Legal aspects of law enforcement

¶ … Role of Legal Education in Law Enforcement

The training of modern American law enforcement officers absolutely requires education into the procedural standards and elements of legal definitions and requirements. Without such training, it would be impossible to ensure that citizens receive the full protections of fundamental constitutional and statutory rights and those laid down in court precedents. Moreover, the legal education of law enforcement officers also ensures the integrity of the prosecution process and protects government prosecutorial efforts against the consequences of violating the legal rights of defendants such as through the exclusion of relevant evidence of guilt. Finally, the legal education of law enforcement officers is necessary to protect them and their agencies from both civil and criminal liability, such as under Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Title 18 U.S.C. 242

(Schott, 2008).

The Many Applications of Due Process in Modern American Law Enforcement:

Due process is one of the most fundamental concepts that governs the application and administration of criminal justice in the United States (Dershowitz, 2002;

Schmalleger, 2008). The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: "The

right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no

Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (Freidman, 2005;

Zalman, 2008).

The modern law enforcement officer must understand the specific ways that

Fourth Amendment due process defines reasonable suspicion, probable cause, the limits of officer safety as a predicate to conducting frisk searches, and the complex procedures for securing and executing both search and arrest warrants.

The right against self-incrimination is another fundamental aspect of due process applicable to law enforcement and criminal justice administration that must be understood by law enforcement officers. Specifically, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution provides that "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..." (Freidman, 2005; Zalman, 2008). The modern law enforcement officer must understand the specific ways that Fifth Amendment due process defines custody, arrest, interrogation, voluntariness, and the limits of custodial questioning both "inside" and "outside" of Miranda requirements (Hoover, 2005; Schmalleger, 2008; Zalman, 2008).

The Consequences of Misunderstood Legal Issues in Law Enforcement:

The consequences of failure on the part of law enforcement officers to understand the myriad principles, definitions, standards, and legal nuances of American legal concepts are tremendous. In that regard, officers who misunderstand reasonable suspicion, probable cause, the limits of officer safety as a predicate to conducting frisk searches, and the complex procedures for securing and executing both search and arrest warrants run the risk of undermining the government's prosecution of criminal defendants by poisoning the evidence necessary to convict them (Dershowitz, 2002;

Hoover, 2005; Schmalleger, 2008).

In modern American criminal justice administration, physical evidence secured and testimonial evidence adduced in violation of established legal standards are subject to exclusion as the judicial remedy for improper police procedure that violates the Fourth

Amendment constitutional and other derivative rights of defendants (Dershowitz, 2002;

Hoover, 2005; Schmalleger, 2008). Furthermore sufficiently egregious violations of constitutional due process in several areas can result in civil liability for the officer personally and for government agencies under Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 and even in criminal

liability under Title 18 U.S.C. 242 (Schott, 2008).

Likewise, violations of Fifth Amendment rights such as the right against self-incrimination or compelled testimony through coercive interrogation also jeopardize government prosecution by invalidating the testimonial evidence elicited in violation of established rights and standards applicable to custodial interrogation of criminal suspects