Police misconduct and Fifth Amendment violations in interrogation

police Misconduct Case Study

The district attorney declines to press charges and both juveniles are released. They flee the jurisdiction and are never found. Your partner is brought before a police investigation Board and suspended from the Department after 20 years service.

Justification for Answer Choice #1

The District Attorney (DA) had no choice but to drop the charges and release the suspects because my partners actions apparently violated one of the most fundamental rights of all criminal defendants under the U.S. Constitution. It also created a very damaging appearance of improper conduct on the part of the police department that could undermine the respect for police authority in the community. My partner's actions demand serious professional consequences, especially because he is one of two detectives responsible for investigating homicides in the department. A slap on the wrist would not provide the guarantee that similar conduct will not be repeated. In addition to violating the constitutional rights of defendants, his actions already resulted in the unavoidable dropping of charges against subjects who were probably guilty and who would likely have been convicted, sentenced, and possibly rehabilitated if the department and the DA's office had the opportunity to prosecute them within the boundaries of all applicable laws and constitutional protections. Instead, his actions made prosecution impossible and caused the release of the two suspects.

The Appropriate Punishment Issue

Before the 1960s, it was routine practice for police authorities to extract confessions from criminal suspects by highly unconstitutional means (Freidman, 2005). Typically, such means included prolonged interrogation lasting many hours (or even days) without food or water or access to restroom facilities, and without the opportunity to contact legal counsel (Freidman, 2005; Zalman, 2008). It was not particularly uncommon for police to beat confessions out of suspects if they believed they "knew" were guilty of serious crimes (Friedman, 2005).

In general, juveniles are afforded even greater protections from police coercion than adult criminal suspects, precisely because they are more vulnerable to suggestion and to intimidation (Schmalleger, 2009). By deliberately delaying contacting the subjects' parents in violation of department policy, my partner purposely deprived them of their rights. The fact that he chose not to tape the interview also suggests that he deliberately hid his conduct during the interview from the very process intended by the department to enforce compliance with applicable policies and laws. My partner's punishment must be sufficiently severe to ensure that neither he nor any other officer in the department ever purposely ignores the constitutional rights of suspects or ever takes actions designed to circumvent the department policies and procedures expressly intended to monitor and enforce compliance. While it is unfortunate, the rights of all citizens and the welfare and ability of the police department and DA's office to fulfil their respective missions greatly outweighs any consideration for my partner's length of service in the department.