Posted: February 14th, 2023

Officer Misconduct

Officer Misconduct
Officer Misconduct: The paper should identify and provide examples of police or correctional officer misconduct, with a thorough examination of the possible causes of the behaviors exemplified and suggest options an organization might consider as a way of reducing such instances.

Your research paper should be double-spaced, in 12-point Times New Roman or Cambria font, with 1-inch margins all around. When citing resources, you must adhere strictly to APA style (all papers must include a title page and reference page, although you will not be required to provide an abstract). The paper must have a minimum of 8 full double-spaced pages of meaningful discussion (title page and reference page do not count as part of the 8 pages). The paper must include a minimum of 6 references (outside of the course text), with at least two references from peer-reviewed academic journals (peer-reviewed references should be highlighted in bold type in the reference list). You must not to write in first person.

Officer Misconduct
Polices and correctional officers have been consistently involved in misconduct in the course of handling their different duties and obligations of keeping law and order and thus there is a need to understand the source of the inappropriate conduct to enable the adoption of the necessary policies and best practices to ensure that the law enforcers operate within the laws and regulation. The police are expected to uphold high levels of professionalism in the course of maintaining law and order. On the contrary, police engage in different misconduct that is considered illegal when handling suspects and when carrying their day to day policing activities. Police misconduct involves inappropriate actions and conducts implemented by law enforcers in line with their official duties. Police misconduct is implemented in the interest of the law enforcers and at the expense of the members of the public. The police work needs to be guided by the laws and city regulations to ensure that the police work and act in the interest of the common good. Members of the public have constantly interacted with police and they report the different law enforcer’s misconduct to the independent broad-based anti-corruption commission. The different aspects of police misconduct reported include refusing and failing to perform their duties, misrepresentation on logbooks, excessive use of force, racist behaviors, circulation of offensive material, acceptance of bribes, theft, selling, and dealing with drugs and traffic offenses. The different misconduct reported is in violation of constitutional laws and policies. Consequently, there is a need to identify and establish factors and reasons prompting the police to consistently engage in their misconduct knowingly or unknowingly. The establishment of factors inclining the law enforcers to engage in misconduct makes it possible to develop effective countermeasures to ensure that the police act in the most reasonable way despite the prevailing circumstances. Law enforcers engage in misconduct in the course of dispensing their duties at the expense of the members of the public or the government and thus there is need to identify factors contributing to the misconduct thus prompting the development of the best practices and approaches to streamline the police operation in the interest of common good.
Police Corruption
Police corruption is police misconduct that has persisted in the police force thus negatively affecting and barring their operations in the course of maintaining law and order. Police engage in corruption when they breach their political contract and abuse the power bestowed on them for personal gains at the expense of their victims (Prenzler, 2009). The consistent engagement of police in acts of corruption results in reduced public trusts, violation of human rights and legal policies, and reduced cohesion between members of the public and the police. Corruption in the police force is an extensive aspect covering different forms and types as reported under the police oversight agencies and commissions. The different types of policy corruption include soliciting and acceptance of bribes as well as selective enforcement. The police collect bribes in exchange for not reporting illegal activities such as violation of laws, drug dealings, and prostitution activities. On the other hand, selective enforcement where police handle criminals and section of crime selectively in the interest of helping criminals avoid convictions. Additionally, police engage in different acts of corruption such as corruption of authority indicated through acceptance of free things at the expense of justice, perjury, internal payoffs, and ticket-fixing. It is vital to note that police engage in corruption to gain financially from the members of the public at the expense of fairness, justice, and equality in their different operations (Jiao, 2010). In this regard, the police corruption can be effectively prevented through effective oversight and sufficient remunerations. Effective oversight acts as a deterrent preventing the police from engaging in corruption while sufficient remuneration ensures that police have reasonable salaries that prevent them from engaging in illegal activities to gain financially. Police corruption is one of the most extensive police misconduct that arises due to the need to illegally gain financially in the course of law enforcement operations and such misconduct can be countered through strict police oversight and sufficient remuneration.
Police Brutality
