Police Officer Violations

Law enforcement officials face several challenges while in the line of duty. Every day their put their lives at risk with the expected traffic stops, gun violence, and domestic violence. One risk that most citizens might not realize is police officers are also held liable for their actions towards the citizens they serve. Imagine having to knock on the door of a known suspected criminal, only to have that suspected criminal breakout numerous gunshots. That is the tail of events that occurred in Topeka, Kansas, on April 23, 2016. While gun violence can be bad and dangerous, it did help stop a Northeast Kansas wanted criminal that was the cause of several gunshots, a standoff situation, and fire at a local Topeka motel.

One of the biggest debates when talking about police discretion is do police officers enforce the law equally in all situations. It’s a little hard for officers to treat every situation the same way. When someone runs a red light because they were late meeting friends at a bar it is almost

When enforcing the law, for police officers not two situations they encounter are ever the same, even when examine a large number of situations over an extended period of time. The officers are usually in the

Police “officers work and live in a constantly changing environment in which they are exposed to a myriad of ethical conflicts. When either unprepared or unaware, police officers are more likely to “go with the flow” than they would be if they were adequately prepared to face potentially ethical risks.” (Gilmartin & Harris, 1998) Most ethical violations are committed because the officer is exposed to a situation in which he was inadequately prepared. The lack of time to think about the situation before committing an ethical violation has detrimental life changing consequences. Police work can be very exciting and very rewarding but if not properly prepared and trained an officer can easily find himself involved in an ethical violation. Understanding the issues and being mentally prepared will help police officers become more responsible and make better

Law enforcement officers have the freedom to make quick decisions on what to do in a particular situation without having to check with their supervisors. Discretion is an important contributor to the integrity of a police officer, and just as much, the compromise of the use of this discretion discredits the integrity of the police officer and the reliability to be an enforcer of the law. The working definition provides a contextual look at the concept of discretion for a law enforcement authority, along with the situations, which may cause a law enforcement officer to act in an unethical manner including issues like the difference in gender and race. Included are the instances where the officers cross the ethical line when dealing with their

When a law enforcement officer begins his or her job, they are sworn to uphold the laws of The United States and the State of which they serve. For most people, that seems like a basic task. However, once the officer begins the job, they understand that it is a lot more complicated than just reading a book and determining if the elements of a crime occurred, then taking the appropriate enforcement action. An experienced law enforcement officer knows when it is appropriate to enforce laws based on the letter of the law or the spirit of the law.

A police officer’s responsibility is to ensure the safety of the citizens in whichever state or country they are in by patrolling around areas and arresting individuals who are a danger to society. While there are many police officers that lead by example in complying with their duties, there are also many police officers that don’t and fall out of line with the law. When a police officer falls out of line with the law, it could be for many reasons such as robbery, murder, etc. Resulting from a lack of training, incompetence, poor decision making, racism, and greed. In the case of Sergeant Hugh Barry, who pertained to the police force for eight years, was charged on May 31st, 2017, with the murder of a woman who is said to have had a mental illness. Sergeant Barry and other officers had responded to a 911 call of a woman whose name is Deborah Danner. According to Al Baker, “Four officers and two paramedics arrived around 6 p.m. and Sergeant Barry arrived minutes later. The encounter ended with Sergeant Barry firing twice, fatally wounding Ms. Danner, who was in her bedroom” (Baker 1). A woman who was said to be displaying erratic behavior in a hallway of the building she resided in and it wasn’t the first time the police have been called as a complaint towards her. Rather than follow police protocol and wait for an emergency service unit, Baker states that he had not, “Mayor Bill de Blasio and the police commissioner, James P. O’Neill, said Sergeant Barry had not followed police protocol for dealing with people with mental illness. Specifically, he did not use his stun gun to try to subdue Ms. Danner, and he did not wait for a specialized Emergency Service Unit to arrive. (Baker 1). As a result of this, Barry was charged with “second-degree murder, first- and second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide and was suspended without pay” (Baker 1). Had Sergeant Barry followed the protocol that he was taught upon joining the police force, the woman who he murdered might still be alive. That is why this case is important in highlighting one of many reasons police officers could fall out of line with the law, especially in this event that led to murder because of reasons such as poor decision making

