting.
After Homicide Officers had been in the Homicide Offic a short while after 
completing their on the scene investigation. Inspector Duke Vincent came to 
the office and advised that he had been informed by Captain Weaver Chat City 
Councilman J. N. Ford had gone to the scene of the shooting and talked to 
some witnesses who had said that the victim had put his hands up against the 
front window of the laundry where he fell and that the police had shot him 
down after he surrendered. Inspector Vincent stated that he had contacted 
Councilman Ford by telephone and that Ford had told him that he did go to 
the scene since he was home in bed and had received a call from some citizen 
about the shooting and that when he was at the scene someone had told him 
that the victim had Cried to surrender and the police had shot him anyway.
Detective Dungan, along with Inspector Vincent, then returned to the scene 
where they were met by the Crime Scene Officers Hannah and Harrell. It had 
been mentioned by Councilman Ford that one of the windows had been shot 
out where the victim was standing. However, it was known by investigating 
officers while they were at the scene that none of the windows in Che area 
near where the victim was shot had been broken. While at the scene, Det. 
Dungan and Inspector Vincent, along with the Crime Scene Officers, made a 
further check but could still find no broken windows. However, it was re­
quested of the Crime Scene Officers to dust the window of the cleaners at 
2196 Florida where the victim had fallen after being shot, for possible 
prints. These windows were dusted and no fingerprints could be raised.
The only possible sign of any break in these windows that could be found 
were very small holes which were old and which could have possibly been 
made by B. Bis. The only glass that was known Co have been broken was a 
small glass window in the north wall of the Kaplan Furniture Company which 
was boarded up on the outside. It was known earlier when the officers were 
at the scene that this small window which was ten feet from the ground .was broken by the first pattern of buckshot that struck these boards. However, 
this glass window is only visible from lookingChrough the door of the Kaplan 
Furniture Company, and Che glass Itself could not be touched unless you went 
in the store and climbed up on Che wall by using a ladder. However, the 
owner of this store was not called down to the scene and the store itself was not open.
While the Homicide Detectives were investigating at the scene they -made ob­
servations as to the lighting conditions at the scene. They drew a rough 
sketch of the scene for their own use. They included the tv70 street lights 
at the intersection, one of which is located just to the rear of the Kaplan 
Furniture Company. One street light is located on a utility pole on the 
northeast corner of the intersection of Florida and Gage. The other one, the 
one being nearer the Kaplan Furniture Company, is also on a utility pole on 
Gage, but east of Florida at the rear of the northeast corner of the Kaplan Furniture Company.
There were noted to be other street lights north and south on Florida.
There are also interior lights burning inside the Kaolan Furnityre Company.



At 2194 Florida the South Memphis Cleaners, at 2196 Florida and the Kaplan 
Discount Store at 2191 Florida, these lights inside these stores cast light 
into the street making Florida Avenue brighter than the area on Gage, just 
east of Florida where the car was first stopped. On Gage east of Florida 
at the stop sign there is a two-story building on the northeast corner. The 
Kaplan Furniture Company on the southeast corner is also a two-story bulldin- 
The windows In these buildings are closed up on the Gage side and the in­
terior lights from Inside the buildings do not shine onto Cage Avenue, which 
causes Gage Street not to be as well lighted as Florida, especially the lo­
cation between the two two-story buildings where the shooting occurred. The 
officers noted at the time they conducted this investigation that the weathe 
was cool and the sky was dark but it was not raining at the time.
When Homicide Detectives, Lt. G. E. Jordan and Detective J. F. McQuarry 
arrived on the scene the processing was already taking place. Therefore,
Lt. Jordan and Detective McQuarry attempted to Interview the witnesses 
that were standing around the street,however, they were unable to find any 
one who would admit to seeing the shooting Incident. These officers talked 
to the occupants of the apartments over the stores on the northeast corner 
of Gage and Florida. Hot.rever, they did find people that had only heard shot
They talked to Alberta Perkins, female negro, age 60, of 2180 Florida, Apt.
S i who told them she'-had been in bed asleen and she thought that it was 
around 11:30 or Midnight when she was awakened by three shots being fired.
She said she looked out the window and saw a car chat was sitting on the 
curb. Sheobserved the car jump up on the curb and the officer run over and 
get a male negro out of the car from the passenger side of the car.. She 
observed him put handcuffs oh the male negro and saw him place hi.m in Che 
squad car. She said she did not see any of the shooting and was awakened by 
the shots but did not look out in time Co see the shooting but she did look 
in time to see the car jump up On the curb at Florida and Gage, which was 
the stolen car.
These officers also Calked to Mary Tolan, female negro, age 28, of 2180 
Florida, Apt. S 2 , no phone, who told the officers that^she had been up 
watching television and she thought it was around 11:30 or Midnight when 
she heard either five or six shots being fired in the street. She said she 
did not see anything that had occurred.
These officers then went to a duplex on the northwest corner of. Gage and 
Florida where the car jumped the curb and where the second occupant of the 
car was apprehended. This address was noted to be 8 Nest Gage and was oc­
cupied by Anner Carpenter, female negro, age 67, no phone. She told the 
officers that she was in bed with her husband sleeping and she was awakened 
by shots being fired. She estimated Che time as being around 11:05 p.m..
She told the officers she heard a total of five shots and shortly after the 
shots she heard a car jump up on the curb, then heard someone say, "Get out 
of the car". However, she did not see any of what occurred.
After canvassing the area and finding no one else that heard anything, the 
officers then went to 62 E. Norwood the home of Ellge Renfroe, nale negro, 
age 36, hone phone 774-3597, this being the home of Che male negro Chat 
owned the stolen 1962 Pontiac. At this location the officers were told by 
Ellge Renfroe who is employed with the Don Rust Company on Colorado, that 
he was gone to bed and his son was sleeping on the couch in the living room. 
He said his son woke him up and Cold him that five male negroes had driven 
off with his car. Renfroe further stated that he had driven the car to 
work on that date and when he arrived horaein the car around 3 p.m. January 
12, 1972, he parked the car on the street in front of Che house and that 
the car had not been moved since Chen by any member of his family until it 
was stolen around 10:30 p.m. He said as soon as his son awakened him he 
called the police and when they arrived a’ report was taken. He said they 
did have difficulty finding the license number on their ownership papers.
Detective McQuarry and Lt. Jordan also talked to the owner's son, David 
Chattman, male negro age 17,10th grade student at Central High .School. HE 
told them that he had gone to bed somewhere around 10:30 p.m., had fallen 
asleep and was awakened by the sound of the car motor starting. He said he 
raised up and looked out the window from the living room and saw what ap­
peared to him as two male negroes wearing black coats in the back seat and 
what lookd three male negroes in the front seat as his father's car drove 
away. He was not positive but he thought he saw five male negroes in the ca 
But it was dark and he could not tell anything about Che descrlntions of the 
male negroes.

