Police
Discuss the 2 roles of police officers: the public servant and the crime fighter. Utilize current research to explain why some people may believe police subculture is breaking down. Review the presentation titled “Police (Part 2)” found in the Reading & Study folder of Module/Week 3. Integrate an analysis of “Biblical Themes”, legalism, and licentiousness, as discussed in the presentation. How do these concepts tie into the roles of police officers as public servants and crime fighters?
Discussion boards are collaborative learning experiences. Therefore, the student is required to create a thread in response to the provided prompt for each forum. Each thread must be 300–350 words, include at least 2 peer-reviewed sources cited in current APA format, and demonstrate course-related knowledge. In addition to the thread, the student is required to reply to 2 other classmates’ threads. Each reply must be 200–250 words, include at least 1 peer-reviewed source published within the last 5 years, and be cited in current APA format.
CJUS 500
Presentation: Police (Part 2) Transcript
Slide 1
Enforcement officers must operate under the purview of the United States Constitution.
There are clear constitutional limitations on police behavior.
The Fourth amendment provides civilians protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures”.
Case law has helped define the interpretation of what constitutes unreasonableness and also, what constitutes a search and seizure.
The Fourth amendment is only applicable to governmental actions including local, state, and federal enforcement.
The scope of constitutional protections does not however, impose upon the actions of private individuals or companies.
The Fourth amendment also concerns itself with what is regarded as a reasonable expectation of privacy.
In certain circumstances, an individual would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and so it may not fall under the purview of the Fourth amendment.
Laws continue to evolve and the Constitution continues to be subjected to evaluation and interpretation.
A warrant must be obtained in order to search or seize.
Officers must also establish probable cause to suggest that they have enough evidence against a suspect to authorize, issuance of a warrant.
In some instances, police officers can conduct warrantless searches and seizures.
One type of warrantless seizure is known as a Terry stop or a stop-and-frisk.
In these unique circumstances, law enforcement only need have “reasonable suspicion” not probable cause, to believe that a person has committed a crime.
The Fifth Amendment contends that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”.
As such, the Fifth Amendment provides defendants the constitutional protection of refusing to testify against themselves.
The Fifth Amendment also requires that a defendant is provided due process at all stages of the the legal process.
Due process ensures fairness in all legal matters.
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that before individuals in police custody are questioned, they must be provided clarity about their constitutional rights.
However, this warning is only necessary when an individual is in police custody and police officers are intending to interrogate or question the individual.
It is further only specific to testimonial statement evidence made by the suspect.
If a suspect is read their Miranda rights and does not respond, police officers can still continue to question the suspect and any information obtained, can be admissible.
There is an additional public safety exception to the Miranda rule as well.
In other words, police do not have to provide a Miranda warning if there is an immediate threat to public safety.
If the suspect provides any statements under this public safety exception, statements can be admissible against that individual at trial.
The Sixth amendment provides defendants many constitutional protections but most importantly, it provides defendants the “right to have assistance of counsel for his defense”.
As soon as charges are filed against the defendant, the Sixth amendment protections begin.
In Massiah v. United States (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that questioning the defendant without their lawyer present, whether openly or secretly, interferes with the attorney’s ability to represent their clients and therefore, is rendered unconstitutional and a violation of the Sixth amendment.
So, once a defendant has been formally charged with a crime, questioning must take place in the presence of a lawyer or If any statements are discovered and obtained in violation of this Massiah rule, the exclusionary rule or suppressing the evidence would apply.
Slide 2
Law enforcement must be ethical in all of their practices.
When individuals are providing statements, law enforcement officers have the duty to provide appropriate warnings under the purview of the Constitution.
This also helps to avoid false confessions.
Law enforcement officers have the ethical duty to avoid third-degree tactics during interrogation.
In addition, the use of force has been a major concern for the public.
Tennessee v. Garner (1985), addressed the “fleeing felon controversy”. The Supreme Court said that deadly force is considered a seizure. It is therefore, subject to the reasonableness requirement under the Fourth amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to use deadly force unless the suspect’s escape would pose significant risk and serious harm to other people in society.
There is what is known as the use of force continuum.
