Law Enforcement

19. GOVERNMENT & POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY

A badge, government title, or public office should never place someone above the law.

MPA supports:

• Independent investigation of serious misconduct

• Strong evidence-preservation requirements

• Body-camera standards

• Professional police licensing

• Nationally visible decertification for serious misconduct

• Strong whistleblower protections

• Accountability for deliberate evidence fabrication

• Accountability for criminal constitutional violations

• Stronger remedies for serious proven government misconduct

Police officers deserve due process and strong legal protection when lawfully performing dangerous responsibilities.

They should not receive immunity for conduct that would constitute a crime if committed by anyone else.

Same crime. Same law. Same justice.

41. LAW ENFORCEMENT

MPA is both pro-police and pro-accountability.

Police should receive substantially better:

• Education

• Training

• Compensation

• Supervision

• Mental-health support

• Professional licensing

Training should heavily emphasize:

• Constitutional law

• Civil rights

• Use of force

• De-escalation

• Mental-health response

• Medical response

• Evidence

• Communication

• Ethics

Officers who lose professional certification for serious misconduct should not simply relocate and continue policing elsewhere.

Police officers deserve due process.

A badge should protect lawful authority. It should never protect criminal conduct.

PROPOSED / DRAFT — PROPORTIONAL POLICING & EXPLAINED USE OF FORCE

The purpose of policing is to protect the public, enforce the law, and resolve incidents with the least force reasonably necessary.

Officers should identify themselves where feasible, explain the reason for a stop or enforcement action, provide clear lawful instructions, allow reasonable time to comply, and use de-escalation, distance, cover, communication, and additional resources when safe.

For nonviolent, low-level offenses that do not present an immediate danger, officers should ordinarily prefer warnings, citations, summonses, civil fines, scheduled court appearances, or other noncustodial enforcement. Physical arrest or hands-on force should not be used merely for convenience, punishment, disrespect, verbal criticism, or passive noncompliance when a safe and effective alternative exists.

Physical custody or force remains permissible when objectively reasonable and necessary to address an imminent safety threat, active assault, dangerous resistance, flight presenting a material public-safety risk, destruction of critical evidence, inability to identify a person when identity is lawfully required, or another legally mandated custodial action.

Force must be proportional to the threat and resistance actually encountered, must stop when the justification ends, and must never be retaliatory. Deadly force is reserved for an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Officers have a duty to intervene against clearly unlawful force, promptly render or summon medical aid, report force accurately, and preserve body-camera and related evidence. Agencies should publish use-of-force policies and aggregate data while protecting victims and legitimate investigations.

Status: Proposed / Draft — not yet formally adopted.

Last updated: August 24, 2026.

Version: Draft 0.2.