Page 9 - Prelininary Report on Eddie Hugh Madison, nale Negro, 1^.

8 0



After finishing these interviev;s Lt. Jordan and Detective McQuarry proceeded 
to the John Gaston Emergency Room where the mother of the victim and the ste 
father were v/aitlng to be interviewed. These officers talked to the mother 
and the father of the victim in the officers' room of the hospital, found 
them to be Tommy Jones, Male Megro, age 37, and Katherine Jones (Madison), 
female Negro, age 37, both of 35 East Davant, no phone. They both told the 
officers that Eddie Madison had left home alone around 9:30 p.ra. January 12, 
1972 and that they knew nothing about what occurred until three young boys 
came by the house a little after 11 p.m., telling then that the police had 
shot Eddie at Florida and Cage. The step-father said tha t he went to the 
scene and learned that Eddie had already been taken to the hospital by an 
ambulance. The mother was questioned as to whether her son had ever been in 
any trouble before and she said that he had not been in any trouble before. 
However, Lt. Jordan and Detective McOuarry later checked Central Records and 
found that Eddie Madison does have a previous record. They also chec'iced wit 
Juvenile Court and it was confirmed that he has a record which is several 
arrests for Burglary, Larceny, Assault and Battery, and some minor charges. 
The QOther told the officers that her son was only 14 years old and that his 
date of birth was February 13, 1955. She was then told by the officer§ that 
ifthls birthdate was correct he would be almost 17 years old. She then state 
she was not sure of the birthdate but chat he was only 14 years old. The 
Juvenile Court records also revealed that his date of birth is February 16, 
1957, which would make him 14 years old.
At 1:15 a.m. January 13, 1972 Che step-father. Tommy Jones, viewed the body 
of the deceased in the morgue and made a positive identification. The record 
reveal that the body of the victim arrived at John Gaston Hospital By a fire department ambulance and was pronounced dead at 11:49 p.m. January 12, 
1972 by Dr. Adcoc's, and then was placed in Che morgue, pending the County 
Medical Examiner's examination.
After leaving John Gaston Hospital, Lt. Jordan and Detective McQuarry went 
to Juvenile Court where they requested and were granted permission to inter­
view Walter Lee Williams, the other occupant of the stolen car. They learne 
his age to be 17 years old and address to be 127 W. Frank. Walter Lee 
Williams was brought to thelnterview room at 1:30 a.m. January 13, 1972, 
where he was advised of his rights as per the rights card. HE made an oral 
statement which was reduced to writing and is a part of this file. This 
statement was made to Lt. Jordan and Dec. McQuarry.
After obtaining the oral statement from Walter Lee Williams, Male Negro age 
17, Alias "Bay-Bee" whose date of birth is May 6, 1954, he was then checked 
out of Juvenile Court and transported Co Headquarters where at 3:30 a.m. 
January 13, 1972, while in the Homicide Office, he gave a written statement 
after he was advised of his rights. This statement was given to Det. J. A. 
Dungan and Lt. G. E. Jordan. This statement is hereto attached and self- 
explanatory .
The scissors, or box cutters, which were used to start the stolen car by 
sticking them in the ignition, were obtained from the personal property of 
Walter Lee Williams while at Juvenile Court and were tagged in the property 
room as evidence under receipt number A40347.
We were unable to find a record on Walter Lee Williams in Che Police Central 
REcord files, but it was learned through Juvenile Court that he does have a 
record.
Councilman J. N. Ford had mentioned to Inspector Duke Vincent while Cal’icing 
with him that there were several witnesses to this shooting incident and tha 
some of then had stated that the victim had not even been in the stolen car 
and was just running dov?n the street when the police came up on him and that 
he had his hands un against the window of the cleaners when he was shot. He 
mentioned that there were several t/ltnesses and chat they would be coning to 
his office on Thursday, January 13, 1972 to relate everything they had seen. 
Inspector Vincent had asked Councilman Ford for the names of the witnesses 
so that they could be interviewed regarding this incident. However, Council 
man Ford could not furnish any names but had mentioned to Insnector Vincent 
that he would be hearing from the witnesses later.
On Thursday, January 13, 1972 at apnroxlmately 9:15 a.m., the writer tal'iced 
with Dr. Janes Bell, Assistant County Medical Ex.amlner, who was requesting

Page 10 - Preliminary Report on Eddie Hugh Madison, male !!egro,14

S O S '



information on the victim, Eddie Hugh Madison, for his medical record.
While talking to Dr. Bell he stated that he had measured the victim and 
that he measured sixty-six inches in length. He further stated that they 
had not yet v/eighed the victim but that this would be done just prior to 
them doing, an autopsy. However, he mentioned that the victim looked pretty 
heavy and was a pretty big boy. He stated that he would estimate him to 
weight from 155 to 165 pounds. When Dr. Bell was told that the victim was 
only 14 years old he expressed disbelief, stating that helooked older.
While talking furtherwlth Dr. Bell, he mentioned that earlier when he cane 
to the morgue that he and his chief assistant in the morgue work. Chief 
Grebbe, were both in the morgue when one of the Ford brothers from the 
Ford Funeral Home came to the morgue with a release slip for the body of 
the victim. He stated he overheard the Ford Brother talking to Chief Grebbe 
but that he was not sure which one of the Ford Brothers it was. He said he 
heard him tell Chief Grebbe that he had a petition with thirteen names on it 
that were witnesses to the police officers shooting the victim, Eddie Hugh 
Madison while his hands were up after he surrendered.
The writer later contacted Chief Grebbe at the morgue and talked with him 
in regards to this conversation vfith the Ford Brother. Chief Grebbe then 
stated that it was Harold Ford, the State Representative, from Ford Funeral 
Home whoni; he had talked with. He said that Harold Ford showed him a piece 
of paper with thirteen names and told him that the police were killing male 
negroes too fast. He said he told him the victim was shot without a cause 
and that he had his hands up on the window and had already given uo when he 
was shot. Chief Grebbe further stated that Harold Ford said the victim 
didn't even steal a car, that he was just walking down the street when the 
police got after him and took no part in stealing a car. While talking to 
Chief Grebbe he also estimated that the victim would weigh from 155’ to 165 
pounds. He stated he had examined the wounds of the victim and it anpeared 
to him that the two small holes on the right portion of the back were an 
entrance and exit wound, stating that it appeared the bullet entered at an 
angle then went underneath the skin and made an exit. However, he stated th 
two holes in the left portion of the back were close together and had nene- 
trated Inwad. He said these holes on both sides of the back were measured 
from the heel of the victim and were from 4652 to 48 inches from the heel.
Later in the day on Monday, January 13, 1972, Representative Harold Ford 
furnished the Internal Affairs Bureau with the following names whom he 
claimed were at the scene of the shootin.g of ’Eddie Hugh Madison, and ac­
cording to Ford, these people would cone to the Internal Affairs Bureau to 
give statements. Their names are:
Melvin Louis, Jr., 3465 Rochester Road, telephone 398-4734
James 0. Lee, 3539 Rochester Road, teleohone 398-0769
Clifton Ellis, 373 Jacklyn, telephone 774-1625
Sylvester Brewer, 79 West Dempster, telephone 774-4142
Leon Lee, 3539 Rochester Road, teleohone 398-0769
Robert Smith, 135 East Fernwood, telephone 946-3844
James Baker, 25 East Gage, no teleohone
Tommy Janes, 2133 Kansas, no telephone
Charles Wood, 644 East Dlson, no telephone
Sylvester Weakley, 223 Vance, no telephone
Claude L. Clemons, 106 West Davant, no telephone
It should be noted that at the writing of this report only oneof the above 
mentioned names has come forward to give a statement regarding this shooting 
Although several efforts have been made to have these people come to Homlcid 
Office or the Internal Affairs Bureau. The only one of these people who did 
come forward was Clifton Ellis. The interview with Ellis regarding what he 
saw will be written into this report later.
During Che morning of Thursday, January 13, 1972 the x/rlter went to the 
Dispatcher's office and made copies of the call cards which are made out bv the Pdlice Dispatcher listing the date and time of each call, the nature of 
the call, the location of the call, the number of the squad car, which also
Includes the time the car v a s shox;n out of service on a call or special as­
signment, and the time the car got hack into service. Upon checking these 
cards it was learned that Baker-12 with Patrolmen E. R. Fedrick and L. P.
Davidson was sent ona complaint call to 1686 Kansas, Ant. .?2, at 10:30 p.m.

