Judicial Process Issues the Use-Of-Force

Judicial Process Issues

The Use-of-Force Continuum in Policing

"the level of force necessary to effectuate an arrest differs significantly from case to case."

This statement is exactly correct. In some cases, an unarmed suspect who presents no danger to others offers no resistance and complies with all of the police officer's verbal commands and instructions. There is no need for the use of force and the police officer would not be justified in putting the individual on the ground or deploying any tactics or tools ordinarily used to gain compliance where suspects are resistant to the officer's lawful commands and instructions.

In other cases, an unarmed suspect who, in reality, poses no threat of harm to the officer because he or she is diminutive and feeble minded might express hostility toward the officer or indicate his reluctance to comply with lawful orders. The officer would be justified in using the next highest level above verbal commands on the use-of-force continuum (light hand-on compliance holds), but would not be justified in deploying a TASER or OC spray or a baton against the suspect. Those techniques would be justified where the suspect is physically formidable and belligerent or where there is good-faith reason for the officer to have concerns that the suspect poses a risk to officer safety.

Fifth Amendment Protections against Compelled Admissions

In determining whether a suspect's waiver of Fifth Amendment rights was valid, courts apply the following four-pronged test: First, the manner and circumstances under which the suspect was summoned for questioning by police; this means a polite telephone call would satisfy this prong whereas detectives showing up at the suspect's door and announcing "You'd better come with us" would not. Second, the purpose, venue, and circumstances of the actual conversation; this means that a polite conversation at a desk between one or two detectives and the suspect would be permissible whereas a roomful of detectives threatening "We're going to get the truth from one way or another" would not. Third, the degree to which the suspect is confronted with apparent evidence of guilt; this means that it is impermissible to confront the suspect with the evidence to suggest that there is no point in refusing to confess. Fourth, whether the suspect is advised and made aware that he or she may freely terminate the conversation and/or request to be represented by legal counsel; this means that the voluntariness element of confessions applies throughout the entire process and not just to the initial agreement to talk to police.

Eighth Amendment Protections against Excessive Bail