PART I.  SETTING THE BOUNDARIES FOR THE USE OF FORCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT The concept of citizen security underlines that the central objective of policies established must be that of ensuring the security of the human person and not that of the State or of a given political system alone. Moreover, providing such security is the responsibility of the State as a whole, not just of law enforcement actors. Providing proper security includes social, community and situational crime prevention efforts, all of which also play a role in avoiding the use of force. FAILURE TO OBEY AN ORDER BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL? Abuse of force often happens when law enforcement officials escalate an encounter, claiming a member of the public has obstructed them or failed to obey an order (conduct which in some jurisdictions amounts to a criminal offence), and therefore needs to be taken into custody. If people consider that law enforcement officials are likely to exercise their powers in an arbitrary manner, they may avoid contact with them, which will negatively impact the relations between the police and the communities they serve and hamper a community-oriented policing approach. It also reduces the flow of information between the community and the police. It is important that the powers of law enforcement officials to charge someone with obstruction, or disobedience, are exercised in a restrained, transparent and non-discriminatory manner, and only in accordance with the law. This means it should only be used when: (a) The act the law enforcement official was performing was lawful, necessary and proportionate in the line of duty; (b) The law enforcement official had the power to issue the order and the order was legitimate; (c) The person arguably obstructed the lawful act, i.e. there must be reasonable cause to believe he or she has indeed obstructed an official in the course of his/her duty and criminal proceedings may be started against him or her; (d) The arrest is necessary, and there is no other option available in the circumstances. Indeed, it’s not enough for an officer to have the power of arrest but he or she will have to justify why it is necessary to use that power in a particular situation; (e) The person will need to be brought promptly before a judicial authority that can decide on the appropriateness of the arrest. Also, the person affected must be able to file a complaint with the appropriate judicial, legislative, administrative or other policing oversight bodies. (f) Where a law enforcement official was found to have abused his or her powers, he or she must be held duly accountable Law enforcement officials who make unlawful, unnecessary or disproportionate use of their power to use force and also to stop or arrest someone for obstruction or failure to obey an order, may reveal an attitude that prioritizes showing authority over serving the public interest. Some law enforcement agencies have set up early warning systems that track the number of such charges by individual officer and prompt reviews that examine whether multiple or unusual charges by an officer are due to inadequate conflict resolution skills or abusive behaviour.71 71  Samuel Walker, Geoffrey P. Alpert and Dennis J. Kenney, “Early Warning Systems: Responding to the Problem Police Officers”, United States National Institute of Justice, July 2001, available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=188565 27