Page 11 - Preliminary Report on Eddie Hugh Madison, male Negro, 14.

80 !)



Page 12 - Preliminary Report on Eddie Hugh Madison, male Megro,14 
January 12, 1972. They returned to service at 10:56 p.m.
Another card reveals that Disoatcher J. D. 'Jilliams gave Patrolman R. K. 
dates and Patrolman J. C. Boswell a theft call to 52 East Morv.'ood in 
regards to a stolen car listing the license number as lE-7340. The time 
of this call was 10:46 p.m. January 12, 1972. The card further shows 
that these officers got on the scene at 10:52 p.m., then at 11:15 o.n. 
they changed their location and were put on a special assignment to Florida 
and Gage. They returned to service at 11:50 p.m.
Another card reveals that Baker-12 was put on a special assignment at 11:03 
p.m. at Florida and Gage in regards to the stolen Pontiac, license number 
1-E7340 by Dispatcher Mike Christopher. Other cars that were put on this 
location were Charlie-51, Charlie-115, Baker-51, Baker-10, Charlie-10, 
Baker-11, and Baker-16. Baker-12 returned to service at 4:57 a.m. which 
was pparently the time they returned to service after leaving the Homicide 
S e c r 0 n .
Another card reveals that Crime Scene Car 253 with Detective C. J. Harrell 
and Detective R. L. Hannah, arrived at Florida and Gage at 11:17 p.m. and 
returned to service at 2:11 a.m.
The writer also made a copy of the theft report of the 1952 Pontiac, Tenness
1971 license 1-E7340, belonging to Elige Renfroe of 62 East Norwood. This rc 
port shows that the car was aio recovered before the broadcast from the thef 
report was put on the air.
Detective D. 0. Lewis went to the Dispatcher's office on Monday, January 13,
1972 and made a tape recording of the Dispatcher's radio log of all calls 
put out on the air from 10:47 p,m.' to 11:43 p.m. on the date of January 12, 
1972. This transcript was later typed and copies are a part of this file and 
are self-explanatory. This transcript is also further proof that Baker-12 
got in service from 1686 Kansas at 10:56 p.m. It further proves that in- 
nediately after getting into service officers Fedrlck and Davidson in Baker- 
12, asked the Dispatcher to repeat the color of the stolen Pontiac. This 
transcript also shows that the dispatcher repeated that the stolen car was a 
62 white over blue Pontiac, Tennessee 1971 license 1-E7340. The time was at 
10:57 p.m. This transcript also shows that Baker-12 got behind the stolen 
Pontiac occupied by two male negroes, west on Gage toward Florida, at 11p.m. 
The transcript further proves that the Dispatcher told Baker-12 that Charlie 
12 was at 62 East Norv;ood taking a theft report on the stolen car. The 
transcript also shows that Baker-12 called for an ambulance to Florida and 
Gage at 11:03 p.m. January 12, 1972, then chec'xed with the Dispatcher twice 
more in regards to whether or not there was an ambulance on the way prior
to the Dispatcher givin g the next time v/hich was 11:07 p.m.
On Thursday, January 13, 1972 Detective J. C. Peel went to Juvenile Court 
and checked out Walter Lee Williams, male Negro, age 17, and brought him to 
the Homicide Office so he could be talked to further by the writer. At 
12:30 p.m. January 13, 1972 Walter Lee Williams, after having been advised 
ofhis rights by the writer, gave another written statement to the writer. 
Detective R. R. Davis and D. 0. Lewis. This statement is a part of this fil 
and is self-explanatory.
After taking the written statement from Walter Lee Williams, the writer, 
along with Detective R. A. Lowry, went to the area of where this shooting 
Incident occurred. While there we checked the Southside Cafe and the 
Toast of Town Sundry on Florida Street since these two business places were 
supposedly open at the time this shooting incident occurred. We learned that 
Richard Sanders, male Negro, was the operator of the Southside Cafe, however 
he was not at this business place but the writer left a card for him to con­
tact the writer since his name had been mentioned as being in or ourslde the 
cafe at the time this shooting took place. However, at the writing of this 
report, Richard Sanders has not contacted the writer, even though another ef 
fort was made to locate him and word was left again at the cafe for him to 
call the writer.
'Jhile at this cafe we learned the address of Jerry Lee Wilkins, male Negro, 
age 15, whose address was 120 West Dempster. He drove to this location, 
finding Jerry Lee Wilkins at home with his family. We informed Jerry Lee 
Wilkins that he was being arrested for the Auto Theft Section. He then

