Confidentiality Observation

The issue of stop and search is considered to be an extremely controversial area. There is significant debate on the legitimacy and the accountability of police powers when conducting stop and search, which has led to concerns about the effectiveness of policing. Reiner (2000: 80) has stated that policing is ‘beyond legitimation’ as a result of consistent complaints concerning the abuse of police powers within stop and search. The cause for concern is not only raised by the public, or other agencies, but is now recognised by senior British police officers (Ainsworth, 2002: 28). The cause of concern has been raised through complaints that police target ethnic minorities through stop and search and public opinion, that stop and search is a

In the first incident, Clayton Harris’s truck was pulled over by Officer Wheetley because it had an expired license plate. When Wheetley approached the vehicle the suspect

Second, police officers are caught in a dilemma when making a traffic stop. Chances are that drivers stopped try to injure or even kill the officer. Yet, officers are expected to maintain friendliness at best or neutral at worst. Police officers lower their guard when they approach the driver in a friendly manner. If the officer adopts a continuous friendly approach, they may find themselves attacked by hostile citizens or worst, killed because of losing one's guard. Though, the friendly approach has its risks, the defensive approach has its consequences. When a police officer approaches the driver with a guarded attitude, the officer will most likely forget the goal of cooperating with the driver. Instead

Police officers continue to put their lives on the line to protect others. They don’t even know you and everyday they wake up, put on their uniforms, and set out to do whatever it takes to keep you safe. It is not their fault you or someone you know broke the law and got a ticket or was arrested – it's your own fault; you chose to break the law, that police officer was only doing his job. "Police officers take risks and suffer inconveniences to protect the lives, defend civil liberties, secure the safety of fellow citizens, and they endure such risks and tolerate such inconveniences on behalf of strangers."

Law enforcement officers are given much power and authority over one’s civil liberties. Not only do they have a duty but also a responsibility to enforce laws and ordinances in their jurisdiction, maintain order and protect its people. In some cases, the only way to accomplish this is through legitimized use of force. Use of force can best be described as "the amount of effort required by a law enforcement officer to induce compliance of an unwilling subject" (nij.gov, 2012). With that said, law enforcement officers have been given the right to apply only enough force necessary to control a situation, while defending others, preventing escape, during self-defense and while a subject is resisting arrest (Pollock, pp. 234). It is not until that force becomes excessive that it becomes say an issue.

In the case Terry v. Ohio, the defendant John Terry argued that his Fourth Amendment right was violated when a police officer conducted a search on him, and found a concealed weapon. According to the officer, he had been monitoring Terry’s actions prior to the stop in fear of his safety, thus, had enough reasonable suspicion to stop and search the defendant. The Supreme Court decided to rule in favor of the state determining that the officer may stop and frisk any suspicious person when he feels that his safety or those of others are in danger. A Terry Stop is when the police are allowed to stop, question and frisk someone they believe is behaving suspiciously (Larson, 2000). I am going to argue how police officers benefit from the Terry Stops even though on many occasions they take advantage of their power and act unethical. Essentially, it is acceptable for police officers to stop and frisk any suspicious person because it enhances the community. Furthermore, from the law enforcement perspective, any officer of the law should have a mandatory right to stop and search for weapons in order to protect themselves at all times. It is obvious that society feels that they cannot trust law enforcement because minorities are more likely to be stopped and frisk. Needless to say, it can be argued that we are one step closer to chaos. I would consider that the Supreme Court clarify and specify a little more on the stop and frisk law because ambiguity. In my opinion, anytime an

The Supreme Court made it clear with its ruling that, police do have the authority to stop or detain an individual for a questioning for a short-term period without probable cause if he/she make have or about to commit a crime. This ruling is important because it gives police officer the authority to help protect him/herself as well as the community. It also puts steps in place to protect citizens from unreasonable search and seizure that is protected our Fourth Amendment right. In the case of Terry v. Ohio a police detective observed two men walking up and down a street several times and gazing into a store window. The officer observing conduct from the individuals that would lead him or her to suspect that a crime has already happened or about to happen is one of the necessities need to consider this as a valid stop. The officer identified himself as an officer of the law and began to inquire and request identification. The officer in this case followed the required guidelines for a valid stop. In return the Supreme Court ruled that this was a valid stop and frisk. According to United States Supreme Court TERRY v. OHIO, (1968) MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring. While I unreservedly agree with the Court 's ultimate holding in this case, I am constrained to fill in a few gaps, as I see them, in its opinion. I do this because what is said by this Court today

Police Officer Jones, in full uniform, was walking the midnight shift in a high-crime area at approximately 2:00 AM and is approached by a civilian who told Officer Jones she had been robbed and beaten by someone wearing a red shirt and white pants. The victim’s shirt was blood soaked from a severe laceration to her head and lip. She said the perpetrator was wearing a ski mask so she was unable to determine the gender/sex of the individual, as well as the race/ethnicity. However, she was able to inform Officer Jones that the perpetrator was approximately 5’8” tall and had a gun. The perpetrator stole her wallet and was

Police are violating the 4th amendment which is protection from unreasonable searches and seizes. Police officers are stopping and frisking black and latino people just because of the color of their skin or what they are wearing. The police officers are harassing them and stopping them in public and leaving them with little to no explanation. Donnel Baird a community organizer in Brownsville, New York believes that real criminals are too advanced to be out in the public's eye and out for police officers to stop and search them to actually find something on them that could help them. When it comes to the topic of policing, most of us will readily agree that they are necessary to help keep peace in the community. Where this agreement usually

As crime rates rise, police must come up with new methods to counteract these increases. Many of these methods come with pros and cons that may affect the way the public views Police officers and law enforcement in general. Some of these methods may seem like a violation to people’s rights, even though they may be constitutional. One of these methods known as Stop and Frisk is one of the most widely debated topics in America when it comes to dealing with Police actions and Constitutional rights.

The subject I intend to reflect upon is confidentiality within a professional healthcare setting. Confidentiality formed a part of our professional issues lectures and it piqued my interest due to how differently it is interpreted within healthcare as opposed to education, which is my background. In an educational setting I was taught repeatedly that I could never ensure confidentiality between myself and a child. Comparing that to what I have now learnt in healthcare, this seemed to me almost the opposite way of working as I was used to and so I wish to reflect upon this.

“The police have a number of powers of stop and search. When using any power they must always have regards to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) codes of practice.” The effectiveness of the police stop and search procedures being used as a valuable tool in the detection of crime can be measured by looking at the role that stop and searches play in policing and the arrests they lead to. However their impact on the community and the negative image it has given the police force outweigh the results generated from stop and searches. It has been found through various reports such as one by The Equality and Human Rights Commission, arrests for serious offenses are less likely to follow from stop and searches however they do play

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

Police officers are often viewed as oppressors and unjust by the community, when in reality they are just doing their jobs. The job of a police officer is to apprehend criminals and detect crime, and the maintenance of public order and to the extend and complication of this duty police officers often need to make split second decision that is not often view by the public as what we call “self-defense” which is a right we all have as human beings and stated in the Universal Declaration of

On March 3rd 1991, Los Angeles Police chase a vehicle that was driving erratically. When the vehicle came to a stop after reaching speeds of nearly 120 mph, a total of four cruisers arrived to the scene, including six patrol officers and a sergeant. Of those officers were Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind, Theodore Briseno, Rolando Solano, Tim and Melanie Singer, and Sergeant Stacey Koon. (Linder 2001)