Leadership Personal Issues and the Rules of Law

Leadership Personal Issues and the Rules of Law

Assignment 3:

CRJ 310

Leadership Personal Issues and the Rules of Law

As you read my paper today I’m going to point out some personal leadership issues, and different roles of law. After I did some research, I came across that some officers with a high school diploma had to work habits that tended to mirror other officers with a master’s degree. It was also said, which I also came across that certain officers with high school diplomas and graduate degrees were the oldest and had the majority of experience. Thirty-Two years ago it was required that a new recruit have a bachelor’s degree with none what so ever police experience and an associate’s degree was required for recruits with a minimum of 2 years experience. So twenty-four years ago, a bachelor’s degree was indeed required of all new hires, regardless of experience (Bowman, 2002). A bachelor’s degree back then was needed for deputy chiefs. In half of the millennium a bachelor’s degree was needed for lieutenant position. Last but not least a year before the millennium hit a Master’s degree was needed for an assistant chief position. In the millennium a bachelor’s degree was required for officers seeking different promotions. As I thought back in time we can see that from 1986 to 2000 the educational rise was very noticeable, if this would have continued it would have pushed for the highest educated officer each station can get. Don’t get me wrong but having highly educated Americans coming in is half the battle. Gaining the field experience to have a working knowledge and to have alongside the education is a different source of education. I compared as you can see looking at the fundamental differences of arrest, searches and seizures conducted with or without warrants.

I’ve researched the four elements of arrest consist of Authority, Intent, Subjection, and Understanding. When I came across the first element of arrest I came across that that’s Intent. Intent looks back on reliant on the officer to verbally communicate to the arrestee why the individual is being arrested. The law enforcement officer’s intent of arrest can be shown physically as well as verbally, when the physical intent is being used it must be understood why the officer is making the arrest. Some of us in the criminal justice field is familiar with the fourth amendment, which the 4th amendment is the U.S. Constitution protects personal privacy, and every citizen’s right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property, whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses. People of the law and the justice system have put in place legal guards to make sure that law enforcement officers interfere with people in the community, fourth Amendment rights only under limited circumstances, and through specific methods. The Amendment provides safeness to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place. The hand book play of search and seizure are notoriously complicated. You don’t have to stay confused though, and the complex rules mean that an expert can often find problems with searches, which can result in evidence being thrown out of court.

The crime control model represents that repression of criminal conduct is the most important function of the police and that police efficiency, with an emphasis on speed and finality, is a top priority (Peak, 2015). The due process model operates under the principle that efficiency is less important than eliminating errors and that the protection of the process of law is more important than any end result of conviction (Peak, 2015). Nobel cause corruption is a type of wrongdoing that stems from a crime control orientation and is a type of means end thinking that in end of crime control justifies the mean, even if the means are unethical or illegal (Peak, 2015). With all that being noted, the crime control model lends itself to the possibility of ethical violations in law enforcement since its end thinking is that the end of crime control justifies any means even if they are unethical or illegal.

There are many instances where a police supervisor could be held criminally liable for the actions of their officers’ misconduct. One such example is the ever-lingering use of force. Police are given an enormous responsibility with the use of force, which could include the taking of someone’s life. Several ways a supervisor could be held criminally liable if an officer were to overstep the line would be failure to train the officer properly. We now have a use of force continuum, which every officer needs to know every aspect of. It is the job of the supervisor to ensure the officer has received this training and is applying it correctly. Another way a supervisor could be held criminally liable is if it is proven that the officer often uses excessive force and the supervisor had knowledge, but did nothing to address the issue. Yet another way a supervisor could be held criminally liable is if the supervisor were to falsify the officer’s records to show that he or she did in fact receive the training when the officer did not. Another instance could happen in a jail setting. If a officer that is a sergeant is made aware of an officer’s unprofessional relationship with an inmate, then the sergeant needs to make corrective action immediately. Not complying could result in the inmate suing the department of justice and if that did happen, everyone would be listed in a crazy lawsuit. I think that officers should be held accountable to procedures and guidelines to ensure fairness and consistency in the criminal justice process, which is only fair that way to me. Processes of the law is that it should go through its process and it will be done efficiently and effectively by the officers that are working the case and it will result in a conviction the right way.

Many officers of the law supervisors may be held criminally liable for their own officer’s misconduct. A supervisor could fail to provide the officer with inadequate directives when it applies to understanding policies and guidelines and how to do their duties. One situation of when a police supervisor could be held criminally liable is if the supervisor did not provide written or verbal directions on how one should do their job. The first example is of Officer Jones did not let Mr. Chapman, the man that he stopped for speeding give him a call that he was supposed to have when he took him to jail. The officer did not advise him of his rights before he was questioned without the presence of an attorney. Unfortunately, while doing this Officer Jones beat Mr. Chapman making him to have extensive injuries right in front of two other city police officers that were chiefs and they did nothing to prevent it from happening. Mr. Chapman has the right to sue the police supervisor and the other two chiefs that witnessed the beating and did nothing to stop it. The chiefs of the department and the supervisor can be sued for his inappropriate and aggravated behavior for not properly training Officer Jones. The second example is when Officer Brown who is off duty police officer approaches a car where two teenagers are sitting in the car and the officer showed his id and demanded that the boy get out of the car. Officer Brown got physical with the boy hitting him and stabbed him with a knife and he tried to go after the girl who was sitting in the car by breaking into it. The boy managed to get back into the car and the two teenagers managed to get away from Officer Brown even though he fired his gun of one shot at them making the windshield glass to break that made the teenagers to have even more extensive injuries needing many surgeries. The teenagers sued Officer Brown along with the police chief because the chief knew that Officer Brown was mentally unstable and was not supposed to be patrolling alone. The teenagers brought formal charges of misconduct against Officer Brown and his behavior was unjustifiable, and the police department is completely liable for Officer Brown’s behavior. A police supervisor and department should be held liable for their own other officer’s behavior especially if he is mentally unstable.

REFERENCE

Cornell University Law School. (2015). Cornell University Law School. Retrieved September 11, 2018, from Search Warrant: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant

How to Become a Police Officer. (2015). How to Become a Police Officer in Memphis. Retrieved September 11, 2018, from How to Become a Police Officer: http://www.how-to-become-a-police-officer.com/states/georgia/

lawyers.com. (2015). What are Arrest Warrants? Retrieved September 11, 2018, from Lawyers.com: http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/what-are-arrest-warrants.html

Peak, K. J. (2015). Policing America, Challenges and Best Practices (8th Edition ed.).

Wilkie, D. (2014, January 8). Arresting With and Without a Warrant. Retrieved September 11, 2018, from Law mentor: http://www.lawmentor.co.uk/blog/2014/01/08/arresting-with-and-without-warrant/

Criminal rights. Retrieved September 10, 2018 from https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminalrights/search-and-seizure-and-the-fourth-amendment.html