Introduction
The history of Police in the United States dates all the way back to 1631 when the first Night Watch patrolled the streets of Boston. There are numerous studies and technological advances that contributed to the evolution from the Night Watch to Metropolitan Police Departments in the country. During the transition that stretched across centuries the standards and requirements for a police officer evolved with each new generation. However, along with the positive aspects of law enforcement, a host of deleterious behaviors latched on to newer generations of police officers. Subsequently, the guidelines changed and placed restrictions on processes and procedures to increase the accountability of police personnel (Dempsey and Forst, 2011).
Prerequisite educational qualification for police officers
Applicants who aspire to become police officers require a mandatory high school diploma to apply. Police departments across the nation are increasing the minimum educational requirement from the GED to any Criminology related college degree. The change of the minimum requirement will enable the primary law enforcement agency to recruit applicants who have knowledge of criminology, victimology, and evidence gathering methodologies. In addition, competency in the interpretation of the law will provide adequate maturity to the police officer’s decision-making abilities.
Law enforcement has various levels of accountability in recent times. There are several cases of misinterpretation of the law that had serious consequences for innocent citizens and for police officers. Moreover, a college degree improves the chances of overcoming anxiety and adopting to a stressful environment. The police officers of today require good communication and interpersonal skills. Upcoming community based initiatives such as community policing and problem-oriented policing approaches require police officers to exhibit these skills. The level of maturity required in these circumstances exceeds the potential of an applicant without a college degree (Swanson, Territo, and Taylor, 2012).
Legal aspects of searches, warrants, and arrests
The Bill of Rights guarantees the citizens of the United States of certain specific aspects of police action. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects the citizenry against unnecessary searches of property or person. The police usually obtain consent of the person to conduct the search. However, if they do not have the consent, the police must acquire a search warrant to conduct the search. There are exceptions to this rule when there is an imminent threat of the destruction of evidence by the perpetrators or imminent danger to a person. In these scenarios, the police have to establish probable cause to conduct the search (Dempsey and Forst, 2011).
The determination of probable cause includes verifying the information at hand and weighing the options available at the time. If the police want to search the trunk of a car where the driver is unwilling to cooperate, they need a warrant unless they view a gun or drugs in plain sight. The plain sight evidence allows the police officers to search the vehicle without a search warrant. While the warrantless probable cause searches will hold in court, high profile cases such as homicide or kidnapping will require search warrants to connect the evidence procured from the defendant’s property.
Arresting individuals will require an arrest warrant. The process for procuring an arrest warrant involves presenting the evidence in the case to the District Attorney (DA). If the evidence provided strongly points to the defendant, the application for the warrant will be successful. However, if there are no strong indicators, the DA will decline the warrant. However, not all arrests require a warrant. Plain sight evidence is sufficient to arrest perpetrators during the commission of the crime or soon after based on victim identification and authentication (Dempsey and Forst, 2011).
Vicarious liability
Police officers are like any other job employees and are susceptible to negligent behavior. However, unlike regular employees in a firm, police personnel have the charge of enforcing the law. This creates a difficult situation for the public and the erring officer. However, in 1986, in an effort to increase the accountability of police supervisors and commanders, the vicarious liability came into effect. The reasoning behind this liability was to enforce the duties of a police supervisor across the nation.
The police are a specialized force trained to enforce the law at a higher level in society. Hence, the training and supervision of these personnel is constant. There is no part of a police officer’s career when he or she will function without supervision. The quality of this supervision is critical to the effective functioning of the police force. Police supervisors have to constantly look out for signs and change in behaviors that could lead to misconduct or worse. Moreover, police supervisors are the only layer of assistance for police officers in their professional, psychological, and personal aspects of their lives. The stress on the police force is extremely high.
Police personnel, by routine cover up for each other’s shortcomings on the job. Hence, the possibility of a police supervisor turning the other way is not uncommon. In addition, police personnel are subject to routine training that enhances their crime fighting capabilities. There are opportunities deficiencies if the training exercises or their outcomes do not meet the expected standard. Nepotism is rampant in police forces in the country today leading to the scope of hiring incompetent personnel on account of whom they know on the force instead of what they know.
