Protections Against Improper Police Behavior

Protections Against Improper Police Behavior

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is important to note that in seeking to detect and prevent crime as well as when it comes to the apprehension of lawbreakers, you need to be mindful of the various protections accorded to the citizens of this country against improper police behavior.

To begin with, you need to be aware of the various protections the Federal Constitution accords the citizens of this country against any police behavior regarded improper. A good example of the said protections can be found in the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment according to Travis III (2011) "protects the homes, papers, and possessions of the citizenry from unreasonable searches." Towards that end, in addition to being judicially suctioned, any warrant should be supported by what is referred to as probable cause.

Further, still on the protections accorded to citizens by the constitution against improper police behavior, the Fifth Amendment in the words of Travis III (2011) "protects citizens from overzealous interrogation by the police." You must therefore ensure that you do not abuse your authority while seeking to obtain evidence from suspects. Amongst other things, you must not resort to threats or torture as a conviction cannot be founded on forced confessions.

It is also important to note that in the past, a number of landmark court cases have further reinforced the protections citizens are accorded against improper police behavior. One such case is Mapp v. Ohio U.S. 643 (1961). In this particular case, it was held that evidence obtained irregularly i.e. In violation of the Fourth Amendment (which I have already discussed elsewhere in this text), may not be used in a trial. According to Travis III (2011), police in this particular case claimed they had a search warrant which they did not produce during trial. Miranda v. Arizona is yet another important landmark court case worth mentioning. In this particular case, the Supreme Court in the words of Travis III (2011) ruled:

"that when police have a suspect in custody, they must advise the suspect that he or she may remain silent, that what is said may be used against the suspect in court, and that the suspect has the right to either a retained (hired) or appointed attorney during questioning."

Apart from the protections provided by the constitution and previous landmark court cases, citizens are also protected from improper police behavior by both civilian review boards and internal affairs divisions. While civilian police boards are made up of citizens and hence are largely delinked from police agencies, internal affairs divisions mainly comprise of senior police officers (Champion, 2001). Both bodies in this case are charged with the investigation of police misconduct. In an attempt to make them more effective, civilian review boards have in the recent past "been given greater sanctioning powers when investigating allegations of police misconduct" (Champion, 2001).