810



explained to his father that he was being arrested due to the fact that he 
was Involved in the stealing of the 1962 white over blue Pontiac which re­
sulted in the shooting death of one of his companions, Eddie Lee Madison.
The time of this arrest was 4:30 p.n. Thursday, January 13, 1972. Jerry 
Lee Wilkins was advised of his rights then brought to the Homicide Section 
and charged with Larceny of an .\uto and Protective Custody. While at the 
Homicide Section prior to taking him to Juvenile Court, Jerry Lee V/ilklns 
gave a written statement to Detective R. R. Davis and Detective R. A. Lowry 
which was at 4:50 p.m. Thursday, January 13, 1972. This written statement 
is a part of this file and is self-explanatory.
Shortly before 5 p.n. the writer contacted Patrolman J. W. Jeeter and Patrol 
man M. E. White in Baker-11 and Instructed then to go to 162 West Frank and 
arrest Lynell V.'ilkins, male Negro, age 14, for Larceny of .\uto and for Pro­
tective Custody, and to transport him to the Homicide Section. These in­
structions were carried out and Lynell Wilkins was placed under arrest at 
6:15 p.m. on Thursday, January 13, 1972 at his hone at 162 West Frank. He 
was advised of his rights by the arresting officers then transported to the 
Homicide Section, where at 5:50 p.m., Thursday, January 13, 1972, he was 
advised of his rights by the writer. He then gave a vjritten statement in 
regards to what he knew about the stolen 1962 Pontiac belonging to Elige 
Renfroe. His written s&teraent is hereto attached and is self-explanatory.
After the written statements were taken from Jerry Lee Wilkins and Lynell 
Wilkins, they were then held in Juvenile Court pending an investigation by 
the Auto Theft Section in regards to their part in the stealing of Elige 
Renfroc's 1962 Pontiac from 52 East Norwood.
On Thursday, January 13, 1972 the writer contacted the family of Elige 
Renfroe at 62 East Norwood and learned from talking with Lucille Chattman, 
female Negro, age 19, step-daughter of Elige Renfroe, that she was the one 
who reported her step-father-’-s car being stolen, to the police Dispatcher 
Immediately after Itoccurred. • ' .
Later in the day on Thursday, January 13, 1972, Lucille came to the Homicide 
Section and gave a written statement in regards to this auto theft, wherein 
she stated that she was in her room watching TV at approximately 10:30 p.m. 
the previous night. She said it was about this time that her brother called 
to his father that somebody had stolen the car. She said her father didn't 
believe it at first. She said she then looked out the windot.; and saw the 
car was gone and she told her father that it was a fact. She said hermother 
told her to call the police. She said they got the papers and she called the 
police but she gave the police dispatcher the wrong number of the license 
plate from the paper which v;as the 1970 license plate number RW 7000. She said the Dispatcher told her that she had given the wrong number from the 
paper but that he could look it up from last year’s registration and de­
termine the correct 1971 license plate number. She said the dispatcher asked 
her if they had ownership papers and that he would send a police car to thei 
home for a report. She said about ten minutes later the police arrived and 
talked to her father and took a report of the stolen car. She said the polic 
officer used Che family telephone to call in their report before leaving.
Lucille further stated the officers left and about 1:30 a.m. police officers 
came back and said they had recovered the car and that one of the male negro In the stolen car had been killed. She said she had talked to her brother 
David Lee Chattman, age 17, about the stealing of the car and he had Coldher 
that he thought there were five male negroes and he thought some of then v;er 
wearing leather coats. She said he did not mention knowing any of the boys 
and she felt that if he had known them he would have told the family.
Lucille was asked if she knew a male negro, Eddie Hugh Madison, or '..'alter 
Lee Williams, and she stated she did not. The writer instructed Lucille 
Chattman to have her brother, David Lee Chattman, cone to the Homicide Sec­
tion and also give a written statement since he did observe the car being 
stolen. However, at the writing of this report, David Lee Chattman has not 
come forv/ard to give a written statement.
It should be noted that in Lucille Chattman's written statement she stated 
when she talked to the Dispatrher that she told him the model of Che car and 
the color of Che car. She further stated chat her father had owned this car 
since 1965. While this statement was being taken from Lucille Chattman, her 
mother was present in the Homicide Office and she confirmed what Lucille sai 
was a fact. Lucille's written statement is apart of this file and is self- 
explanatory.

Page 13 - Prellnlnary Report on Eddie Hugh Madison, nale N'egro, 14

811



Efforts had been made by Lt. G. E. Jordan and Detective J. F. McOuarry 
while at the John Gaston Hospital during the night of Wednesday, January 
12, 1972 to have the mother of the victim whose name is Katherine Madison, 
to sign consent papers for an autopsy to be performed unon the body of her 
son, Eddie Hugh Madison. Hov;ever, at the time Katherine Madison refused to sign consent papers for an autopsy.
At approximately 7 p.m. on Thursday, January 13, 1972, Lt. T. Marshall and 
Detective G. S. Willis contacted the Ford Funeral Home and were able to lo­
cate Katherine Madison at 10 West Norwood, ?7lth the assistance of Harold For 
After talking with Katherine Madison again she agreed to sign consent papers 
for an autopsy to be performed upon tlie body of her son. These papers v;ere 
signed by the mother at 7:25 p.m. Thursday, January 13, 1972 which was witnessed by Levon Williams and Detective G. S. Willis.
Dr. Janes Bell was notified at 8 a.m. on Friday, January 14, 1972 that con­
sent papers had been signed and he then proceeded with the autopsy. Later 
In the day which was 3:30 p.m. on Friday, January 14, 1972, Dr. Bell called 
the Homicide Section and talked to Detective J.H. Hester, informing him 
that the autopsy uas complete on the body of Eddie Hugh M.adlson and that he 
was listing the cause of death as Shotgun Hounds to, the Lungs and Aorta.
Later in the day on Friday, January 14, 1972, the writer went to Dr. Janes 
Bell's office and picked up two 00-buc’tC lead slugs v;hich were taken from 
the body of Eddie Hugh Madison during the autopsy. While talking to Dr.
Bell he stated that these txjo slugs were the two that had entered the back 
on the left side at a slight angle and penetrated into the lung. He stated 
the two holes in the ri^t portion of the back x̂ ere made by one pellet or 
bullet. He said the slu,g that caused these holes had entered also at a slip 
angle and went under the skin then made an exit and he found no other slugs 
in the body of the victim. He stated that they had weighed and measured the 
victim prior to the autopsy and he was very surprised that the victim did 
not weigh as much as he thought. HE said they had weighed the victim tx̂ ice 
to make sure of his correct weight. He said he x-xelghed only 129 pounds and 
was 66 inches long. He further stated that -the victim x;as the muscular type 
and looked much larger to him than he really x âs. His Chief Assistant, Mr. 
Grebbe, also had estimated the victim to weigh at least 155 pounds. The 
two lead slugs taken from the body during the autopsy were tagged in the 
property and evidence section as evidence under receipt number A403S7.
Late in the evening on Thursday January 13, 197-2, the xjrlter along with 
Detective Lox/ry, x̂ htle in the area x-/here the shooting occurred, checked 
the buildings for any sign of gunshot pellets that might have struck the 
buildings on Florida Street near x̂ here the victim fell and also across the 
street near the Southside Cafe and other buildings on Florida. We also 
checked the ground at the base of the north end of the Kaplan Furniture 
Company in an effort to locate any pellets xjhich might have fallen to the 
ground after striking the building. Hox-xever, we were unable to find any pellets .
The following day xjhich x-xas Friday, January 14, 1972, the writer along with 
Detective J. N. Willis returned to the scene and rechecked both the outside 
and inside of the Kaplan Furniture and Hardxxare Store. We noted that there 
were nine holes in the boarded up xxindoxv approximately ten feet from the 
ground where the load of buckshot fired from Officer Fedrick's shotgun st̂ ruc 
We went inside the store and xxith the permission of the ox/ner, xxe obtained a 
ladder and checked the boards on the Inside, noting that there xxere nine 
holes in these boards. These pellets had also broken the inside xv'indox; x>;hic 
the boards covered. A further check of the store revealed that the shot had 
continued upward and the pellets had struck the ceiling and wall about mid­
way of the store traveling in a slight southxxestern direction. We were able 
to find one 00 lead slug lying on the floor anproxinately one third of the xx 
north to south across this store. We also noted a utility tyne sprayer 
which xxas sitting on a shelf in front of the wlndoxx which this load of buck shot came through. The -nozzle on this sprayer had been struck by one of 
these pellets causing xxhat the store ox-;ner estimated to be $2.50 damage.
This x-xas probably the pellet that xxas found lying on the floor. The xxriter 
and Detective Willis later tagged this slug as evidence in the property room- under receipt number A40456.

