When officers are negligent or abuse their authority, they are open for civil liability. This may result from false arrest, brutality, and the use of excessive force allegations that the officer intentionally violated their constitutional and civil rights. Such allegations may be the result of corruption and abuse of one’s authority under the law. Civil liability reflects private interests of a person or property resulting in money damages and not those of a criminal nature. Although, civil liability can be coupled with criminal sanctions depending on the circumstance surrounding the situation such as those surrounding wrongful death suits if the officer intentionally or negligently caused harm. This would also leave the officer open for the family to take him or her to court if the conduct violated the victims’ rights. With this in mind, The Civil Rights Act of 1871 was enacted to control the behavior of officers and provide individuals with legal redress if their Constitutional rights are violated. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments resulted in slavery being abolished and provide due process to control conduct of officers and has since been codified under Title 42 of the U.S. Coded, section 1983 legislation to allow individuals whose civil rights are violated by government officials to bring civil lawsuits to federal court against officers, law enforcement agencies, and government entities (Gaines & Kappeler, 2011).
The statute known as Section 1983, was passed to protect civil rights to unlawfully act under (color of law) the authority of law to deprive another person of their rights by acting out of the scope of the authority granted to him/her under the state (Gaines and Kappeler, 2011). The color of law means when a...
... middle of paper ...
...existing law and if the decision violated federally protect rights. The third is determining if probable caused existed under search and seizure and had reason to believe that she/he was following due process as interpreted as good faith (pp. 403-404).
As a result, 42 of the U.S. Coded, section 1983 has acted as a remedy to those injured as a result of abusive government power. Therefore, law enforcement must take federally protected rights under the color of law, departmental policies, liability training, and public safety very serious because government officials can be held to the duty doctrine to protect the public’s rights and cannot cause reckless harm. Neglectful and abusive practices in violation of the law under section 1983, not only affects an individual officer, but it can also adversely affect the agency and governments relating back to the taxpayers.
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
On September 4, 1958, Dollree Mapp’s was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). On March 29, 1961, Dollree Mapp v. Ohio was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States after an incident with local Ohio law enforcement and a search of Dollree Mapp 's home (Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects and prohibits all persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, can evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights still be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This is the issue that will be thoroughly examined in the landmark case of Dollree Mapp v. the State of Ohio (henceforth
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, 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 searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
Reasonableness Standard. The Supreme Court established a standard to the Fourth Amendment called objective reasonableness. Objective reasonableness assesses an officer’s use of force when making an arrest or any other seizure of a person. Since this case the Supreme Court has hel...
The 4th Amendment only applies when certain criteria are met. The first criterion is that the government must be involved in a search or seizure via government action. This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor of the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technologic invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
Police brutality is a very real problem that many Americans face today. The police carry an enormous burden each day. Police work is very stressful and involves many violent and dangerous situations. In many confrontations the police are put in a position in which they may have to use force to control the situation. There are different levels of force and the situation dictates the level use most of the time. The police have very strict rules about police use force and the manner in which they use it. In this paper I will try to explain the many different reason the police cross the line, and the many different people that this type of behavior effects. There are thousands of reports each year of assaults and ill treatment against officers who use excessive force and violate the human rights of their victims. In some cases the police have injured and even killed people through the use of excessive force and brutal treatment. The use of excessive force is a criminal act and I will try and explore the many different factors involved in these situations.
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).
Police officers are faced each day with a vast array of situations with which they must deal. No two situations they encounter are ever the same, even when examines a large number of situations over an extended period of time. The officers are usually in the position of having to make decisions on how to handle a specific matter alone, or with little additional advice and without immediate supervision. This is the heart of police discretion. As we shall find, the exercise of discretion by police has benefits and problems associated with such exercise. The unfettered use of discretion can lead to the denial of citizen rights. Strategies that control the use of discretion are, therefore, very important. The benefits and problems of police discretion and controlling strategies are the focus of this essay.
In the Ferguson article (2015), there was an example given about an African American man claimed that he was standing outside of of Wal-Mart, an officer called him a “stupid motherf****r” and a “bastard.” According to the man, a lieutenant was on the scene and did nothing to reproach the officer, instead threatening to arrest the man (p. 80). This demonstrates that the police in Ferguson had no respect for the civilian and even though the lieutenant was present, they did nothing. The officer was not suspended nor held responsible for this incident. By failing to hold officers accountable, it sends a message that officers can behave as they like, “regardless of law or policy, and even if caught, that punishment will be light.” (Ferguson, 86). This message serves to excuse officer wrongdoing and heighten community distrust. This is also to say that police can possibly get away with murder because they are higher officials and work for the
Background and Audience Relevance: According to the Human Rights Watch 2012 report on Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States; police brutality has become one the most serious human rights violation. As citizens of the United States it is our duty to make sure that those with authority don 't take advantage of their power.
Skolnick, J., Fyfe, J. (1993) Above the law: Police and the Excessive use of force. United States: The Free Press
The deprivation of rights under color of law puts it clear that it is a crime for anyone who is acting beneath the color of a given law to deprive another person a privilege or a right willfully which is guarded by the laws or by the constitution of the United States (Gressman,1952). The article presented, presents an excellent case where the deprivation of rights under color of law can be applied excellently, this essay is going to talk about how these rights can be applied in the cases provided by the article.
Time may pass and personal morals may change, but one of the strengths of the United States of America is its unwavering dedication to justice. Throughout time, this country’s methods and laws have grown and adapted, but the basis of the law enforcement’s work has remained the same: the safety and interest of the people.
Police decisions can affect life, liberty, and property, and as guardians of the interests of the public, police must maintain high standards of integrity. Police discretion concerning how to act in a given situation can often lead to ethical misconduct (Banks 29).