Police brutality and use of excessive violence are a form of police misconduct that has increased the animosity between the members of the public and the police thus affecting the law and order operations. Police brutality entails the application of excessive force by the police to their victims thus leading to the violation of civil rights and constitutional freedoms. Police brutality is in different forms such as damage of property, physical violence, causing mental injury, undesirable verbal engagement, and killing of victims (Weitzer, 2015). The different police engagement both physical and mental is harmful to the members of the public and thus they should be prevented at all costs. Amnesty International has noted and recorded different police brutality across different places across the globe. For instance, on 25 May 2020, George Floyd faced police brutality to the point of death by a police officer from Minneapolis, Minnesota. The police brutality was recorded on a video where the suspect was killed while lying on the ground and pleading with the officer. The police need to use reasonable force as opposed to excessive force. It is the responsibility of the police reason out on their actions based on the prevailing circumstances and acts accordingly. Consequently, police brutality is motivated by hate against ethnicity, religion, nationality, and race (Hutto and Green, 2016). Police discrimination raises negative stereotypes such as racial profiling that amounts to hatred and thus violence. In this regard, the government and the related parties need to discourage discrimination, change the public perception on people of different races or races considered to be inferior, and lower the number of racially motivated issues among the police. Police brutality and violence have negative impacts on the relation between people and the polices and it arises from hate based on the origin of people and thus the government needs to discourage discrimination to achieve peaceful coexistence.
Unwarranted searches and seizures
The police are engaged in unwarranted searches and seizures of properties amounting to police misconduct as the actions amount to a violation of the laws and the due process. The searches and seizures of property are done procedurally through the acquiring of a search and seizure warranty from courts of the law (Bies, 2017). In the cases that law enforcers suspect crimes in their jurisdiction, they search the suspect and their property and confiscate the significant evidence from the crime using the right procedures as stated under the constitution. The adherence to the procedure in searches and seizures ensures that the right to privacy. The observation of the right to privacy, the law enforcers need to enforce their searches by obtaining a search warrant or having the consent of the victim of the search before they enforce with their operation. Evidence that is obtained without following the due procedures of obtaining the necessary warranty can be rejected when presented in courts. Conducting unwarranted searches and seizures violates the Fourth Amendment of the US constitution. Equally important, unwarranted searches and seizures are conducted by the police with the intention of accessing the evidence before the suspect interferes with them and the need to achieve ulterior motive by the police. In this regard, the police department needs to set policies and guidelines to conduct the searches and seizures to ensure that the exercise is not in contradiction to the law. For instance, the police departments need to ensure that the procedure of searching and seizing of property is guided by the doctrines of reasonableness, particularity requirements, aspects of probable cause, and the judicial authority to engage in the exercise. Police engage in misconduct of conducting unwarranted searches and seizures that violates the rights of privacy as prescribed under the fourth amendment and thus the police departments need to develop the doctrines to be observed in conducting the exercises.
False arrests
The police further engage in false arrests and imprisonments on the suspects and members of the public resulting in police misconduct. A false arrest occurs in the cases the suspect argues that they were held in custody with no probable cause or in absence of a court order. The police are required to arrest a person in the execution warrant or they have reasonable belief and facts that an individual has been involved in committing a crime (Covey, 2012). The police involved in false arrests are considered to be abusing their power to arrests. In cases that the chargers relating to a suspect are dropped the suspect can file a legal action protesting the arrests. The police are motivated to implement false arrests due to fulfilling their ulterior motives, abuse of power, and authority bestowed on law enforcers and having false believes that a person has been involved in a crime. In this regard, the police department and related agencies need to enact mandatory policies of making arrests that include arresting a person when they are in possession of an arrest warrant, arrest someone when they have the probable cause to believing that one has committed an offense and make an arrest to a person suspected of being involved in an indictable offense. False arrests are misconduct since they are illegal, unjust, and unfair to the victim and they arise as police conduct their normal duties and thus they should be avoided through the adherence to basic arresting procedures of ascertaining the probable cause, using warrants in arresting and arresting those involved in acts of a felony.
False imprisonment
On the other hand, false imprisonment by the police constitutes misconduct that negatively affects the reputation of the arresting authorities such as police departments. False imprisonment by the police occurs when the police deliberately restrict the free movement of other parties in the absence of retrained person permission, sufficient justification, and legal permission to do so. False imprisonment comes to effect when the victim is able to prove wrong governmental detention or unlawful aspects in the detention (Grometstein, 2007). The police implement false imprisonment using coercion, force, and threats to intimidate and subdue their victims. The police engage in false imprisonment as a way to abuse the authority in the course of maintaining law and order. For instance, in the case of Enright v. Groves, a lady sues a police officer on account of false imprisonment after she was arrested for not having a driving license and she won the case on an account that the arresting officer lacks the relevant authority to conduct the arrest. The polices engage in false imprisonment both intentionally and unintentionally and thus to prevent charges on account of false imprisonment they should ensure that the imprisonment is based on consent, there is sufficient authority to arrest and the detention in willful and is conducted in a bounded section. False imprisonment is misconduct that police engage in and thus they need to exercise the imprisonment following the right procedures and adhering to the requirements to qualify the imprisonment as lawful.
