Introduction
Police power is considered as the government’s duty to develop and implement policies and legislations that are intended to benefit the public. Further, these laws are implemented, generally by law enforcers who makes it their responsibility to ensure that these laws are obeyed. Some of the duties of the police officers include the preservation of peace and order, detection and prevention of crime, and ensuring the fair and efficient administration of the law (U.S., 2003). As a means to give them the authority to uphold and administer these policies, there are laws which are developed to provide the police officers with the necessary power to exercise their authority when needed. On the other hand, individuals and the community are given the power to challenge the action of the police when they think the law enforcers are erring on the sides. This paper aims to discuss that currently, there is an appropriate balance between the power of the police to enforce the law and the ability of the people to challenge police conducts and to hold them into account.
The Role of the Police and their Exercise of Authority
Included in the police power of the state is the right of both the local and state governments to create police forces. In order to enforce the law based on their approved authority, it is important that police officers are aware and they understand the extent of the power given to them. As pointed out, the police are needed in the community “to handle emergencies, maintain order, regulate traffic, and promote a sense of security within the community” (Dempsey and Frost, 2009). Further, the role of the law enforcers is dynamic and it can be taken as a progression that evolved from the development of American cities during the 1840s to the early part of the 20th century (U.S., 2003). Nevertheless, their overall role as a professional body is to serve the public, and its members must view their role as being obliged to serve the people and the community. Each of the police department and their heads must ensure that a system is maintained in promoting the highest level of standard, ethics and discipline among its members.
The Contractual Arrangement with the Public
In line with their duty to serve the people and the community as a whole, the law enforcers must understand that the community that they serve are investing their trust in the department. This can be perceived as an arrangement and that each member of the police force should recognize their role, not only as a representative of the police department, but of the whole organization and the government. As a rule of thumb though, the law enforcers are given a certain degree of discretion in terms of operational decisions. This is because there are operational decisions that are complicated, and the police departments and their members are generally in the position to make decisions. It should be noted that the law enforcers have access to critical information which may not be available to private citizens. This can often pose a problem in the relationship between the police and the public, as the performance of police duty is sometimes perceived by the public as an abuse of authority. It is therefore important that the police carry their duty based on the powers bestowed on them. Some of these occur in:
the invasion of other people’s privacy in the execution of warranted searches
the deprivation of an individual’s liberty, specifically in relation to arresting an offender
the possible use of force during the conduct of an arrest
effecting the seizure of property such as those that are unlawful
taking of a person’s DNA sample (Parliamentary, 2016).
The critical role of the police in implementing the law demands that each member of the law enforcement organization must know the limit of their authority. There is a high level of expectation in the determination of the legality of police decisions and actions. Specifically, the police officers must be highly familiar and knowledgeable of the laws that they are expected to enforce. Further, their ability to interpret and understand these laws must be coupled with their ability to comply with them.
The role of the police is also defined by the set of values that are developed and are taken to represent the whole organization. Specifically, each of the police departments must ensure that the set of values are being observed, and this can be facilitated through the use of an effective system of communication. The set of values of each police department must reflect the type of relationship it wants to establish with the community. Consequently, some of the set of values that are highly specific to the community relates to the law enforcers, a) involvement of the community, and b) accountability to the public, and c) their standpoint in relation to contemporary issues in policing.
Relationship to the Community
The law enforcers can serve the public better when they are perceived the latter as a member of the community, and not as an occupying force (Dempsey and Frost, 2009). Both should recognize that a good relationship between them is vital in helping foster and maintain a safe and vibrant community. It is a two-way partnership since the legitimacy of the law enforcement is also dependent on public acceptance, thus the need to build up positive community interaction and support (Cordner, 2013). It should be noted that the public’s perception of the members of the law enforcement organization is generally an influence by their experiences with the police. In recent research, it was found that those who have a direct interaction with the law enforcers have a higher tendency to have a negative perception of them than those that have had no previous contact (Archbold, 2012).
Involvement with the Community
The success of the law enforcers in the implementation of laws can be attained only with the support of the community that they serve. The struggle against crime is not a distinct responsibility of the police, rather it should be taken as a responsibility of everyone in the community. It is therefore important that the law enforcers and the whole police organization must cultivate a positive relationship with the public. Specifically, the shared responsibility between the police and the people that they serve involves the provision of an approach where the members of the community are encouraged to cooperate with the police. This is not only in the process of identifying critical community issues, but also in defining the most fitting strategies in resolving them. The police should make it a point to communicate and interaction with the community as it is not productive for them to work as a detached body from the citizens.
Acceptance of Accountability to the Public
Becoming a member of the law enforcement organization translates into an acceptance of the accountability to the public. In line with this, the police department should not hold itself as an entity that is separate from the community and the government. That is, it should act in consideration of the fact that it is an integral part of the government and its existence is largely attributed to its main purpose in serving the community. Further, law enforcers should understand that a key aspect of acceptance of responsibility to the community is openness. This means that the members of the police force must be responsive and demonstrate approachability, taking into consideration that the power of the police emanates from the consent of the people.
