This paper examines the history and categories of civil rights violations committed by police departments in the United States. Drawing on constitutional amendments, landmark Supreme Court cases, and documented practices, the paper organizes violations into three groups: legally sanctioned violations such as Jim Crow enforcement, questionable practices clarified by cases like Miranda v. Arizona and Wong Sun v. United States, and knowingly prohibited modern violations including racial profiling and excessive force. The paper argues that ambiguity in law, racial discrimination, and evolving judicial interpretation have all contributed to an ongoing pattern of civil rights violations in American policing, and that such violations—both intentional and unintentional—are likely to persist.
The paper effectively employs a categorical classification framework as its central analytical tool. Rather than treating police civil rights violations as a single undifferentiated phenomenon, the author distinguishes between violations that were once legally mandated, violations that existed in a legal gray zone before court clarification, and violations that are now clearly prohibited. This taxonomy allows the paper to trace the evolution of civil rights law while showing why violations persist across all three categories.
The paper opens by establishing the constitutional foundation in the Bill of Rights and Civil War Amendments, then introduces the three-category framework. It moves chronologically from Jim Crow–era legalized discrimination through mid-twentieth-century Supreme Court decisions (Wong Sun, Miranda) that clarified ambiguous practices, and concludes with modern intentional violations such as racial profiling and excessive force. A brief conclusion ties all three categories together and gestures toward ongoing legal ambiguity with a contemporary legislative example.
The outline for basic civil rights in America is deceptively simple and straightforward. It appears in the Bill of Rights, with a concentration on the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. Taken together, these amendments govern the ability of the government to conduct searches and seizures, dictate the rules required for arrest, guarantee the right to remain silent, provide the right to an attorney, and prohibit cruel and unusual punishment (U.S. Const. Amends. IV, V, VI, and VIII). However, while the Bill of Rights provides a broad outline of the civil rights that a criminally accused person has in the United States, these amendments are sufficiently vague that they have required constant interpretation.
Furthermore, the United States has an ugly history of racial discrimination. The Civil War Amendments — the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments — were written to apply Equal Protection guarantees without regard to race and to extend this protection at the state level, not simply at the federal level (U.S. Const. Amends. XIII, XIV, and XV). As a result, it should come as no surprise that there is a long history of civil rights violations by police as they have sought information from suspects. These violations fall into three distinct categories: legally sanctioned civil rights violations, questionable practices, and prohibited civil rights violations.
It may appear oxymoronic to describe some civil rights violations as legal, but one must keep in mind that it was not long ago that much of the United States was operating under segregation, which provided different rules and standards for suspects based upon their race. "Jim Crow was the name of the racial caste system which operated primarily, but not exclusively, in southern and border states, between 1877 and the mid-1960s. Jim Crow was more than a series of rigid anti-Black laws. It was a way of life. Under Jim Crow, African Americans were relegated to the status of second-class citizens. Jim Crow represented the legitimization of anti-Black racism" (Pilgrim, 2012). These laws made it illegal for non-white people to enjoy many of the same rights and privileges as whites — for example, by designating certain areas for the use of "colored" people. If an African American or other non-white person violated those laws, police were called upon to enforce them. This dynamic was dramatized in the famous lunch counter sit-ins and when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus, even though Jim Crow laws required her, as an African American, to yield her seat to a white passenger. This was a legalized process of the systemic violation of civil rights.
As officers sworn to enforce the laws of their various jurisdictions, police were called upon to enforce these statutes — and they did so. Not only did they arrest African Americans for violating Jim Crow statutes that would eventually be ruled unconstitutional, but they also failed to protect African Americans from community violence. Law enforcement's participation in community violence, or its failure to prosecute those who engaged in it, was a critical element of the segregation that existed under Jim Crow. "The Jim Crow laws and system of etiquette were undergirded by violence, real and threatened. Blacks who violated Jim Crow norms — for example, drinking from the white water fountain or trying to vote — risked their homes, their jobs, even their lives. Whites could physically beat Blacks with impunity. Blacks had little legal recourse against these assaults because the Jim Crow criminal justice system was all-white: police, prosecutors, judges, juries, and prison officials" (Pilgrim, 2012).
Moreover, even after the Supreme Court began to strike down segregationist statutes and the federal government passed sweeping civil rights legislation protecting non-whites from de jure segregation, routine race-based civil rights violations remained part of the underlying social fabric in many areas. A number of African Americans and white civil rights workers were murdered during the 1960s, and even when their killers were brought to trial at the time, they were frequently not convicted. In the 1990s and early 2000s, prosecutors began to revisit those cases and secured convictions, but the significant gap between the commission of those crimes and the eventual convictions demonstrates how deeply the social fabric had been designed to prevent African Americans from receiving full civil rights and liberties.
While discriminatory behavior accounts for a significant portion of civil rights violations by police, it does not account for all of them. Much of the early civil rights violations by police officers stemmed from a failure to fully understand the requirements embedded in the Bill of Rights. It took years of case law before the Supreme Court to fully illuminate the demands of those amendments. The most famous of those cases was Miranda v. Arizona, but another case, Wong Sun v. United States, helped explain the consequences when only part of a police investigation violated a defendant's civil rights.
Although one might think of civil rights as a well-defined area, the existence of at least three distinct categories of violations — legally sanctioned violations, questionable practices, and prohibited violations — helps explain why police continue to infringe upon suspects' civil rights. Moreover, even as these categories have gained greater definition over time, some ambiguity persists. For example, while Jim Crow laws are no longer enforceable, subsequent legislative efforts in various states have attempted to permit businesses to discriminate against certain groups, such as LGBT individuals. Police would undoubtedly be called upon to enforce such laws and remove individuals from business establishments. Though such legislation may appear facially unconstitutional, without a court decision declaring it so, it would be treated as valid state law. As a result, police would once again be placed in the position of having to choose between enforcing state or local law — as required by their job descriptions — and adhering to the dictates of the Constitution. What this suggests is that, unfortunately, civil rights violations, both intentional and unintentional, will remain a persistent feature of police work.
You’re 48% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.