Police officers, like the citizens they protect, can make mistakes. I do not believe that police officers should be held liable for acting in good faith. According to the United States Supreme Court, per Brinegar v. United States, “because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly leading to their conclusions of probability.” (PoliceMag, 2007). The Fourth Amendment protects the citizens of the United States from unreasonable searches and seizures. (U.S. Const. amend. IV). Over the course of history, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of protecting the police officers from any liability. My focus will be on the good-faith exception and the exigent circumstance.

Under federal civil rights statute and tort negligence, Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 242, government officials can be held liable for damages if the official violates a plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the law (Peak, 2012). For example, if an officer arrests someone unreasonably, the Fourth Amendment guarantees everyone the right to be free of unreasonable seizure and the officer can be charged with misconduct and sued. Also, under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of due process provides grounds for civil rights lawsuits under “special relationship” and “state-created danger” guidelines (Rutledge, 2010). Government officials are held to the duty doctrine, which states that police have a duty to protect the public where they have a special relationship. Neglectful practices not only affect an individual official charged with misconduct, but it can also adversely affect the agency and taxpayers under public relations and monetary damages.

Unlike many other jobs, police officers never truly leave their position, they are only ever off duty. This means police officers keep their responsibilities as an officer, even when they are off duty. This has created many questions about how far police officers can go when using force off duty, and different results have come from courts dealing with these issues in different places of jurisdiction. In the scenario, the police officer would be protected in using lethal force because he is defending himself from the attacker. When the officer is found to be justified in his force, he becomes immune and is not civilly liable for the death. However, sometimes there is debate over whether or not an officer truly had to use lethal force to protect

Citizens of the United States, we are guaranteed certain rights by the Constitution. Police officers haven’t always acted in accordance with the constitutional rights of citizens when it comes to gathering evidence of a crime. As a result, the United States Supreme Court has had to limit the incentive for government officials to violate these rights.

Individuals who decide to become law enforcement officers take on a huge role before their community. By doing so, these individuals take an oath of honor before officially exercising their police powers. When police officers are sworn, they vow to support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States (“Law Enforcement, 2013). Moreover, once they become police officers, they are held at great ethical and professional standards. Unfortunately, there has been occasions when certain law enforcement officials become problematic for an agency. In the early 80’s, the United States Commission on Civil Rights endorsed all agencies to create early warning systems that would identify warning indicators of officer misconduct (Burns, R., 2009).

What is police misconduct? It can be defined as any action performed by a law enforcement officer that is unethical by established employment guidelines, unconstitutional, or a crime with in itself. When people hear the term “police misconduct” they automatically think of a police officer using unnecessary force against a civilian. While that is a form of police misconduct it is not only form. Throughout this paper I will bring light to the many types of police misconduct that can happen in the law enforcement industry.

The role of a police officer can be rather intense at times, but they play a central part in the law enforcement system. Police officers monitor criminal activity, take part in community patrols, respond to emergency calls, issue citations, make arrests, investigate crimes and testify in court as needed. Although officers have a delegation of authority such as their chain of command, they are also given the discretion on which laws to enforce based on their trustworthiness, experiences, situation and training. Though I'm for officers having the entitlement of discretion, I strongly feel their background, values and beliefs can also cloud their judgement. While an officer's discretion has been up for debate publically due to the unnecessary

New officers need to know that no profession demands a higher ethical standard than law enforcement. Whether or not there are other careers that require a similar dedication to doing the right thing, it is undeniable that there is a tremendous degree of expectations placed upon police officers. Every officer knows, or at least should know by now, that they live in a fishbowl. Friends, relatives, neighbors and strangers watch every move law enforcement officers make, both on and off duty. The fact is that the public scrutinizes police officers more than most other professions, either because they are cynical or hope to catch them screwing up or because they are hopeful