The use of force continuum serves as a guideline for law enforcement officers with respect to the type of force that should be applied in specific situations.
Level I begins with officer’s physical appearance.
Level II, represents officers using clear and deliberate verbal commands.
Level III allows officers to use OC pepper spray and various other incapacitating agents to subdue suspects.
Hard techniques represent Level IV on the continuum and include actions such as takedowns, Tasers, and batons.
Level V represents deadly force and is the highest level of force on the continuum.
Slide 3
Law enforcement officers are subjected to many policing stressors.
Police officers are upheld to managing constitutional and legal protections.
Officers are consistently exposed to dangerous situations, which also cause a great deal of stress.
Some of the most cited issues concerning police stressors include failing management and overall lack of supervisory support.
Some officers, specifically female officers, report stress in managing family responsibilities.
Work hours and traumatizing events can interfere with how individuals transition from officer to home life.
It is also reported that sexual orientation discrimination of LGBT people, exists in the police force and creates a barrier of hostility among work colleagues.
Research reports LGBT officers experience: verbal harassment, sexual harassment, discriminatory slurs, and even death threats (Sears, Hasenbush, & Mallory, 2013).
Research purports that over 90% of LGBT officers report being on the receiving end of some type of negative experience. Furthermore, research finds there is a pervasive discriminatory attitude among police chiefs, citing difficulty in working with gay and lesbian officers (Sears, Hasenbush, & Mallory, 2013).
Because of the close occupational bond police officers have with one another, when one agency experiences a traumatic situation, all officers will regard the event as an assault on them as a community.
It is recommended that departments provide assistance and advocacy for military veterans and offer greater support services for police officers who might be experiencing postraumatic stress disorder.
Also, strategizing the needs for assisting law enforcement officers is necessary.
There are times where police officers may cope with stress and traumatic experiences by consuming alcohol or taking illegal drugs.
These practices can also lead to depression, domestic violence, and even suicide.
All of these elements are important for maintaining departmental culture.
Slide 4
The reason we need criminal justice professionals to begin with is due to the problem of sin. Ultimately, the solution to sin is only found in Christ, but in this world, the criminal justice system works to limit the effects of sin. Therefore, it is helpful to understand the basic dimensions of sin.
Remember that all crimes are sins, but not all sins are crimes. Crimes are only those violations of inalienable rights of others. The criminal justice system works to prevent and punish crimes.
Another way to look at sin as defined by Scripture, is by looking at the categories of legalism and licentiousness. Both can lead to criminal behavior but as with all types of sin, they start with sinful and destructive attitudes of the heart.
Legalism and licentiousness are both based upon self-righteousness, in so far as they reject the righteousness of God as defined in Scripture and is available solely through Christ.
Legalism assumes that we are righteous through our own good behavior, as if we could ever earn God’s approval through our conduct and family connections.
A society that is more infatuated with this tendency, is also more apt to embrace a whitewashed moralism which posits good external behavior and favors vile practices like slavery and racism.
Meanwhile, the other extreme, but just as self-righteous is licentiousness which favors all manner of personal discretion in the practice of life choices and as such, also rejects God’s moral law.
This perspective favors the weakening of family and community bonds in the name of glorifying individual choices because it feels good to do it.
It rejects the sanctity of sexual intimacy as defined by Scripture solely between man and woman and only in marriage.
It also puts personal choice above the sanctity of life, including the unborn.
So while it might be quick to reject things like racism, it also contributes to weakening the moral/covenantal bonds we need to care for one another, and preserve order and justice in society.
Further, it can lead to addictive, disruptive behaviors such as drug use, which again, is criminal because it is a violation of a person’s inalienable rights. We do not have the unfettered right to destroy our lives, so the government is mandated to save us from ourselves in those situations.
References
Masters, R.E., Way, L.B., Gerstenfeld, P. B., Muscat, B.T., Hopper, M., Dusch, J, P., Pincu., L.,
& Skrapec, C. A. (2013). CJ realities and challenges (2nd. ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Sears, B., Hasenbush, A., & Mallory, C. (2013). Discrimination against law enforcement
officers on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity: 2000 to 2013. The Williams Institute. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Law-Enforcement-Discrim-Report-Nov-2013.pdf
