Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, every person has the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. When assessing whether or not a police officer’s successful use of force, deadly or not, is justified the Courts use the objective reasonableness standard. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (U.S. 1989). The Court in Graham established that a Court must look at the force used by the officer (1) from the perspective of a reasonable officer with same or similar training and experience, (2) the totality of the facts known to the officer at the time the force was applied, (3) the facts known to the officer without regard to …show more content…
Considering the facts known to us, a reasonable officer would not approach a suspect, accused of verbally harassing people on a sidewalk, from behind. It is likely that a reasonable officer would have approached the suspect from the front to confront him face on. However, if an officer were to approach a suspect from behind, a reasonable officer would have approached the suspect with proper backup to ensure that the area was safe and secure for arrest. In either case, all officers are required to do a threat assessmentof the scene to determine what amount of force would be reasonable. Any suspect, potentially, can be assaultive and use deadly force, however, approaching every suspect in a high-risk mode would be unreasonable. The facts do not indicate that the officer assessed the scene to determine what would be a reasonable approach. Approaching a suspect, whether he was reported to be physically violent or verbally violent, from behind with no back is not an action a reasonable officer with similar training and experience would …show more content…
As the officer got closer to the suspect, the suspect abruptly turned around, reached into his pocket to pull out an object and the officer proceeded to fire two shots at the suspect. The fact that the suspect died from the two shots and that he was simply pulling a religious cross out of his pocket are facts that would not be considered by the Court. This is because these facts would be compelling evidence which would induce hindsight evaluation. Instead, the Court may analyze the action taken by the suspect immediately before the officer fired the two shots. The suspect abruptly turned around and reached into his pocket, at this point the officer did not know what the suspect might have pulled out his pocket. The officer made a split-second decision in a tense and an evolving situation. It is very likely that the Court would agree the officer made the best decision for himself under the circumstances at that instant
Patrick and Hall in “In Defense of Self and Others” write, "If effective law enforcement is to be maintained, the race must not be to the swift. The fleeing criminal, regardless of his offense, must be considered the author of his own misfortune.” Policemen only use force in response to the situation they are in. Day to day Police men and women have to make difficult choices. The decisions they make often lead to controversy. Two sides are then created. On one side, there are people that believe police are bullies that do as they wish; the other side believes officers act as they see fit and do the best they can to keep the public out of harm's way. “The Etiquette of Police Brutality” by Rion Amalcar Scott represents the first view and
Since their has been policing entities, it is understood by most that law enforcement officers have been performing a public service that is not easy to carry out. To assist law enforcement officers in diffusing situations, apprehending alleged criminals, and protecting themselves and others, officers are legally entitled to use appropriate means, including force. In discussing police misconduct, this report acknowledges not only the legal grant of such authority,
The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a
There is no question that police brutality, when it occurs, is one of the most egregious violations of public trust that a public servant can commit. Police officers, those individuals taxed with protecting the public from danger, should never be in a situation where they pose a threat to the public. Furthermore, there is no question that police brutality occurs. Moreover, generally when there are allegations of police brutality, there has been some type of underlying violent incident. In addition, while issues of brutality may seem clear-cut to a disinterested observer, it is critical to keep in mind that law enforcement officers are not presented with textbook examples of the appropriate or inappropriate use of force, but real-life scenarios involving quick decisions. There are many arrest and non-arrest scenarios where officers need to use force to protect self or others; and the degree of force required may be greater than what a disinterested observer would assume. Another recurrent issue in debates about police brutality is that racial bias appears to be a motive behind police brutality. When one considers that minorities are disproportionately likely to be arrested and convicted of crimes, one would expect to find a disproportionate number of minorities among those alleging police brutality. Therefore, while acknowledging that police brutality, when it occurs, is a serious problem, the reality is that most
I could be driving minding my own business and a drive by a police officer just parked somewhere and police officer spots me and pulls me over for some reason. The police officer orders me out of my vehicle. Maybe I was speeding and I did not know? Or maybe the police officer wants to search me and my car? Can the officer do that? The answer to all these questions are no, Thanks to the Fourth Amendment, The police officer has limited power to seize and search me or my car (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr). Now, the Fourth Amendment has been questioned repeatedly during the last several years, as police and higher intelligent agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. From the federal government collecting telephones and Internet connections to protect us, due to the War on Terror and trying to prevent the same damage that happened on 9/11. Many municipal police forces have engaged in violent use of “stop and frisk.” There have been as far as incidents were police officers were force to shoot civilians (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr).
