Civil and Criminal Liability: An Introduction to the Realities Facing Criminal Justice Practitioners

Introduction

Criminal justice practitioners, especially those who work in law enforcement or in corrections, face situations that can test the body, the mind, and even possibly demand the ultimate sacrifice: The life of the individual. Actions taken are under constant scrutiny to ensure that they are not jeopardizing the department, their integrity and the safety of the public in general. There is always the possibility that the officer can be held liable for their actions, either by the department, or by a civil lawsuit by a victim or a family member: However, before I delve into such actions, I believe it is important to establish criminal law and the general principles.

Principles of Criminal Law

There are four basic principles of criminal law that are meant to be upheld. These principles are the cornerstone of our justice system, and indeed, during my research I have found several different countries that share the same four principles, although there are others that may differ. There are other parts to each principle that add to the whole, which I will explain within each section and add details to show how they fit into that principle.

Right to Remain Silent

This right is one that is read to you during the time of arrest, one of the main rights within the Miranda Rights. This right basically means that, aside from giving their name and address to law enforcement, that they have the right to not offer law enforcement any incriminating statements that could be used to convict you during prosecution. This is the principle that allows them to not offer any explanations or to answer questions posed to them by law enforcement, and they can also ask for a lawyer to represent them .

Now, in order to arrest someone, law enforcement must have probable cause in order to do so. Probable cause can include witness statements, CCTV footage, fingerprints or DNA evidence, or even incriminating statements posted on social media. The officer must then go before a judge and give a probable cause statement and the judge considers the evidence and decides if there is enough to issue an arrest warrant. The exception to this procedure is when the officer witnesses an individual in the commission of a crime, which they can then read them their rights during the arrest and take them to jail .

Law enforcement officers, when they have cited the Miranda rights, are meant to stop interrogations with the suspect at that juncture if they have asked to remain silent and to speak to a lawyer. If the officers continue the interrogation, specifically in ways that coerce and intimidate the suspect, then the suspect can sue the officers in question by claiming that their rights were violated. The claim that their rights were violated could lead to internal investigations, reprimands, aspersions on the character of the officers, calling into question other cases that the officers have worked on and the possibility of the suit being won by the suspect .

Presumption of Innocence

This principle is exactly what it states, that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a trial. The individual charged with a crime must be informed of what that crime is, of the trial date, the right to counsel, the right to confront their accusers, the opportunity for discovery and the decision. The accused cannot be charged as guilty without the trial phase, as the evidence must be presented before judge and/or jury and the court procedures must be followed .

There was a fairly recent law in the state of Colorado that required suspects charged with a crime to go to court to prove their own innocence, which left the burden of proof at the feet of the defense and not with the prosecution, as federal law requires. Now, there is a little bit more to this law than meets the eye, as those who had been charged with a crime were then made to pay money via civil forfeiture to the state and then, once the case was overturned on appeal, they had to return to court to prove their innocence to the court in order to get that which was seized released back to them. The results of such actions of civil forfeiture could see the individual suing the departments for the actions taken .

Burden of Proof

The third principle is that of the burden of proof, which lies directly in the hands of the prosecution. The prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of the judge and jury for the defendant to be found guilty: This means that the evidence presented must cause those debating the evidence to believe that there is no conceivable reason to doubt. As stated within the previous definition of the principle of presumed innocent, the defendant must have the chance to rebut the evidence set forth by the prosecutor, to ask questions of experts and witnesses called forth and to answer questions posed to them .

This principle is also where two terms must also be established in order to properly sentence the defendant. The first term, mens rea, refers to criminal intent, and is needed to be established in order to convict the defendant of a crime. The second term, actus reus, refers to the act committed, or the failure to act in situations where actions are called for, and must be established as to whether the act was voluntary or involuntary .

Double Jeopardy

This principle means that an individual can ever be tried a second time for the same crime if they have either a) served time for that crime or b) have been acquitted in a court of law for that crime. This principle was created as the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution as a protection for people from being continually prosecuted for the same crime and having to serve time multiple times. Having said this, that does not mean that the individual who commits another crime of the same type cannot be prosecuted, because they can, this just protects against the crime that has already been prosecuted and time has been served or acquitted. Of course, while the individual may not face being prosecuted for the same crime, that does not mean that they cannot be taken into court via a civil lawsuit by other individuals .

A good example of the double jeopardy law in action would be that of the Rodney King case. King was a suspect who was apprehended by police and, in the process of doing so, the use of force was, as many claimed, excessive. The officers were tried once and acquitted, however, the federal courts found the officers guilty and sentenced them to prison. There has been many who state that this is a clear violation of the double jeopardy laws, however others state that the federal courts had the right to try and convict the officers for their actions .

Scenario

The scenario that I am going to use will be that of a serial killer loose in Mayberry. There have been 6 murders over the course of a year within the area, all with the same modus operandi. The offender approaches young, college age women in the evening hours who are walking alone, apparently using a ruse to get them to trust him enough that they are not wary enough to run. The bodies of the young women have been found within a week of each of their disappearances.

The killings have baffled police, who have not been able to generate any leads that have led to the apprehension of any viable suspects. Witnesses have come forth offering possible leads that did not pan out. Desperate, the department has turned to the FBI to generate a profile based on the facts of the case to help them find the killer. After a waiting period for the profilers to generate the profile and to be sent out, the department has delved into it and are seeking out any many who fits the profile.

They have focused on a man who they feel fits the profile to the smallest detail. They have focused on this one man to the exclusion of all others based only on the information generated within the profile. They track his social media posts, his daily activities, they go through his trash after it has been set out on the curb for pick up. After consideration, they have decided that it is time to bring the man in for questioning.

The lead detective calls the man down to the station by asking if the man could offer possible information about the murders. As the man is under the impression that he is being brought in as a possible witness, he goes voluntarily. He is brought into the interrogation room, where he is met with the detectives staring him down and being immediately questioned about his movements on the nights in question. The man asks for a lawyer, but the interrogation continues without pause. The gentleman continues to be silent, which causes the officers to get angry, and one of them hits the man in the face while yelling. After this happens, they decide to detain the man in the county jail under suspicion of murder, handcuff him and place him in a cell.

While the man is held, another murder happens, which causes the police to scramble and they have to reevaluate the case. Evidence is found that link the murders to another man, and the gentleman being held in detention is released. This will later cause repercussions for the officers and the department who held the man without cause and violated his rights.

As the gentleman was detained without a warrant, there was no probable cause to detain him, his rights were ignored and he was hit by police while in police custody, the gentleman consults an attorney about the experience. The attorney evaluates the case and decides that his civil rights were violated and decides to sue the officers in a civil court.

Once the lawsuit is brought forth, the Internal Affairs looks into the matter and suspend the officers involved in the matter. It is found that they have violated the man’s rights and they are fired from their jobs. Once the matter is brought before a judge in a civil court, they are found guilty, as well, and are ordered to pay restitution to the gentleman for the damages caused to him.

The state determines that charges should be brought forth upon the officers for misconduct and they take them to court. As the officers clearly violated the gentleman’s rights, and in the case of one officer, he struck the man, they were sentenced to a brief time in jail. They were also blacklisted from ever working in the law enforcement community in any capacity.

Conclusion

I have introduced the principles of criminal law, given descriptions of how they work and of how they can work with civil liabilities. I have included examples of how each principle works in action, as well as the repercussions of violating each one. The scenario that I have provided is of my own creation and is not meant to be taken seriously. I am not implying that any law enforcement officer or department would ever do this, but I wanted to demonstrate what actions taken in such a scenario could possibly be and what their possible repercussions could be.