The profession of law enforcement has long been defined by its commitment to constant and never-ending improvement. With greater integration of academic research and training advancements, the focus has shifted to developing police officers as “expert” decision-makers. While these efforts have brought significant value to the profession, have they unintentionally raised expectations beyond what is achievable under the realities of policing?
By Von Kliem, JD, LL.M for Force Science News
Policing thrives on interdisciplinary collaboration. From partnerships with universities to training programs designed by private and public organizations, the profession has embraced advancements in psychology, medicine, social work, and communication. Companies have introduced immersive simulation technologies, while organizations specializing in mental health and crisis intervention have enriched officer training. This integration has doubtlessly led to better preparation for the complex demands of law enforcement. However, alongside these developments, a growing tension between competence and expertise has emerged.
Novice, Expert, or Something in Between
The legal standard for police actions is rooted in reasonableness, as first articulated in Graham v. Connor (1989) and later reinforced in Scott v. Harris (2007) and Kingsley v. Hendrickson (2015). The reasonableness standard acknowledges that officers often need to act quickly, with incomplete information, and under immense pressure. State and federal courts have consistently rejected the notion that the Fourth Amendment imposes a standard of perfection–or even excellence–on officers.
As clearly as possible, courts have repeatedly emphasized that police officers are not expected to choose the best or even a better course of action—the law requires only that their actions be reasonable. Yet, the academic theory of officer-created jeopardy and the relentless push for “expert” decision-making and performance—fueled by academic, activist, and progressive influences—risks creating expectations that conflict with the realities of human performance and the complex operating environment that often defines policing.
The Challenge of Expert-Level Expectations
Academic and training initiatives often emphasize long-term goals that are consistent with expert-level decision-making and performance. We expect that police and communities will be safer as officers develop increasingly accurate pattern recognition, advanced threat assessments, and effective tactical decision-making under stress. However, presenting these aspirational goals as modern performance standards conflates desired expertise with legally required reasonableness. This misalignment introduces significant risks.
Officers, including those just beginning their careers, are increasingly expected to perform, not at a reasonably competent level, but instead at a level that expertly integrates emotional regulation, communication, de-escalation, persuasion, accurate and timely threat assessments, effective tactics, and physical skills that allow them to seamlessly flow between force options and tools. These expectations shower veterans and rookies alike, despite true expertise taking years of deliberate, integrated training, and real-world experience to develop.
Unrealistic expectations can lead to unfair scrutiny when naive and outcome-based criticisms are leveled against the police. Communities and juries, influenced by political and even industry-driven narratives emphasizing “expertise,” or “best practice” may view reasonable, but imperfect, performance as negligence, undermining trust in the profession and demoralizing perfectly imperfect officers.
Of course, even at the earliest stages of growth, training should ideally emphasize skills and mindsets that allow officers to maintain calm in chaos and uncertainty. Officers should also be prepared to seek challenges enthusiastically, avoiding the impulse to view complexity and chaos as threats. These foundational attributes are necessary for officers to build confidence and resilience as they navigate the often unpredictable and dangerous operating environment that will define their careers.
Hitting the Ground Running as a Competent Novice
The consequences of elevated expectations are particularly acute for new officers. Policing requires the ability to navigate complex, dynamic, and high-stakes environments, often with limited information. When new officers are judged against idealized standards, the result can be damaging. Officers may experience stress and burnout, fearing the legal and employment consequences of falling short of these expectations. In extreme cases, this fear can erode their confidence and willingness to act decisively, potentially compromising public and officer safety.
Compounding this challenge is the indirect influence of vague and often incorrect legal standards being used to evaluate police actions. While the Supreme Court has not formally altered the standard of reasonableness, academic, legislative, and community oversight bodies pushing “elevated standards” and emphasizing expertise can shift the lens through which communities and juries assess officer conduct. Only when necessary. Minimum Force. Preclusion. Proportional. Last Resort. These concepts have crept into policy, legislation, and training with little thought to how or whether a human can predictably understand, let alone apply, these concepts during a critical incident. Where efforts to restrain officers or hold them accountable include vague, ill-defined concepts, officers are unable to predict the lawfulness of their own behavior. This creates a de facto higher standard, penalizing officers for decisions that, while reasonable, may not, in hindsight, meet the ideal of an imagined better, let alone expert, performance.
