The Use Of Unreasonable Force And The Fourth Amendment

The research topic we have chosen to research is Tasers. The use of Tasers has been a very controversial topic in the last few years. Reporters, doctors, and human rights groups have all expressed concern that police officers will use a Taser in situations when no weapon is required and concern has also been expressed over if the Taser is really a less-lethal option. No one claims the use of Tasers to be risk-free but studies have found them comparatively safe. We believe that people opposed to Tasers ignore a body of the reports showing the technology is safe and effective. The research question we hope to answer is: Is the deployment of a Taser a safe and viable

There are circumstances where people find warrants unconstitutional, but the fourth amendment is ethical through its probable cause, guaranteed privacy, and search warrants. Privacy to citizens makes them feel comfortable and protected. Without the fourth amendment privacy would be unavailable, the citizens of america wouldn’t feel very

There are several different types of force. These types of force include verbal commands or persuasion, physical force (unarmed), force using weapons that are non lethal, force that involves using weapons such as the bean bag gun or taser, and lastly, deadly force. All officers have to give way to each force option before last resorting to the use of deadly force, unless of course if the officer is in a life or death situation. This may be the only way to use deadly force in the first and last resort. They have a couple of weapons that they carry in case the need to use them arises. They carry a baton, tasers, handcuffs, guns and they also have police dogs. Some police do follow the guidelines for using force. Others may abuse their authority and not use force properly. It is really only up to the officers to do the right thing. Some cops are great and live to protect our communities while others abuse their authority.

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

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.

Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures of certain papers, books, documents etc. Rules are not violated in it. There must be probable reason because in order to arrest a particular person without a search warrant. It possesses an oath or affirmation from the government. It has two fundamental rights as Right to privacy and Right to freedom. Search occurs when it has a correct reason that was obligated by the government people. Private individuals are violated from this amendment. A seizure happens the owner must has a right documents with him on his own property, if not the documents is seized and the person gets arrested. Sometimes the property belongs to other possessor but in mistake reasonable person gets involved in the task. The banning of unreasonable searches can violate many things to be happen.

Federal law protects law enforcement officers by using the same logic seen in the Graham vs. Connor case. Excessive force cannot be

At final, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force whether deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop or any other seizure of a citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, rather than the under a substantive due process. The court also stated that a seizure occurs when a law enforcment officer terminates a free citizen’s movement by a means interntionally applied. An officer may sieze a person in many ways including: traffic stops, investigative detentions, and arrests are all seizures under the 4th amendmet. To seize a person, an officer may yell, “stop”, handcuff, a baton, or a firearm can be used to comply the subject with officer orders.

These exceptions are indeed consistent with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure for the previously stated reasons. With regards to open field searches the court finds that the Fourth Amendment only protects the privacy of the individual and their property within a close proximity to the curtilage of their home. Warrantless search of an open field amounts to little more than trespassing rather than a violation of a constitutional right. With regards to the search of objects in plain view. The court has held that objects in plain view have lost any reasonable expectation of privacy simply, and clearly because of the fact that the owner of these personal effects has not afforded the kind of privacy over these

Rights are not always absolute. Reason being there are mandates within the constitution that prohibit certain things from being over used. For example the first amendment gives you the right to exercise your freedom of speech. However hate speech, speech that incites violence or puts another individual in danger is prohibited. And does not fall under your first amendment rights.

To be clear, using excessive force is wrong. No one should have the thought about just beating someone up for the fun of it. But if the situation calls for force to protect me or anyone else, then a police officer should use all means necessary to stop the situation. The most common ways that police use force at their

The past several years have seen a proliferation of legislation directed at controlling criminal activities through the increased application of new laws. The effectiveness of these new laws, remains in question due not only to their relative infancy but also due to a uniform determinism of what constitutes effectiveness. The purpose of this paper will be to review the Fourth amendment particularly relating to NSA, FISA, Title III and the PATRIOT Act.

This use of force matrix utilizes a graded approach whereas an officer will use only the force necessary to exercise and arrest. Law enforcement officers may use that amount of force necessary to effect the lawful purpose intended, provided that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appears to exist at the time the force is used. The privilege to use force is not limited to the amount of force necessary to protect themselves or others, but extends to that amount reasonably necessary to enable officers to effect the arrest or otherwise neutralize the resistance of a subject. If a suspect refuses to be arrested the officer will have to utilize a higher level of force dependent upon the suspects actions. For example, if a suspect is resisting arrest, the officer may use a taser or other force methods to arrest the individual. An officer cannot simple resort to higher levels of force without proper justification. Officers must utilize only the force which is necessary and justified. There are times when an armed suspect may prompt an officer to use the highest level of force, deadly force, if he feels him or another person’s life is in jeopardy. The result of not going utilizing his weapon on this use of force scenario could mean death to the officer or the public.

Police officers are given a significant amount of discretion simply due to the nature of the job. Officers are faced with many threatening situations forcing them to react quickly, yet appropriately. They have the power to infringe upon any citizen’s rights to freedom and therefore they must use this power effectively. One major concern with the amount of discretion officers have is their power to decide when to use force or when to use lethal force. Manning (1997) argues that it is generally accepted that police should be allowed to use force. He also explains that there are an uncertain amount people who agree on as to what constitutes excessive force. The line

This proves that taser is an effective non-lethal weapon that can be used to subdue the criminals. Here are some possible advantages of taser guns, first, taser is a non-lethal weapon. As we may have already know, tasers are meant to take down the suspects without injuring or killing them. Also, it is safer to use in a situations where there are many bystanders in the scene, since tasers do not harm people around the intended suspects. This also leads to the second point of avoiding the usage of lethal weapons. So far, 1689 people have been killed by the police in a crime related actions (May, T. 2014). By promoting the usage of tasers, police officers around the world can lower the number of suspects being killed in the scene. Using the lethal weapon also dangers the suspects, police, and the bystanders, because firearms are a lethal weapon that can take away lives easily. Tasers also requires minimal training to use the functions, which also makes the officers and other security related people to easily use tasers in action. On the other hand, typical fire arms requires more training time to properly use them in order to avoid any accidents with it. Fourthly, by using taser, the injury rates dropped significantly. Taser have been used within law enforcement agencies from 1998, and from that time, according to the Taser International, taser helped lower injuries among officers and