Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Police Excessive Use of Force and the Supreme Court
Supreme Court Case on Police Misconduct
Graham V. Connor 1989 Landmark case set the precedent for U.S. Supreme Court in matters relating to unethical Police decisions or immoral practices by the police (Baker & Thomas R., 2012). This paper presents discussions on how the U.S. Supreme Court analysis injustices by the police in the process of investigating or making an arrest a crime.
Case: Graham V. Connor 1989
The arrest was by a Charlotte Police department patrol officer who observed Graham enter a convenience store and exited in a suspicious manner. Graham's quick entry and exit of the convenient store was because of the long line at check-out that he could not endure owing to a need to quell a diabetic episode. The Police officer moved in to stop Graham, who was with another individual as they drove away. Heeding to the officers instructions, Graham obliged but acted erratically by running around the car and sat down just before he passed out. An officer who was responding to the backup call arrived at the scene, handcuffed Graham and put him face down on the hood of the police patrol car. Afterward, they police officer handled Graham so roughly as to cause a broken foot and other injuries as they shoved him into the backseat of a police patrol car.
The arresting officer had ignored Graham's pleas for sugar and failed to check in his wallet for a diabetic card. Follow-up investigation...
Graham filed a petition for relief at the district and circuit courts under the due process clause - Fourteenth Amendment. This petition had been shut down in all courts before the Supreme Court accepted to review his case (U.S. Department of Justice, 2012).
The accepted definition of force as given by (Baker & Thomas R., 2012) is the authority to use cohesion to overcome the intention of another. Although it is entrenched in the U.S. Civil Rights that police officers have the legal authority to use appropriate measures including force to protect themselves, apprehend alleged criminals, diffuse situation and protect others and themselves, excessive or inappropriate use of this force is cautioned against. For a plaintiff, it is challenging to accuse a police officer for excessive use of force since they are protected by the immunity clause. This immunity clause is however not absolute only allowing the officers to undertake their duties with due diligence with no fear for reprisal. The U.S. Supreme Court takes up cases relating to police injustice and police misconduct upholding that the officer ought to be afforded a benefit of the doubt that their actions were lawful and in line with their duty obligations.
Guided by the definition of excessive use of force as the force that is greater than the needful measure to oblige compliance to an unwilling or willing…
References
Baker, & Thomas R. (Producer). (2012). Procedural Justice And Legitimacy Of The Police And Courts And Perceptions Of Obedience Among Female Inmates. Treatises and Dissertations Paper 4709.
U.S Department of Justice. (2012). Community Oriented Policing Services Use of Force Retrieved 14th Sept, 2015, from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?item=1374
Discretionary Situations for a Police Chief Discretion in the Police Department Discretionary Situations in Criminal Arrests: "Stop" and "Frisk," Racial Profiling The expectation is that public administrators apply a balancing act in the decision making process. Focus for this study is on law enforcement administrators, especially police chiefs, on their responses to their officers' discretion to criminal arrests. The argument put forth is that police discretion is limited by managerial and information technology
Arizona Revised Statutes A.R.S. 13-3881, Arrest: A. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest. Arrests may be done in the following ways: (1) through the arrester putting his/ her hands on or touching the arrestee; (2) through any action suggesting the arrester’s intent to detain the arrestee and subjecting the latter to the
The foundation of these limits is the need to protect the privacy of the individual and control police behaviors. Conclusion: In the three cases, the application of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment could have been helpful in ensuring that the officers conducted their searches more efficiently. In Weeks vs. U.S. And Mapp vs. Ohio, they could have avoided using forceful and illegal means to obtain evidence. Similar to these two
Criminal Justice & Criminology Has the Miranda vs. Arizona ruling decreased the percentage of arresting official violations of defendant Fifth Amendment rights? (Rian) CJ327W Research Methods in Criminal Justice The Miranda vs. Arizona ruling has attracted notable attention to the treatment of the accused in the hands of the law. Specifically, the ruling affirmed the rights to the accused under the law and to the legal rights of the accused. The research was
Constitutional, Legal and Ethical Issues in Criminal Justice Police abuse remains one of the most serious and divisive human rights violations in the United States. The excessive use of force by police officers, including unjustified shootings, severe beatings, fatal chokings, and rough treatment, persists because overwhelming barriers to accountability make it possible for officers who commit human rights violations to escape due punishment and often to repeat their offenses. Police or
Exclusionary Rule The Future of the Exclusionary Rule The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, were designed to protect citizens against abusive state power. These protections include preventing the government from entering and seizing property without just cause or stripping citizens of their rights without due process (Oaks 665). These protections are encoded within the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.