Police have the uncontested right to use force when necessary to apprehend a suspect. If the force exceeds that which is necessary it is defined as excessive force and is illegal. An officer’s discretion on use of force is a based on judgment. They do not know if a judge will later rule an instance of use of force as excessive or not. There is a fine line between what is considered acceptable force and what is considered excessive force. All an
This case is important to anyone working in law enforcement because of the objective reasonableness standard that it established via the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This case also reversed a four-factor test regarding use of force that was used to test if the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain discipline or was applied with malice to cause harm. The Supreme Court in 490 U.S. 396 (1986) determined that the four factor test did not cover all possible situations and only the decision making skills of a human being can adequately determine the appropriate use of force.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects one’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also states that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. Probable cause can be defined as a person of reasonable caution who believes that a crime has been committed and the person accused has committed that crime. Modern law has afforded police officers an incentive to respect this amendment, known as the “stop and frisk” act. The Stop and Frisk law allows police officers to stop someone and do a quick search of their outer clothing for weapons: if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. The reasonable
The use of force is without a doubt an important aspect in policing. The decision to utilize any type of force comes from a multitude of recourses; department policies, training, situational variables and ethical systems. There are three major categories in which an officers use of force is categorized under; justifiable, excessive and deadly; with a thin line between justifiable and excessive. Cases where excessive force has been used, has lead to injuries, deaths, civil damages, officers convicted and sentenced to jail and police chiefs and elected officials being removed from office (Fyfe, 1988). It is an officer`s discretion in determining when the use of force is justifiable.
First, it substantially limits citizens’ Fourth Amendment right to personal security. “The constitutional lodestar for understanding the Fourth Amendment is not an ad hoc reasonableness standard; rather, the central meaning of the Fourth Amendment is distrust of police power and discretion.” However, many courts give strong deference to the judgement of police officers and judicial scrutiny makes it impermissible to second-guess police officer’s split second judgments. “Were courts to consider the historical distrust of police power when reviewing reasonable force claims, one would expect less deference to police judgment and more concern for an individual’s interest in personal security.” The Fourth Amendment was intended to protect citizens from governmental abuses and yet the factors put forth by Graham are far more protective of law enforcement
The way in which a police officer reacts to a situation relies on the characteristics of the suspect and location, and the personal beliefs of the police officer. The characteristics of a suspect include the individual’s race, ethnicity, gender, economic status, and behavior. These aspects play a single role in a law enforcement officer’s behavior under a nerve-wracking situation. People will argue that an officer judging by a suspect’s characteristics is sexist, racist, etc., but, truth is, everyone judges by
Now that we have established what deadly force is and what the law states, let’s move on to the investigation that ensues after the fact. Let’s look into how the investigative process works for this type of incident and how the public views the use of deadly force. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin outlines six investigative elements in a case of deadly force; The Investigators, The Crime Scene, The Involved Officers, The Civilian Witnesses, The Criminal Justice Authorities and The Media. All of these play a pivotal role in deciphering a particular case of deadly force. This process could take months or years to sort out. I will tell you about the steps of the process but keep in mind, that while the slow wheels of justice are turning, the officer is dealing with his emotions, his family’s response and most likely the public’s response due to the media coverage. Whatever the outcome, no doubt this will have an effect on the individual officer for the rest of their life.
The Supreme Court has stated that the calculus of the propriety of an officer’s use of force must include the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving. Officers who use force in the street are judged under the Objective Reasonableness
The use of excessive force by police officers is a topic that continues to make headlines and a study that needs to be done. Although much research has gone into this topic there still is no consensus on why the use of excessive force occurs. Some studies suggest lack of training and/or problems with organization policy/procedures. Law enforcement officers are authorized to use force when necessary, but when the level of force is excessive, however, the actions of the police come under scrutiny. The resulting effects can include; public outrage, scandal, negative reputation for not only the officer but the law enforcement community, and criminal considerations. Although there’s is no concrete definition of excessive force, police
When debating the issue of police use of force, the issue of what actions constitute too much force must also be addressed. Another concern is the possibility of corruption amount officers. When given such great power, the probability of corruption is high. Officers generally do not start out as corrupt, but years of work on the force can create animosity between officers and suspects and lead them to decide to use force more quickly (McEwen, 1996). Many times, officers patrol the streets alone which creates the opportunity for potential abuse of power (McEwen, 1996). Although police officers need to be permitted to exercise some discretion, they also need limits and guidelines to follow when using their powers of discretion (Manning, 1997). The decision to use force should not be taken lightly in that citizen’s lives are at stake. Police should be allowed discretion in decisions to use force; however, this discretion should be limited. In several cases in Arizona, officers have used deadly means of force. In all cases, the officers