Page 14 - Preliminary Report on Eddie Hugh Madison, male Negro, 14.

8'V
i )



While at the store the writer and Detective Willis, talked with the owner 
Hr. D. L. human, phone 363-7269. Mr. Luraan was not distrubed at all about 
the slight damage done to his store in regards to the shooting. He ex­
pressed delight that the police department was taking action to stop some 
of the crime that had been occurring in the area. He stated that he knew 
the victim, Eddie Madison, personally and that he was known as the type of 
trouble maker that was continually getting into trouble in the area. He 
mentioned to us that we night talk to an Ernest Harper that usually cleaned 
up at the Mallory Heights Laundryette, two doors from him and stated that he might have been at the laundry when the shooting occurred.
We went next door to 2196 Florida, phone 946-4657, which is the South 
Memphis Cleaners. We talked to the owner, Rubin Applebaun, home address 
290 North Yates, home phone 683-0422. Mr. Applebaum stated that the male 
negro, Ernest Harper, works for him and thathe usually cleans up at the 
laundryette next door and most of the time is gone home before 10p.m. He 
gave us the address of Ernest Harper as 8 East Dempster. Mr. Applebaun, 
further stated that he had not heard of any witnesses who had seen the 
shooting incident of Eddie Madison. However, he stated that Ernest Harper 
had told him the next morning that the police officers had killed a man 
in front of the cleaners and that he saw the pool of blood there.
We proceeded to 8 East Dempster and talked to Ernest Harper, male negro, 
age 61, who gave his place of employment as the Mallory Heights Laundryette, 
2196 Florida. He said that on the night of the shooting which was January 
12, 1972 that he cleaned up the laundryette and left before 9p.m. He said 
there was no one around anywhere, to his knowledge when he left. He said 
he did not knov7 anything about the shooting and only heard about it the next 
day when he came back up on the corner. He said he did not know of any 
one that had witnessed the shooting.
On Friday, January 14, 1972 Chief Inspector G. P. Tines furnished the 
Homicide Office with some information that he had received from a male 
negro, Curtis Shields, employed with the Shields Patrol. According to the 
information Shields had received was that the male negro Lynell Wilkins 
was supposed to have been in the stolen car, along with the victim, Eddie 
Hugh Madison and Walter Lee Williams, and it was throught, that Wilkins had 
escaped from the car at the time of the shooting, however, the writer knows 
this is not true because both Lynell Wilkins and Jerry Lee Wilkins, were 
arrested the previous day before this information was recleved, and it 
was already known by the writer that both Jerry Lee VJilkins and Lynell 
Wilkins had gotten out of the car prior to the shooting near Gage and 
Kansas. However, it was a fact that these two male negores did assist in 
helping to steal this car and Lynell Wilkins even drove it away from the lo­
cation it was stolen from. Chief Tines furnished this office with type 
written literature regarding this information which will be a part of this file and is self-explanatory.
On Saturday, January 15, 1972 at approximately 11:10a.m., while the writer 
was on his days off, Clifton Ellis, Jr. male negro, age 22, Alias "Jabo", 
of 373 Jacklyn, phone 774-1625, employed at the Federal Compress on Lauder­
dale at Bodly, came to the Homicide Office stating that he had talked to 
Attorney Walter Bailey, Jr.on the night that this shooting incident had 
occurred at Florida and Gage and that he had also been contacted by Inspector Tines, to come to the police station and give a statement.
Lt, B. G. Hinson, who was in charge of the Homicide Section on this partlcur 
day, contacted Inspector Tines and he and Detective R. L. Roby also from the 
Internal Affairs Bureau, came to the Homicide Section and interviewed Cliftor 
Ellis. He told the officers that he had gotten off of the //31 Crosstown Bus 
at Florida and Mallory at 10:59p.n., on the night that the shooting occurred 
He told then that he had walked over to the Esso Service Station at Florida 
and Mallory where he used the restroom then walked back over to the front of 
the Southside Cafe on Florida. While he was standing at this location in fror 
of the front door, he heard some shots. He then turned and noticed a man run­
ning south on the east side of Florida at Gage. He stated that he saw a 
policeman chasing the man and saw the police officer shoot the man four times 
in the back at a distance of about five feet with his pistol. He said that 
the same officer fired a fifth shot from his pistol which missed the man and 
struck a sign in front of the Southside Cafe, which knocked some of the 
paint off the paint chlppings struck him under the right eye on the cheek.

Page 15 - Preliminary Report on'Eddiu Hugh Madison, male negro, 14.



