Police Arrests and Seizures

Police Arrests and Seizures The protection against illegal seizures and arrests is essential because the government may violate constitutional protection of citizens’ liberty and privacy. The constitution and other statutes establish guidelines that law enforcement officers must follow when arresting and stopping citizens to avoid constitutional violation. The presence of constitutional and statutory guidelines protects both the citizens and police by outlining what is lawful and what is not. A person is considered under arrest when his or her liberty is deprived legally to answer questions regarding criminal charges. If a reasonable person can determine that a suspect’s liberty was constrained by law enforcement officers, an arrest is deemed to have taken place. An arrest is a legal denial of one’s liberty with an intention of charging him or her of a crime. On the other hand, a stop is a temporary detention based on specific facts with the intention of investigating a suspicious activity. One of the differentiating features between a stop and an arrest is that a stop depends on suspicious activities while an arrest depends on probable causes. As such, both the length of the interaction with the police and the basis upon which the incidence is based are essential differentiating parameters. When police officers are arresting suspects for a felony, they need a warrant or probable cause. However, when they are arresting a person for a misdemeanor, they need to have a warrant or must witness the misdemeanor to institute a warrantless arrest. However, several states have laws and regulations that create exceptions to such issues. The law requiring a law enforcement officer to have a warrant or witness a misdemeanor to arrest a person is too general for application. As such, one of the reasons states may authorize officers to arrest a person without a warrant on misdemeanor charges using probable cause arrests is to make the law applicable at the state and local levels. Second, the states may authorize probable cause arrests for unwitnessed misdemeanors because some misdemeanors are extremely dangerous for the perpetrator himself or others. Some of the state laws aim to protect law enforcement officers and the public from injury or death resulting from misdemeanors. In situations where the public or law enforcement officers are in danger, most states allow the officers to use probable cause in the absence of a warrant to arrest the suspect and prevent him from doing harm to himself or the public. The force applied during an arrest has been a contentious issue for a long time. However, the justice system has provided guidance on what occasions the law enforcement officers can apply force when arresting suspects. When an officer is arresting a person, there are instances where force is required but the officer must be reasonable in its use. The amount of force applied during an arrest depends on the judgment of the officer executing the arrest. To determine reasonable force, several factors must be considered. First, the police must determine the severity of the crime. Such a parameter can help an officer decide the amount of force required. Second, the amount of force applied depends on the threat posed to the officer and the public by the suspect. If the officer, his colleagues and the public are threatened by a suspect, the amount of force applied may be lethal. Third, the behavior of the suspect can also influence the intensity of force used. For instance, the police are likely to use deadly force if the suspect is resisting arrest or trying to escape. Combining such a factor with the danger the escape or resistance pose to others, the police may resort to deadly force. As such, when a law enforcement officer feels threatened or when the safety of the public is at risk, he or she may use lethal force and justify it as reasonable, given the circumstances. One of the incidences I heard about police’s excessive use of power happened in Florida, where a police officer named Jonathan Aledda shot Charles Kinsey. Kinsey was lying on the ground with hands in the air yet the officer shot him. The case represents excessive use of force because Kinsey was not armed, which meant he was no threat to the officer or the public. While Kinsey was on the ground, he explained to the officer that he was a therapist helping an autistic man who had a toy gun. Despite the explanation, the officer shot him. The victim of the shooting was not a danger to the officer nor was he resisting an arrest. The actions of few officers like Aledda have influenced people to mistrust the police. As such, discretion and caution in the use of force should prevail to ensure trust between the police and the public. In conclusion, an arrested person cannot willfully leave the police because his or her liberty is deprived. The difference between an arrest and a stop is that an arrest relies on probable cause while a stop relies on suspicious activity. States may permit the use of probable cause for misdemeanor arrests to allow the application of a general law to local situations and because of the dangerousness of a misdemeanor. The severity of the crime, behavior of suspect and threat to public and officers determine the use of force. The shooting of Kinsey created a negative public perception of police. This police discretion essay https://bestwritingservice.com/essays/Law/police-discretion.html is the work of professional writer - Heiley Durst. She loves writing on law and criminal themes and more her papers you can find at bestwritingservice