{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01763046544428773, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028208744710860366, 'mean_word_length': 5.630841121495327, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Exploring Liability Profiles: A Proximate Cause Analysis of Police Misconduct: Part I

Recent history shows that a significant number of citizens, internationally, are now seeking litigation against police agencies when law enforcement officers violate their civil rights. Often these events occur due to poor training of these officers by their respective agencies ensuing from their social interactions with members of the communities they patrol. Hence, this study analysed past policies and training procedures that were in effect for the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) during 1998 to determine if there was any liability of risk following evidence of officer misconduct. Mixed methodology, using a descriptive quantitative approach and based on a historical design, was used to determine whether or not the SFPD had appropriate policies, training and control measures in place to minimise potential citizen complaints against officers that could have led to misconduct allegations and, ultimately, civil litigation. Results showed that SFPD policies, recruit and in-service training and early warning system measures, caused a lower number of substantiated complaints of officer misconduct based upon clear policy, appropriate training and deployed early warning system measures. Consequently, the findings suggest that the SFPD created a lower liability profile in respect to random vs. non-random risks.