He told them he saw the man fall in front of the cleaners at or neat 
Kaplan;s Furniture Store. He said that he then went inside the cafe.
He told them that after the shooting Halter Bailey, Jr, came down to 
the cafe and talked to him. He said there was no one in the street at 
the time of the shooting other than three male negroes who were at the 
Esso Service Station at Florida and Mallory and there no cars driving 
on Florida.
He further revealed that earlier in the night he had been to visit his glrlc.- 
frlend, Hattie Bradford, age 16, who lives in some apartments behind the 
Harlem House on Firestone, number unknown, but who stays with her mother and 
father, Mary and Early Bradford. He said that he left Hattie's house and 
caught a J31 Crosstown Bus at 9:59p.m., at Marble and Thomas. He then rode 
the bus to Flordia and Mallory arriving At 10:59p.m. and vzhen he got off 
the bus he was by himself.
Clifton Ellis describes the male Negro that the police officer was chasing 
and shot as being about 5'3, heavy and wearing a dark coat, blue jeans and 
white tennis shoes and stated he appeared to be a grown man. He then stated 
that he observed the male negro get out of the car and start running from 
the officer. He said that he saw him turn and look back then saw the officer 
start shooting at him. He said he didn't see anyone else in the car, which 
was the stolen car, but he did see the car go across Florida street and onto 
the sidewalk where it stopped. He said he did not see any officers go over tc 
this car. He does not know if there was any damage done to the car. He 
stated he could not see the rear glass in the automobile or the rear windows 
to know if they had damage or not.
It should be noted that there are several discrepancies in Clifton's 
statement that do not correspond with what actually took place during this 
shooting. For Instance, Ellis mentioned that the first he knew of anything 
taking place was when he heard shots being, fired, then he mentioned later 
that he observed the male negro get out of the car and start running and 
saw the officer chasing him and shooting at him about five feet behind him 
with a pistol. He also mentioned that he could not see the rear glass of 
the stolen car after it came to rest on the sidewalk, even though he admitted 
walking down to the vicinity where the shooting occurred, and if he had seen 
the car at all he would have noticed the rear glass first because the rear 
part of the car is what he could have seen best. He also mentioned that the 
man whom the officer was chasing was wearing blue jeans and white tennis 
shoes. It should be noted that the victim was wearing black striped pants 
and brown shoes. Also, there was only two pistol shots fired and not five, 
as Ellis mentioned and the officer doing the shooting was not running behind 
the victim.
It should be mentioned that the writer did check with the Memphis Transit 
Company and learned that on this particular night Memphis Transit Bus f31 
did leave Marble and Thomas at 9:59p.m., and arrived at Florida and Mallory 
at 10:55p.m., or at least was scheduled to arrive at that time.
It should also be pointed out that the autopsy on the body of Eddie Hugh 
Madison, had been completed and Dr. Bell, County Medical Examiner, removed 
two shotgun pellets from his body and no lead slugs which were fired from a 
pistol.
Clifton Ellis was questioned by Lt. Hinson and Detective Roby regarding 
previous arrests with this department and he stated he did have a record 
with the department or with the Sheriff's Department which was under the 
name of Clifton Owens, Jr. Lt. Hinson chec'xed and found that he was arrested 
by the Sheriff's Department in 1968 and charged with two counts of Auto 
Theft.
After this written statement was obtained from Clifton Ellis, Jr, these of­
ficers then went to the area where this shooting occurred and examined the 
only sign on the sidewalk near the front of the Southside Cafe, and could 
not find no real evidence that this sign which was a restricted parking 
sign, for one hour parking 8a.m., to 6 p.m., had been hit by any bullet or 
shotgun pellet. Clifton Ellis, had gone to the scene with these officers 
and pointed out this particular sign as being the one that was struck. 
Although these officers did notice a very small spot on the sign which 
did not appear to have been made by a bullet. The sign was twisted and was nc 
facing in the direction of which the bullet would have come from, therefore, 
it would have only have struck the post.

Page 16- Preliminary Report on Ed'die Hugh Madison, male negro, 14.

SM



The sign itself va.s facing in the opposite direction fron vhera Clifton 
Ellis was standing, therefore, if a. bullet or pellet had strucl. this 
sign and. knoched paint chippings, they r.iost likely .̂-ould have bacn k.noched 
in the opposite direction from 'where Ellis v;as standing.
VJhile at the scene, Lt. Kinson and Detective Roby called for a Crime Scene 
Car and Car 253, with 'Jarrant Officers I. E. Lunday and V?. H. 'Jhite, cane 
to the scene and photographed the parking sign and also the Southsidc Cafe. 
They also nade several photographs of the overall area. They photographed 
froti the Southside Cafe showing the direction fron which any bullet or 
pellet would have cone from, fron the point '.j'nera Patrolman Fedrick and 
Davidson were standing when the shots '.;ere fired. They also nade photo- 
gr phs fron the point where these two officers './ere standing back to 'where 
the Southside Cafe and the parking sign are located. They also nade measure 
nents fron the door of the Southside Cafe to the corner of the building whic 
is the Kaplan Furniture Company at Florida and Gage. The Crime Scene Of­
ficers also drew a diagram and made a report iti regards to their photo­
graphing and measuring of the scene and their report and diagram has become 
a part of this file. Also the written statement of Clifton Ellis is a part 
of this file and self-explanatory.
On Monday, January 17, 1972, the writer along with Detective J. M. Barrow 
fron the photo lab, wen t to Florida and Gage for the purpose of making 
photographs of the inside of Kaplan Furniture Company showing the damage 
where the load of shotgun pellets had entered the store. While there 
we photographed in color, the windox? shov;ing the damage showing the damage 
on the Inside of the store. Oneof these photographs also shows the damage 
to the nozzle of the utility sprayer 'which was sitting on the shelf when 
the shot was fired. Another photograph shox7S the holes v;hich the buchshot 
made when they penetrated the celling and the wall in the store, after 
coning through the xvindow. The x/riter had also placed back at the approxi­
mate location on the floor,' the shotgun pellet found earlier by the x/riter 
and Detective J. I-T. Willis. This pellet was also photographed to shox7 its 
location where it had been found.
The writer and Detective Earrox-r came outside and re-axanined the brlcls on 
the north end of the building xwhere the second load of buckshot struck 
these bricks. A closer examination revealed that in addition to the eight 
buckshot imprints that ware already kno'wn to be on the brick xjall, xje found 
that one buckshot had embedded itself betx^een the last brick at the corner 
and the brick next to it which is just tx;o bricks doxwn from the chipped 
brick on this corner. We recovered this flattened pellet x.'hich xwas later 
tagged as evidence under receipt nunber A40457. V.'hile at the scene ue also 
circled the embedded marks on the bricks that had been caused by shotgun 
pellets. These marks xjera circled X7ith blue chalk then photographed in cole 
by Detective Barroxj.
While at this location x7e also x/alked dox7n to the Southside Cafe and ex­
amined the area again and could find no other evidence of any pellets or 
bullets striking these buildings or any other stationary object. While 
standing in front of the Southside Cafe Detective R.arrox? made a colored 
photograph shooting from behind the signpost that was mentioned by Clifton 
Ellis to'ward the corner of Florida and Gage. The x/riter then stepped the 
distance from the front of the Sout'iside Cafe to the northeast corner of 
Cage and Florida 'which is the approximate location xfhere Patrolman Fedrick 
was standing 'when he fired the shots at the fleeing victi;.'.. It X7as found 
that it X7as ninety-nire steps making the distance approximately 297 feet, 
from X7here Patrolman Fedrick fired the shotgun to the front of the Southsidc 
Cafe. Eefore leaving the area X7e also recovered the damaged nozzle from thr 
utility sprayer at Kaplan Furniture Compan-y, x.'hich x.'as tagged as evidence 
under receipt number A40458.
The X7riter had tried for several days to have borece Thompson, male Kegro, 
of 2248 Devoy to have his flat tiro repaired x.'hich X7as found to be flat 
on his 1953 Cadillac, X7hich Xv-as parked on the street that has beex cxplainc- 
earlier in this report. Through talking further X7i th Thompson it X7as found 
that he is not nox7 emplo’/ed x7ith Juvenile Court ns an Auxiliary Probation 
Officer. Iio'.7ever, it x.'aslearned that he is the onerator of a pool hall at 
1111 Springdale and 'work.s part time at the Toast of Tot7n Cafe or Suniary 
on Florida. Thompson finall’/ repaired this tire on Tuesday, Janu.ary 20, 19'.