Police perjury
Police are involved in perjury as an aspect of police misconduct where they are involved in providing the courts with false testimony thus implicating their victims in matters of crime. In this case, during the trial police come up with lies and half-truths to build their case against the defendant believed by the police guilty (Nunes, 2015). The policy results in using lies and half-truth in the trial when there are irregularities in the arrest or search stages and there are risks that the case will be disqualified in favor of the defendant. Additionally, the inclusion of significant misstatement of facts in the interests of convicting the people amount to perjury. For instance, the police employ procedural misstatement as grounds for conducting unwarranted searches and seizures thus framing innocent people. The police are obsessed with the cases at hand being successful to the point the lie under oath thus implication the defendants in the different cases. Law enforcers are trusties of the government and they should act in the most reasonable way in the interest of the common good. However, the police fail in conducting proper investigations in their cases to the point that they opt to use lies to build strong cases against the defendants. The lies incorporated in building a case are in the interest of the police and the plaintiff and at the expense of the defendant. In the cases that the fabrications are successful then the suspect is wrongly convicted and this against the basis dictates of the criminal justice system. Cases founded on fabrications lack a sense of justice, equality, and fairness to the defendant in the case. For instance, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court accused the National Security Division and the FBI of consistently lying in courts in regard to the wiretaps applications. This fact indicates that the police have incorporated lying in their operations in the interest of winning court cases. The police are inclined to lie due to their increased need to win court cases and failure to conduct thorough investigation and research in their case to build watertight evidence against the defendant. In this regard, to eliminate perjury in courts by the police the exclusionary rule needs to be narrowed such that the police donor lies with the intention that they will be protected by the rule. Additionally, the law enforcers need to be provided with ample time and resources to conclusively conduct their investigation ready for the trials. The police misconduct of perjury disadvantage the defendants in trial and it is facilitates by lack of evidence and the need to win cases and thus the misconduct can be eliminated by limiting the exclusionary rule and giving police sufficient time and resources to conduct investigations.
Conclusion
There is a wide range of misconducts by law enforcers in the course of their normal operations to the point that the law and order operations are negatively affected. The police engage in misconduct with the intention of illegally gaining and putting themselves at an advantaged position as compared to their victims and suspects. The police have the upper hand in dealing with suspects due to the power bestowed upon them by the state and thus they end up abusing the power at the expense of justice, fairness, and equality in their work. In this regard, the police engage in different misconducts that include engagement in corrupt acts, using brutality and violence by exercising excess force over their subjects, conducting unlawful searches and searches thus violation the fourth amendment of the US constitution, engaging in false arrests through abuse of their power, false imprisonment that takes advantage of their subjects, and engaging in perjury to illegally implicate their subject in courts of law. The different misconducts by the police are in violation of different acts and laws and thus the police need to avoid them by incorporating their best practices, professionalism, and approaches in dealing with different issues despite the circumstances. The police need to act and work reasonably such that their actions are geared to the common good.

References
Bies, K. J. (2017). Let the sunshine in: Illuminating the powerful role police unions play in shielding officer misconduct. Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev., 28, 109.
Covey, R. (2012). Police misconduct as a cause of wrongful convictions. Wash. UL Rev., 90, 1133.
Grometstein, R. (2007). Prosecutorial misconduct and noble-cause corruption. CRIMINAL LAW BULLETIN-BOSTON-, 43(1), 63.
Hutto, J. W., & Green, R. D. (2016). Social movements against racist police brutality and Department of Justice intervention in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Journal of Urban Health, 93(1), 89-121.
Jiao, A. Y. (2010). Controlling corruption and misconduct: A comparative examination of police practices in Hong Kong and New York. Asian Journal of Criminology, 5(1), 27-44.
Nunes, I. S. (2015). Hands up, don’t shoot: Police misconduct and the need for body cameras. Fla. L. Rev., 67, 1811.
Prenzler, T. (2009). Police corruption: Preventing misconduct and maintaining integrity. CRC Press.
Weitzer, R. (2015). American policing under fire: Misconduct and reform. Society, 52(5), 475-480.