The Contemporary Issues
One of the challenging issues within the law enforcement organization are the instances when conflicts occur between members of the police and the citizens. This is a difficult situation that adds to the constraint in the relationship between the police organization and the community. In most cases, violence occurs in situations where the law enforcer must use force to implement the law. From the standpoint of the citizens, the police are there to protect and must ensure that the enforcement of the law must be done in the most professional and efficient manner. However, there may be instances when there is a concrete and reasonable ground for the police to use force, and this includes deadly force when the need arises.
There are attempts to reduce the number of violence between the police and the citizens, and a large number of people argue that most of the initiatives must start within the police organization. This is so because the authority bestowed on them allows for a greater tendency on their part to exercise control over potentially violent engagements. As a consequence, the members of the police organization are confronted with many challenges in the conduct of their duty to the community.
One of the challenges faced by the police in enforcing the law is the likelihood of being accused of depriving the people of their right to liberty. The roles of police officers are complex, as their job is generally associated with the combination of danger and authority (Coady, 2000). In addition to that, there is the idea that the police organizations helped in creating an uneven field among its diverse plyers (Roots, 2001).
As means to lessen the challenges in the performance of their roles, and in upholding their responsibility to the public, the concept of community policing was created. It was conceptualized in an endeavor to transform the police organizations (Greene, 2000). Community policing is important because of the belief that law enforcers must take into account “the wishes of the public in determining and evaluating operational policing policy and practice” (Ferreira, 1996). However, there is an insufficient research “about the extent by which community policing has produced a shift in the balance of power between police and communities” (Hiles, 2002).
An example of a case where it was argued that there was an imbalance of power between the power of the police and the ability of individuals to challenge police action was exemplified in the Austin & Others v. The United Kingdom, where the judges favored the police over the complainants (European, 2012). The complaints were stirred when the police decided to prevent the possible occurrence of further violence by imposing an absolute cordon, which was construed as a violation of the demonstrators liberty. This case demonstrated the clash of differing viewpoints, where it was argued that the exercise of police authority caused the deprivation of the rights of the complainants. The judges initially ruled out that the cordon deprived the liberty of the demonstrators.
However, further arguments lead to the argument that the cordon is the most appropriate decision during that time, and it did not at all violate the liberty of anyone. That is, the judgement was based on the concept that fairness should be applied in determining whether liberty was deprived during that time. It required weighing the interest of the public and the protection of individual rights. Much as the court reasoned that there was an unjustified detention, the necessity of the cordon during that particular circumstance was enough to provide justification for the decision of the police. It was pointed out that the police must act immediately in line with the imminent danger in containing the occurrence of an impending dangerous situation. This cannot be considered as an imbalance, since there was a substantial reason for the police to act in the way they did.
Conclusion
Currently, there is a fitting balance between the power of the police to use their authority and the power of the people to challenge the law enforcers based on their conducts. It should be noted that it is the duty of the government to create and contrive laws and policies that will benefit the community. The law enforcers are tasked to make sure that the legislations are being implemented and followed by the people. Included in the obligation of the police are the preservation of peace and order, prevention of wrongdoing, and making certain that the law are efficiently implemented. As a result, the police are given the authority to work towards making sure that these laws are being followed. On the other hand, the members of the community have also the right to challenge these police authorities.
References
Archbold, C. (2012). Policing: A Text Reader. SAGE.
Coady, T. (2000). Violence and Police Culture. Melbourne University Publish.
Dempsey, J., & Forst, L. (2009). An Introduction to Policing. Cengage Learning.
European Convention of Human Rights. (2012). Judges Reject Police 'Kettling' Human Rights Appeal. Retrieved from http://www.humanrightseurope.org/2012/03/judges-reject-police-kettling-human-rights-appeal/
Ferreira, B. (1996). The Use and Effectiveness of Community Policing in a Democracy. Retrieved from Policing in Central and Eastern Europe website: https://www.ncjrs.gov/policing/use139.htm
Giles, H. (2002). Law Enforcement, Communication, and Community. JohnBenjamins Publishing.
Greene, J. (2000). Policies, Processes and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System. In Criminal Justice.
Parliamentary Counsel. (2016). Police Powers and Responsibilities. Retrieved from http://www.policerecruit.qld.gov.au/introduction_to_policing/module06/topic08.htm
Roots, R. (2001). Are Cops Constitutional? Seton Hall Constitution. Saville, G. (2013). Community Power and Police Leadership: The Community-Building Leadership Continuum. U.S. Department of Justice. (2003). Principles of good Policing: Avoiding Violence Between Police and Citizens. Retrieved from Community Relations Service website: https://www.justice.gov/archive/crs/pubs/principlesofgoodpolicingfinal092003.pdf