Page 17 - Prelininary Report on Eddie Hugh Madison, nale Megro, 14.

c
<)



then called the ■••riter stating that a nalc llegro, Cleo Xing, at the I.ion 
Oil Service Station at 1093 Springdale had broken the tire down to re­
pair it and found a piece of lead slug in the tire. The writer and Ilet.
J. N. V.'illis then net Lorece Thonpson on Florida at the Toast of Tov;n 
Cafe and he turned over to the writer a partially flattened piece of lead 
which appeared to be a 00-shocgun pellet. Thompson stated that the nan 
who removed the slug from his tire had told him that the tire could not be 
repaired because the hole in the tire v;as in the side of the tire. '-.'e then
proceeded to the Lion Service Station at 1093 Springdale and talked to Cleo
King, male Negro, age 50, of 1412 Taylor, phone 946-2096, operator of the 
Lion Service Station. He confirmed the fact that he did take the slug r/hic’-- 
we showed to him from the tire belonging to Lorece Thompson. He also shoijed 
us the tire and the hole and explained that , due to the fact that this v;as a 
tubeless tire and the hole being on the side, he v/ould be unable to repair 
it. We noted that the tire was an 355 x 15 in size which had a narrow white 
wall. The tire was very old and did not appear to have many more miles of 
use left in the tire. This tire bore the brand name General Jet Air f2.
The pellet taken from this tire was tagged asevidence by the writer under 
receipt number A40539. The recovery of this slug leaves little doubt but 
what this pellet was one of the pellets fired from the shotgun of Patrolman
E. R. Fedrick as he was shooting at the fleeing Negro, Eddie Hugh Iladison.
It should be noted that after Dr. Bell had expressed belief that the male 
Negro was older than 14 years old, also considering the fact that his mother 
had first given a birthdate that would have made him at least 16 years old, 
there was doubt in the writer's mind as to his correct age. Therefore, on 
Monday, January 17, 1972, the writer sent a letter to the Bureau of Vital 
Statistics in Jackson, Mississippi to try to determine the correct birthdate 
of the victim, Eddie Hugh Iladison. The writer had learned from the Vital 
Statistics Bureau in this City that there was no record of his birth and that 
apparently he was born in Mississippi, due to the fact that his father and 
mother were from that State.
A few days later the writer received an answer to the letter sent to Jacksor 
Mississippi wherein a Mr.' Paul B. Hawkins, with the Department of State 
Registrar, informed the writer that there is no record with the state of 
Misslssippin in regards to the birthdate of the victim, Eddie Hugh Madison.
It should be noted that the photographs made of the victim while at the 
morgue on the night of this shooting incident did not take, therefore, we 
have no photograph showing t’le victim for Identification purposes. However, 
the writer has talked to Dr. Janes Bell, Assistant Shelby County Medical 
Examiner and he has informed the writer that his photographs made by him of 
the victim at the morgue maybe borrowed by the vzriter and copies made so thr 
x-je might furnish the office of the .Attorney General photographs or the vict: 
These photographs will be included in this file.
It should be noted that all the other photographs x̂ hich x-;ere taken x/hich have 
been mentioned in this report did turn out as good photographs in addition 
to aerial viex; photographs made from the helicopter of the scene by the 
phogograph lab. These photographs x-.’ill also be included in this file.
The scene xxhsre this shooting occurred can be described as the. intersection 
of Florida and Gage x?i th the irtnediate scene x/here the shooting of Eddie 
Hugh Madison occurred being the northeast corner of Florida and Gage x-xhere 
officer F.. P. Fedrick x.'as standing xxhile shooting at the victim. Koxxever, 
the scene xxhere the victim x/as actually shot xjas across Gage Street on the 
southeast corner of Florida and Gage and at the approximate corner of the 
Kaplan Furniture Company building x-xhich is a txxo-story brick building. Loo’.x- 
ing south doxxn Florida from the corner of this intersection there are severr 
business places xxhich are inside the buildings at this location xxhich ad­
join each other, mailing thi.s part of the block a continuous string of build­
ings. The location xxhere the victim fell after having been shot xxas in 
front of the South Memohis Cleaners x.-hich is next door to Xaplan Furniture 
Company. There is a sidexxal'.: where the victim fell at this location xxhich 
is on tixe east side of Florida and approximately 75 feet south of Gage. 
Across the street on Florida xxhere the victim fell after being shot is also 
old buildings, some of xxhich are txxo-story, x-xith these buildings being used 
also as business places.

Page IS - Prelininary Report on Eddie iiugh Itadison, nale Eegro, 14.

