Police discretion is the power or authority that is given to a police officer to act officially in a manner that appears to be just and proper under the presented circumstances. In a domestic disturbance, the police officer has to use his discretion based upon the situation before him. The officer needs to make a decision that will make both parties involved be content with the resolution. This discretion that a police officer uses at the time of a domestic disturbance is the most difficult because his decisions ends up affecting either parties to a situation for the better or for the worse. In such situation, the officer can either mediate a peaceful agreement, can suggest counseling or if this doesn’t work he can also make an arrest of the person that is not willing to come to a peaceful resolution to the problem.
This paper while not cover the ethics behind lethal force, but will discuss the steps, and progressions leading up to that point. Non-lethal force is very common for a police officer to use in their career. A law enforcement agency must carefully choose the various devices, and techniques it will authorize for the protection of its officers and the public. In making policy decisions in this area, an agency should consider existing court decisions and litigation trends. Use of force is a very important part of an officer’s ability to keep themselves and the public safe, but is also very controversial.
By making this exclusionary rule, the court has to take the incentive away so police cannot take a person’s constitutional right’s away. Law enforcement cannot just bust down a person door just because police cannot even search a person car without a search warrant. There is a purpose to this rule and that is to make law enforcement enforce their own rules. The main purpose is to deter police or discourage police from doing illegal searched. The purpose also is if law enforcement was to take the evidence it would not be used in the court of law unless issue or that person can be set free of all charges.
Essentially, the police will base their use of assets in a manner to reduce crime by building ties within the community and having a presence in neighborhoods. This can be an effective method because many argue that seeing the police in an area a majority of the time deters criminals from acting in those areas. A downfall of the COP theory is that political influence can force a department to pool resources in an area where crime is not as prevalent in order to keep good relations with a major tax base. Often times the poorer neighborhoods do not feel as though they are receiving enough of a police presence. The contingency theory is based on the approach to achieve specific goals, such as crime control.
Although the challenge for all communities is to balance the extent of powers required by police against the rights of ordinary citizens. In the eyes of justice and to ensure fairness is reached offenders have personal rights that the NSW police need to adhere to, if the offender feels that their rights have been breached or not correctly followed by authority they have the right to complain and report the circumstance to an NSW ombudsman or the police integrity commission, as they will investigate the
Officers are also very likely to internalize powerful sub cultural norms, a main one being loyalty to other officers. There is also a lack of procedure for handling excessive force complaints against officers. The need to use force is one of the most demanding and critical decisions that a law enforcement officer must make. They may include other “non-deadly” protective instruments, like expendable batons, OC sprays, and flashlights, or any other means that can be used by an officer. With the media and
Police brutality wouldn’t be an issue if we didn’t have to police our law enforcement officers. Policing our law enforcement officers is a challenge in itself, because who is responsible for this job, how are they going to police them, what actions are they going to take against them when they catch them and what are the penalties for
The arguments for police pursuits remain few and simple. It is the idea that police pursuits remain necessary for the apprehension of persons suspected of committing serious offenses (Pape and Pipes). It is the idea that some people just need to be caught and put into custody. Also that since there is “no single method to avoid all pursuits” (Eisenberg and Fitzpatrick), something is going to have to be done about fleeing suspects. If officers are not allowed to pursue, then they would end up letting everyone that does not cooperate go.
In line with this, the investigative department requests warrants to search for evidence, but they must be approved by the judicial branch. (Lynch, 1998) Most defenses that invoke the exclusionary rule are based on the lack of or improper application of search warrants. Those that support the continued use of the exclusionary rule argue that there must be this line between the police officers that are often emotionally involved in a case, and an impartial third party that can objectively review the evidence. Without this safeguard, citizens would have little protection from overzealous police officers who could search their homes and persons with almost anything serving as probable cause in their opinion. The fact that officers know that illegally obtained (but true) evidence will quite possibly be thrown out, and therefore dangerous criminals will be freed, will encourage them to follow the proper procedures.
Additionally, I feel that there needs to be a detailed manual that outlines consequences and plans of action for incidents that occur, so there is a set standard. I don’t think there needs to be additional SOP’s developed, since I am a supporter of the mainframe of police procedure as a whole and think the majority of the public’s concern comes from ignorance and fear of what to them is the unknown. I think the main key to what would be considered successful as far as the public’s view of police accountability is working to make the public feel “ok” about how things are being done. Similar to the concept of community policing such as the foot patrol experiment in Newark; it may not make a huge difference in stats, but the perception by the public can have a huge impact on a community and how it relates to its police department. To begin, a community collaborative board would have to be developed.