Traditionally, prosecutors do not use a centralized mechanism to track police misconduct. Instead, line prosecutors primarily share information with each other about problematic officers by word-of-mouth, and anecdotally, if at all. As a result, a prosecutor’s office that does not have a formal system to track police misconduct risks having prosecutors fail to comply with their legal obligations. To systematically track police misconduct, a growing number of prosecutors are creating internal police disclosure lists, or databases of police officers with a history of wrongdoing.
The Tracking Police Misconduct Action Guide explains why it is crucial to have a police disclosure list, and details the most important issues to consider when creating one. To produce this guide, the IIP interviewed high-ranking prosecutors throughout the country. Our hope is that upon reviewing this guide, prosecutors will develop or improve upon their own mechanisms for tracking police misconduct. By following these recommendations, prosecutors can fulfill their ethical duties and hold the police accountable, while also protecting the due process rights of police officers.
This mini toolkit is intended to guide left movement groups through building a risk assessment for an event, action, or...
This report—which relies on an extensive literature review and interviews with prosecutors around the country—begins to catalog current AI uses...
This is a policy framework for police use of robots, including ground robots and unmanned aerial vehicles (“UAVs”), also known...
We showcase existing solutions and new research from the community. Support us by sharing your own resources to our hub.
