This paper provides an overview of the legal and institutional protections that guard citizens against improper police behavior in the United States. It examines the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, highlighting restrictions on unreasonable searches and coercive interrogation. The paper also discusses landmark Supreme Court decisions — including Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona — that reinforced these protections. Additionally, it addresses the roles of civilian review boards and internal affairs divisions in investigating police misconduct, and concludes with a discussion of the proper scope and limits of officer discretion in law enforcement.
In seeking to detect and prevent crime, as well as in the apprehension of lawbreakers, it is essential to be mindful of the various protections accorded to the citizens of this country against improper police behavior. The following overview addresses the constitutional safeguards, judicial precedents, institutional oversight mechanisms, and the proper scope of discretion that together define the boundaries of lawful law enforcement conduct.
The Fourth Amendment provides one of the most fundamental protections available to citizens. According to Travis III (2011), it "protects the homes, papers, and possessions of the citizenry from unreasonable searches." Accordingly, any warrant must not only be judicially sanctioned but must also be supported by what is referred to as probable cause.
The Fifth Amendment offers a further layer of protection. In the words of Travis III (2011), it "protects citizens from overzealous interrogation by the police." Officers must therefore ensure that they do not abuse their authority while seeking to obtain evidence from suspects. Among other things, officers must not resort to threats or torture, as a conviction cannot be founded on a forced confession.
A number of landmark court cases have further reinforced the constitutional protections citizens hold against improper police behavior. One such case is Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). In this case, it was held that evidence obtained irregularly — that is, in violation of the Fourth Amendment — may not be used at trial. The police in that case claimed to possess a search warrant, which they failed to produce during the proceedings (Travis III, 2011).
Miranda v. Arizona is yet another important landmark decision. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled, as summarized by Travis III (2011), "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." These Miranda rights remain a cornerstone of custodial interrogation law in the United States.
"Oversight bodies investigating police misconduct"
"Scope and legal boundaries of officer discretion"
Travis III, L. F. (2011). Introduction to criminal justice (7th ed.). Elsevier.
You’re 53% 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.