Vicarious liabilities extend to seven areas. They are negligent hiring, negligent assessment, negligent retention, negligent entrustment, negligent supervision, negligent direction, and negligent training.
Negligent Hiring – Nepotism is a constant problem in hiring processes. However, there are candidates that do not meet one area during their application process such as psychological or criminal association assessments. When the supervisor in-charge of the hiring fails to conduct proper background checks or evaluations, the supervisor is liable for negligence.
Negligent Assessment – This problem can have a wide range of possibilities for occurrence. The primary possibility is corruption. Accepting bribes to alter the assessments is not uncommon in the United States. In addition, experienced supervisors sometimes miss opportunities to mark the applicant down due to overconfidence and ignorance.
Negligent Retention – This type of negligence is potentially dangerous. This behavior involves ignoring regular psychiatric assessments, complaints, behaviors that amount to unbecoming of an officer, charges of bribery, or excessive force. If the public is subject to unprofessional or unethical treatment by this officer, his or her supervisor is liable.
Negligent Entrustment – This negligence involves assigning tasks to incompetent staff. Any legal ramifications from such negligence will hold the supervisor liable for the officer’s behavior.
Negligent Supervision and Direction – There are possibilities that the supervisor lacks the competency to marshal his or her personnel. Any hardships evolving from this deficiency will hold the supervisor liable.
Negligent Training - Incomplete or inadequate training for police officers will invite negligence charges against the supervisor involved. The incompetent training can cause serious consequences for the public and for fellow officers.
Two situations where a supervisor can be applicable for vicarious liability are,
A rookie police officer slams his police cruiser on the vehicle of an innocent citizen during a high-speed police chase on a highway. This is clearly a training deficiency.
Allowing a police officer with no expertise in handling digital evidence with the responsibility of conducting a search on a property in a cybercrime related case. This is a case of incompetency in direction for the supervisor.
(Swanson, Territo, and Taylor, 2012)
Crime control model and due process
The crime control model and due process are criminal justice principles that dominated the American law enforcement fraternity in different periods of time. The crime control model focuses on the rights of the victim, removal of Bill of Rights safeguards for searches and arrests, authorizing the initial stack of evidence as proof of guilt, increase the speed of trials, and prioritize on proving the case against the defendant (Packer, 1964). The drawbacks are evident in this model of crime control. The provision of unchallenged power to the police and prosecution will only contribute to the conviction of innocent people. The ratio of wrongly convicted inmates in the United States at present time is 6:4 and against the favor of innocent people.
The advent of DNA technology in criminal trials is contributing to a large number of exonerations for life term and death penalty inmates. The lack of resources eventually increases the possibility of low-income minorities to succumb in favor of prosecution presented plea bargains irrespective of whether the defendant is guilty or not. Prosecution misconduct accounts for forty percent of all wrongfully convicted cases. Police excesses in interrogation approaches, long detentions without access to the restroom, mistaken identity arrests, and coerced confessions are not far behind. They contribute to thirty percent of wrongful convictions. This is the condition when the crime control model is not in practice. Only anarchy will prevail if the implementation of this model comes into effect.
The due process approach to criminal justice provides sufficient space for defendants to avail multiple levels of legal proceedings before accepting the reality of a sentencing. The multilevel process allows the defense an opportunity to try out different approaches to prove their client’s innocence. However, these processes take a lot of time and allow death row inmates to serve the equivalent of a life sentence by filing injunctions and appeals (Packer, 1964). Moreover, the due process increases the expenditure of the legal proceedings in a case significantly. The taxpayer’s money including that of the victim, is in use to protect the perpetrator. The increased incarceration periods for appealing convicts are a heavy cost for the US Department of Corrections.
References
Dempsey, J. S., and Forst, L. S. (2011). Police. Cengage Learning. Clifton Park: NY. Pp. 54, 72-75, 81-88, 107-120, and 183-189.
Swanson, C. R., Territo, L., and Taylor, R. W. (2012). Police administration Structures, processes, and behavior. Pearson. Upper Saddle River: NJ. Pp. 253-296, 350-353, 378-391, and 588-636.
Packer, H. L. (1964). Two Models of the Criminal Process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 113 (1). Pp. 1-66. DOI: 10.2307/3310562
