You don't have a bad or unreliable weapon on that list. I have carried all three of those platforms as a duty weapon at one point or another in my 20 years as a LEO as well as being a range-master/instructor and armorer for them. I love each and every one of them for different reasons. Each one has certain issues to deal with that influence how you train with it. Also a consideration is the type of "duty" you are going to be doing. I am proficient with all of them, so, first I would narrow it down to a caliber, and for me it is .45 acp.
Some people have a real problem with understanding proper usage of the 1911 safety, some people have a lot of heartburn with remembering to use the de-cock on the 220, though the DAK is a very good solution and option if you don't want to worry about the de-cocker. Most people I trained with a 220 with the de-cock would through that first double action round and pump the other 8 right where they needed to be. About half of them had trouble remembering to de-cock at the appropriate time, so we'd spend much more time training with it.
Of the bunch, the one that is the least expensive, has the most inexpensive and most available parts, and is the easiest to work on, is the Glock. Next is the 1911 followed by Sig. I hated armoring the Sig, and parts were expensive. All are more accurate than most people can shoot them, and all are proven and reliable weapons.
So, if I had to buy my own duty gun for basic police patrol work and didn't have a lot of money, I'd chose the Glock 21 SF. If I had a little more money and my department was progressive enough and led by people intelligent enough to understand the true safety of a 1911, were not "cocked and locked"-phobics, and understood the benefit of single action fire, I'd go with a good 1911. If I had a little more money but my agency frowned on the 1911, I'd probably choose a P220 with de-cock.