81 C



Gage Street crosses Florida just north of most of these business places 
however, there is a large two-story apartment building located on the 
northeast corner of Gage and Florida which would be near \7here Che police 
officers stopped their squad car and where Officer Fedrickwas standing v7hen • 
he fired the shots at the fleeing victim. The nort'iwest corner of this 
intersection where the stolen car cane to arest after Officer Fedrick fired 
shots into it, only has a fire plug near the corner but a few feet northwest 
is a dwelling which is a single story building. The general area at this 
location is not too well lighted, however, there are street lights on Florit 
but there is only one street light or. Gage near the shooting scene and this 
light is in the rear of the ICaplan Furniture Company. The Crime Scene Of­
ficers who were at the scene on the night of this shooting have also descri’ 
the scene of this shooting in their report V7hich is apart of this file and i hereto attached and self-explanatory.
Photographs V7ere made of the scene of this incident Crime Scene Officers 
Detectives C. J. Harrell and R. L. Hannah. Photogtaphs were made of the 
victim at the morgue showing the location of the wounds and the face for 
identification purposes by Dr. Janes Bell, County Medical Examiner. Other 
photographs were made of this scene later by Uarrant Officers I. E. Lunday 
and U. H. White of the Crime Scene Squad and Detective J. M. Barrow of the 
photo lab. These photographs will be forwarded to the Office of the .A.ttorne 
General in the event they are needed in this case later.
There have been no interrogations of the responsible parties of this shootir 
due to the fact that they were police officers acting in the line of duty. 
However, they did give written statements regarding this shooting and were ^advised of tlieir rights prior to giving the statements.
No written or oral statement was taken from the victim of this report due 
to the fact that he was unconscious when the officers reached him after he was shot.
Written statements were taken from Lynell Wilkins, MN, 14, of 162 West 
Frank, Jerry Lee Wilkins, MU, 15, of 120 West Dempster, Walter Lee Williams, 
MH, 17, of 127 West Frank, Lucille Chattnan, FN, 19, of 62 E. Norwood, and 
Clifton Ellis, Jr. MN, 22, of 373 Jacklyn and their statements are hereto attached and self-explanatory.
The pistols and shotgun used in this shooting incident are in the possession 
of the police officers and police denartnent. Officer E. R. Fedricks' .38 caliber service revolver bearing serial number D144851 is in his pbssession. 
Patrolman L. P. Davidson's .33 caliber Smith and Wesson Revolver bearing 
serial number C741837 is in his possession. The shotgun used in this shootir 
which is a 12 gauge Remington Pump, Model 870, bearing serial number 1062177 
belonging to the Mephis Police Department, is still in Squad Car 12, but wi] be available if needed in this case later.
The clothing worn by the victim at the time of this shooting, has been turne 
to the property and evidence section under receipt number A40345 to be for­
warded to the office of the Criminal Court Clerk in case they are needed lat in this case.

Pase 19 - Prelininary Report on Eddie Hush Madison, nale Kegro, 14.

th

q J
th

Also the below described.evidence has also been tagged to be forwarded to" 
Criminal Court Clerk's office in the event it is needed later. Two spent 
.38 caliber hulls taken from Officer Fedrick's and Officer Davidsion's 
pistols receipt number A40346, one 00-lead pellet removed from the brick w 
of Kaplan Furniture Company, receipt number A40457. One lead 00-pellet re 
moved from the tire of a Cadillac belonging to Lorece Thompson, receipt 
number .\40539. The nozzel of a utility sprayer damaged by a pellet at Kay 
Furniture Company, receipt number A40453. Two 00-lead pellets taken from 
body of Eddie Hugh Madison during autopsy receipt number A40387. One OO-lea 
pellet found inside Kanlan Hardware Store, receipt number A40455. Three span 
12 gauge 00-buck shotgun shells recovered at the scene of the shooting, re­
ceipt num'ner A40343 , and one pair of blunt scissors taken from nronarty of 
Walter Lee 'Williams at Juvenile Court after his arrest, receipt number A4034
On Friday, January 14, 1972 Katherine Madison, mother of the deceased, did 
sign a family consent for an autopsy to be performed on the body of tliis sub 
jeet and at such time as the autopsy is complete, a copy of thenrotocol will be furnished the office of the Attorney General.

1 '-i-LLj



At approxlr.iately 3:30 p. n. on Friday, January 14, 1972 Dr. Janes Bell, 
Assistant County ;iedical Examiner, called the Homicide Office and stat-’d 
that the autopsy was complete on the body of Eddie Madison and that the cause of death was shotgun wound to the lungs and aorta.
Copies of all written and oral statements, offense reports, all sunplements 
photographs, arrest tickets, tine cards from the dispatcher's office, the 
drime scene officers' report, transcript of the dlsoatcher's tape, tran - 
scripts by various people who had conversation with the Internal Affairs 
Bureau, and a copy of this preliminary renort will be furnished to the of­
fice of the Attorney General to be used if needed later in this case.

Page 20 - Prellntnary Report on Eddie ITugh Madison, nale negro, 14.

Respectfully submitted.

R. R. I)avis, Detective, IB;!i-2033 HOMICIDE SECTIOM

VICTIM: Eddie Ugh Madison,
R & I Number 532-027 
Homicide Number 4/3728

,14, 35 E. Davan t 'to phone

WIT1IESSE3: Lynell Uilkins, MN, 14, 162 W . Frank 948-9672
Jerry Lee E'il'<ins, ttN, 15 120 H. Dempster 943-2252
Walter Lee Williams, MN,17, 127 V . Frank 947-2520
Lucille Chattman, F’', 19, 52 E. Norwood 774-3597
Clifton Ellis, Jr. MN, 22, 373 Jacklyn 774-1625

OFFICERS I

INVESTIGATING 
OFFICERS:

Ptlm, E. R. Fedricks 2655 Det . c . J. HarrellPtln. L. P. Davidson 2123 De t . R. L. HannahPtlm. M. E. White 9145 Det. I. E. LundayPtlm. J. W. Jeeter 4224 Det. W. H. WhitePtln. J. C. Boswell 0307 De t. J. M. Earrot'Ptln. R. K, Cates 1339 De t . L. RobyPtlm. L. S. Reeves 7195 Insp . L. R. Ho HowellPtlm. C. P. Acton 0037 Insn . D. C. VincentLt. H'. S. Schultz 7743 CH/I . G. P. TinesLt. T. H. Smith 7772 Disp . J. D. WilliamsLt. M;. T. York 9901 Di so . Mike Chris topherCap t. C. E. Watts 9077 De t . C. E. Huddles ton

Det. J. A. Dungan 2109 Det . J. P.. Hes terDe t. H. E . Rand1e 7079 Det . G. S . WillisDet. J.‘ F. McOuarry 5156 Det . R . D DavisDe t. C. A. Gregory 2960 Lt. G. E. JordanDet . J. N. Willis" 9109 Lt . T. MarshallDet. R. A. Lowry 4767 Lt. B. G . HinsonDet. D. 0. Lewis 4747

3300
3247
4769
9035
0433
7126
3278
9029
8695
9171
1282
3343

3263
9108
2083
4195
5167
3270

A P P R O V E D  :

Cap tain

RRD/bbk

m .