The Role of Corporate and Organizational Contributions
Corporate entities and public organizations have played a pivotal role in shaping modern police training. Simulation technology companies have introduced tools that replicate real-world scenarios, allowing officers to practice decision-making in dynamic environments. Public and private organizations focused on psychology, crisis intervention, and emotional intelligence have provided essential resources to enhance officers’ interpersonal skills and de-escalation strategies.
These contributions are invaluable–enriching training and broadening officers’ capabilities like never before–promising more consistent and effective performance. However, unless the correct legal standards for evaluation and performance are identified, maintained, and incorporated into our assessment of police, improvements in training may contribute to the perception that officers should be accountable for failing to operate at expert levels. This expectation can create a disconnect between the value of advanced resources and the legal, operational, and human performance realities officers face in the field. This is especially relevant as advanced training and resources often remain outside the reach of many agencies that struggle with the need to budget time, resources, and qualified personnel.
Balancing Progress with Realism
The culture of continuous improvement in law enforcement is one of its greatest strengths. However, maintaining this commitment requires careful navigation to avoid unreasonable expectations. Agencies, communities, and legal systems must recognize the distinction between aspirational goals and practical realities.
The law governing police actions is written and interpreted to ensure that rookie officers can lawfully operate alongside 10- and 20-year veterans. While veterans ideally make better, faster, and more accurate assessments, diagnoses, and decisions, their expertise does not elevate the standard of reasonableness for their less experienced counterparts. The reasonableness standard reflects the complexity and uncertainty of the real-world environments in which all officers operate. Elevating the expectation to “expert” risks turning every imperfect decision into an unlawful one, undermining the principle that reasonableness—not perfection—is the appropriate benchmark for evaluating police performance.
Effective training should emphasize integrated growth, focusing first on developing competence and providing pathways for officers to progress over time. Early-career officers should be judged based on their ability to make reasonable decisions within their level of training, education, and experience, not against the experience of some imaginary avatar of a seasoned expert (i.e., the imaginary “reasonable officer,” who is highly-trained).
Mentorship and field training are essential in bridging the gap between academy instruction and real-world application. Pairing new officers with experienced mentors allows them to more quickly learn from practical examples while building confidence in their abilities. Simultaneously, training programs should integrate realistic scenarios that reflect the complexities of policing, adding to the file folders of experience that undergird improved decision-making.
Educating the public and triers of fact (i.e., judges, juries, hearing officers) is also critical. Agencies must engage in transparent discussions about the challenges officers face and the gradual nature of skill development. Highlighting the often unpredictable circumstances that often leave officers only with a series of bad options to choose from. This communication is necessary to foster trust and ensure that public expectations align with the realities of the profession.
Progress Without Perfection
The integration of academic research, corporate innovation, and contributions from public and private organizations has advanced law enforcement training and tactics. These developments reflect a profession committed to growth and excellence. However, this commitment must be balanced with realistic expectations to preserve the integrity of the legal standard of reasonableness.
Policing is a demanding profession that requires officers to make lawful and tactically sound decisions under pressure. They are not required to find tactical “best practices,” where tactics are often the result of real-time risk, benefit, and tradeoff consideration.
By maintaining a clear distinction between the aspirational goal of expertise and the legal standard of reasonableness, we can support officers in their development while ensuring fairness in how their actions are evaluated. This balance is essential for fostering public trust, supporting officer well-being, and sustaining the progress that defines modern law enforcement.
Connect with Force Science News
READ NEXT: Country Announces Strategic Military Buildup After Trump’s Remarks
